[WikiEN-l] Cluesticks needed regarding WP:BLP and WP:RS

[Guy Chapman aka JzG]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:35:01 -0400, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:

>* A man who posted nude pictures of himself on websites whose domains
>he registered advertising himself as a $200-an-hour gay prostitute can
>not be identified as a prostitute.

Seemingly absurd, but actually fixable as long as reliable secondary
sources call him that.

>* The Financial Times cannot be used as a source in an article about a
>journalist because they "report on finances issues" and thus are
>"unreliable" when it comes to other matters.

Complete bollocks.  The FT carries general news as well, and has
particularly high journalistic standards.  Name the article.

>* The Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable source.  A blog run by
>the Columbia Journalism Review on the website of the Columbia
>Journalism Review is not.

Seems fair.

>* The New Republic, among other reputable, long-standing publications,
>cannot be used as a source because they are "too partisan".

Reliable in respect of one party's view of something and if balanced
from the other perspective, I'd say.

>* Partisan organizations and publications, even long-standing and
>reputable ones, cannot be used in an article at all, even to
>substantiate the fact that there is partisan criticism of the subject
>of the article.  I'm not taking about someone objecting to "John Doe
>did this bad thing", I'm talking about people objecting to the article
>saying "X, Y, and Z criticize John Doe, saying this thing he did may
>have been bad."

Please give details.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG