Sun 6th March 2011, 9:09pm
QUOTE(pietkuip @ Sun 6th March 2011, 7:42pm)
Cirt got Aaron Saxton (T-H-L-K-D)
evaluated as a "good article". Despite the ridiculous references to reliable sources in Romania and Turkey...
The Romanian and Turkish sources don't bother me that much. But the article features an embedded self-published YouTube video by Saxton, which most likely makes controversial statements about living people.
Saxton's YouTube videos, 7 of them, all uploaded to Commons by you-know-who, are also cited extensively in the article. Not one of the "reliable sources" actually refers to these YouTube sources, as far as I can see.
At the same time, here
Cirt is telling a user that they should not even list the title of a video Erhard produced, if there is no coverage of it in "independent and reliable secondary sources."
So, summarising, a self-published video by Saxton thrashing Scientology may not just be cited, but also embedded in Wikipedia. A video by Erhard, on the other hand, may not even have its existence mentioned.
Compare that to SlimVirgin's argument argument about self-published sources at LaRouche
What we want to avoid is a self-published source being used as a source of any kind about living people ... we also don't want the article to be used as a platform for a subject's non-notable views.
Denmark comes to mind.