Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 250:

Csloat, thank you for completely misrepresenting my position. I said (and always have said) that if Salon.com is referenced by other reliable and reputable media, it is perfectly okay to cite them as a reliable source. The stand-alone Goldberg article does not qualify as a reliable source because it has not been published by other reputable and reliable media. In regards to opinion articles, it is also my opinion that these are not permitted under [[WP:BLP]]. So when you said that I want to ''"remove all information on Wikipedia sourced to salon"'', this is not only an erroneous comment, it is untrue. You must remember that I am discussing the policy as outlined on [[WP:BLP]] and not in relation to articles that fall under other categories. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 23:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

::Your arguments seem to indicate otherwise, but I will accept your position that you are only arguying against salon's use in BLP articles. Nonetheless, you are incorrect. As I have said, you have not established a reason why Salon should be presumptively less valid than any other source of such information. Claiming that it is "liberal" is beside the point. The question is, why do you think it is presumptively less reliable than Rolling Stone or Vanity Fair or Harper's? If you cannot answer that with evidence, then I suggest you think about why you find yourself so committed to this argument.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 01:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:::Csloat, I have only explained my position several times and cited Wikipedia policy (on [[WP:BLP]]) to support my viewpoints. If you don't get it now, I don't think you ever will. Once again, it goes like this: Salon.com is an online, opinionated and liberal webzine/tabloid (based on the words of several sources including the founder himself). Therefore: → In relation to BLP, a stand-alone reference that is critical, negative and potentially libelous must be validated with other reliable and reputable media as per [[WP:BLP]] (citations already provided on this page) → Since no other reputable and reliabe media referenced Goldberg's article, it is a stand-alone reference whose reliability is not supported (in my opinion) by [[WP:BLP]] (citations already provided on this page). If Rolling Stones or Vanity Fair published a critical, negative and potentially libelous article about a person, as a stand-alone reference, the same would apply. The fact that Salon.com is openly opinionated and <em>"tabloid-like"</em> (Talbot's words), is even more reason to rightly exercise '''caution'''. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 02:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

:Andries, you are simply spinning the article because you were the former webmaster (for over 3 years) for the largest Anti-Sai-Baba Site on the internet and are currently the ''"Main Representative, Contact And Supervisor"'' for the largest Anti-Sai-Baba site on the internet. Therefore, your comments that ''"Goldberg sided with ex-devotees after she found the evidence against SSB convincing"'' and that her article ''"remains a fine piece of investigative journalims"'' is spin. Anyone googling "Michelle Goldberg Bias" can find the relevant information on her poor research, embellished claims and her very disturbing Anti-Sai propagandizing behind her ''"Untouchable?"'' article. [[User:SSS108|SSS108]] ^{[[User talk:SSS108|talk]]-[[Special:Emailuser/SSS108|email]]} 23:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)