Talk:Sathya Sai Baba/Archive 9

message: The Salon.com article by Michelle Goldberg has been removed for several key reasons:
*First: Goldberg's article is exclusively an internet article that has never been published in hardcopy form by reputable or reliable media.
*Secondly: David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) described Salon.com as a "progressive, smart tabloid" .
Therefore, Salon.com, as a tabloid and exclusive internet reference, is not a reliable source as per WP:RS SSS108 talk-email 05:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tabloid does not mean intrinsically unreliable. Salon is often regarded as a reliable source. JoshuaZ 05:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what if a source is not on paper? I cannot find that WP:RS dismisses internet only publication. Andries 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: SSS108, the question whether Salon.com was a reliable source was extensively discussed in mediation between you and me and you agreed that it was a reliable source. In addition, salon.com is generally regarded as a reliable source in various articles in Wikipedia. As such your attempts to remove salon.com have no merit and are disruptive. Andries 06:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: SSS108, see tabloid. I think that the lack of common sense when interpreting source can also be found on SSS108's website regardig SSB. 06:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest you file a new complaint to the arbcom. If you will not do it then I will do it. Andries 06:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the next step after mediation is arbcom. We do not have to go back to RFC Andries 09:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As someone who has been looking over this article as a mainly uninvolved but interested admin, I a) don't think this is ripe for any for even an RfC yet but b) if it does require more issues it should go straight to ArbCom. There's no point going through the long drawn out process when the ArbCom has already looked at this issue once. JoshuaZ 06:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joshua, the question whether salon.com is suitable as a source was discussed extensively in mediation. We (SSS108 and Andries) then agreed that it was fine. The question whether it is suitable as source was not discussed in the arbcom case regarding Sathya Sai Baba. According to Wikipedia:dispute resolution the next step after mediation is arbcom. Why do you then suggest to file an RFC is something I cannot understand. Andries 09:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, when Andries had grievances about the article, he filed a request for clarification with ArbCom that was ignored. The request was dropped as "stagnant" finally. SSS108 talk-email 06:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then file an RfC. However, to be blunt, I find it hard to believe that any of the editors here intend to pay much attention to it. JoshuaZ 06:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Filing an RFC for this case is not in correspondence with the procedure as described in Wikipedia:dispute resolution. Andries 09:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Under what logic? JoshuaZ 08:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What proof is offered that Salon.com is an apparently unreliable-tabloid ?  Or can you point to the policy that says all tabloids are unreliable.  I would note some of the most read newspapers are in tabloid format. Wjhonson 15:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that Salon.co is unreliable. I am just saying that editors should excercise caution when using a tabloid in BLPs.  ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. Jossi, salon.com is widely regarded as a reliable source throughout Wikipedia. Andries 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Andries, please cite references to support your claims that salon.com is used as reliable source on Wikipedia for Biographies Of Living People? SSS108 talk-email 19:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salon.com is for example used as a reference in the article Osama bin Laden. Check here for more Special:Whatlinkshere/Salon.com  20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Salon.com References Removed

message: Salon.com is undeinably and inarguably a reliable source. Arguing otherwise borders on evidencing bad faith. JBKramer 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is true JBKramer, then other reliable media sources should have made reference to the same material published on Salon.com (which they generally do). However, this particular article is only available on Salon.com as an internet resource and contains potentially libelous information against SSB. Therefore, it's reliablility is suspect because no other reliable media has made reference to it. SSS108 talk-email 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Salon.com is regularly referenced in other print media. That other print media did not pick up on this story in no way makes it a non-reliable source. JBKramer 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider salon.com one of the best available magazines, both online and on paper. Andries 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the discussion should be centralized here talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Andries 23:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I did not mean to say that salon.com is published on paper. Andries 00:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant to say that I consider salon.com one of the best available magazines including both paper and internet magazines. Andries 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: They do. See Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Let us leave a message at all articles in which salon.com is used as a reference (or linked to in the external link section) and let us have a centralized discussion here.  Andries 00:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I had addresse that question and I think the answer is yes. Andries 00:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salon.com 

message: SSB may possibly banned in Maharashtra due to the new state law regarding superstition. Can we edit this in. See this discussion on youtube does somebody has a date for this discussion? Andries 10:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Youtube is not allowed on Wikipedia. And that law is a proposed law. It has not been passed. SSS108 talk-email 11:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only a copy of a reputable source on youtube. Andries 11:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a comment on the notability of this for the article. But reputable news stations are relevant for Wikipedia. Youtube itself should not be cited of course, but at least that allows other editors to confirm the source. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible legale ban of SSSB in [[Maharashtra]]

message: After the intro, Sathya Sai Baba is sometimes referred to by his full name, sometimes as Sai Baba, sometimes as SSB. There might be other variations. I think it should be standardized as "Sai Baba" after the first reference. I'd be open to another option as long as it was standardized. Any thoughts? savidan(talk) (e@) 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact I was going to go ahead sometime this week and normalise all references to SSB as 'Baba', since 'Baba' acts as a surname even if it is an assumed name and not his real name. 'Sathya Sai Baba' can be repeated where required but I was of the opinion 'Baba' should be used in the regular references. But you can go ahead with it if you want to. This is one of the problems I had with the article, referencing him as "SSB" everywhere is not professional. ekantiK talk 04:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would "Baba" be regarded as the appropriate surname in India? Some periodicals I've seen call him "The Baba." savidan(talk) (e@) 09:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardize name 

message: This Wikipedia article has been partially quoted or referred to in a recent IBN article. Is this source reliable enough to be added into the "quoted by the media" infobox thingy at the top of this talk page? ekantiK talk 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IBN Article