I don't think the small but hardcore following necessarily makes their views encyclopedic - consider the case of Lyndon LaRouche, which the arbcom has ruled ought not be mentioned in articles that do not directly pertain to LaRouche. So I would still lean towards this not being encyclopedic.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 22, 2004, at 3:20 PM, Delirium wrote:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
If a contributor's only source is a pirate radio station, then write an article about the station. Then link all mentions of the station with [[ and ]] brackets, like this:
- According to [[Pirates R Us]], the PLO leader smells of
elderberries.
I agree, but I would also note that you don't have to mention what everyone says on everything. However, the main criterion should not be objectivity (it's not our job to be media critic) but relevance. If it's a pirate radio station with a shady reputation but a large audience and large name-recognition, then what they say should be noted and attributed to them (and people can decide if they're just nuts). If it's some random guy nobody knows about, we of course don't have to say "but this guy said [blah blah]".
In this case from what I can tell it's somewhat borderline. It's a station with a small but hardcore following, but it seems well known in the general public because of the controversy surrounding it. So I'd lean towards reporting what they say (where reasonably relevant, as given the media coverage I think this case is) and just attributing it to them. If other people have questioned the veracity of the report, we can say that too.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l