Talk:Larry Pile

GCMWarning
This is for Xanthius and ClaudeReigns primarily. Xanthius said the last two criteria of what should be linked are satisfied by that link. If you'll notice the next to last says "neutral and accurate material". That is not what GCM warning is. More importantly, look above that on the WP:External Links page, and you'll see 'Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link" Then under the Links normally to be avoided section, you'll see "2.Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" and "11.Links to blogs and personal web pages".  GCMWarning IS a self-published source that doesn't have a place on Wikipedia.  Honestly, I thought we'd already established that long ago.  Overall, I think this article's really well done though. Gatorgalen 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The website contains collection of resources related to Great Commission Association not found anywhere else (to my knowledge) on the web, however the front page is not what is being linked to. The actual link is to only one of these resources. It is the same reason links to Rick Ross's newspaper article collection are allowed. Xanthius 00:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the policies support that, that is fine; however, I quoted the policies that say it's unnaceptable, and I don't see anywhere where they allow for that. If the policies allow for that, then quote them.  There is a reason it's not in the reference section, and that's because GCMWarning is unreliable.  This isn't a matter of dislike for the website, but it simply doesn't belong in an encylopedia.  If you can find a copy of the article elsewhere, by all means put it up.  Gatorgalen 02:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What should be linked
 * 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
 * 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
 * Obviously a statement by Larry Pile regarding his research is an appropriate external link for an article about him, and fits both of the criteria. Doesn't matter where it is hosted. Please note that gcmwarning.com has been linked to in other articles, generally because it hosts several resources not available elsewhere. This sort of linking is acceptable and has been done with Rick Ross's website, reveal.org, and so on.
 * Xanthius 02:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Xanthius 02:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what has been done in other articles. If you'll show the articles where it is linked, I'll delete those as well. GCMWarning is a site that includes libelous accusations without base. It is as far as one can get from a reasonable source. Linkig to a site that includes libel is not acceptable. Those two parts you quoted are not to be taken alone, if you'll notice both before and after it gives seceptions. Again ''Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link". And, again, it is a personal web page, which we're also told not to link to.  The guidelines are clear, you can't pick out one line and exclude the rest.  Gatorgalen 03:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that [GCM Warning] is not a personal page (as one might register for on Geocities or Angelfire) but a public interest site managed by several people. While there are discussion forums on that page, as well as current criticisms of Great Commission Association by recent and current members there, the article about Great Commission Association by Larry Pile is a thing in itself, a work which could be easily hosted at any website. The reliability standard is clearly applied to the source itself and not the website hosting it (i.e.: no one is citing the "libelous accusations without base" which you allude to). Contact Larry Pile if you seek further verification of the reliability of the article's rendering on GCM Warning. You'd think, though, that he'd have complained about its unreliability onsite if he had a problem with it, since he is occasionally a guest in its discussion forums. Larry Pile is an expert on cults according to several reliable sources and he has made a statement evaluating Great Commission Association. Are you calling this expert's evaluation libelous by association? I don't get it.

Finally.... What is a reliable source? Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.

Pile himself has editing experience and should be relied upon to check the facts of his information. The statement is therefore a reliable source. It meets all of the criteria. ClaudeReigns 08:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting view. Here's a quote from WP:Cite Sources - "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear." Basically, the statement is only as reliable as the website. The website is -10 on a reliability scale of 1 to 10. Linking to it is therefore a mistake. If someone has an actual copy of Pile's statement, or if he actually released in a way that it was published by a reliable source, then great, let's add it. I don't have a problem with the statement, it's good info for the article, but the problem is that we simply can't currently cite it. What audience was it given to? Who published it? Have any of us as editors actually seen it? These are important questions we can't ignore simply because we want it to be on there. Gatorgalen 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a self-published source, however because Larry is an expert in his field it qualifies as per WP:Reliable sources. Specifically: Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. Xanthius 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense. However, this isn't self-published; it was published by GCMWarning. Rather, it would seem to be personal correspondance between him and the editors of the page, which is different. Plus, given the non-RS nature of the page, how do we know it's accurate? Aksing him would be great, but I think we all realise that would be OR. Gatorgalen 02:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is really no reason to suspect the 22+ page statement, which includes Larry's phone number and home address and very specific details about Larry's history and research was not created by him. As for where it was published, the def. for self-published includes websites. Also, verifying sources is not considered OR. Feel free to give Larry a call and ask him if he wrote the statement or not. Xanthius 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the self-published def. does include that. However, this doesn't fall under this - this isn't Larry's website. If it were, that would make it self-published. But since it's not, the only category it really falls under is personal correspondence. Do you see what I'm saying? Gatorgalen 04:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry, but I really don't see where we're told that calling Larry is an option or a reliable way to verify sources. Where did you get this? That would certainly open up a whole new realm. Thanks for being cordial. Gatorgalen 04:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Beats me actually, I saw it done elsewhere once in another article but I don't know what the official policy on it is. I just threw that out there because I think there's almost no doubt in the world who wrote the statement, as seemed to be suggested.
 * I see the point you are making about self-published and non-self-published but it seems like splitting hairs. The statement has the title " Statement about..," is addressed to no one in particular, is written in a manner to suggest Larry expects many people to read it, and is hosted on a website about the movement the statement is about. If Larry provided it to the website to be hosted it is self-published, even if he doesn't run the website. I think the spirit of the rules is that non-fact-checked sources are only acceptable when they are by experts in their field, and Larry is a recognized expert who made a rather long statement about a subject he knows a lot about. Having had some contact with Larry myself in the past, I can tell you he has "published" documents like this in the past as well, and it is not uncommon for him to do so. For years Wellspring and him have self-published information on groups and provided it to people and media outlets through the mail. Normally this would not be acceptable but I have a good number of newspaper articles quoting these self-published documents and regarding him an expert, so in his case it passes WikiPolicy. Xanthius 05:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
He does not seem very notable except in the context of his employer Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center. Perhaps this article should be merged there. BayShrimp (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article's history, it seems like nothing substantial has been added in the last 5 years. An no discussion in the last 7.BayShrimp (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)