":Everyone here should be careful in how they describe other editors — all the more so if some participants might not be as fluent in English as others.  Without seeking to excuse Shii's ""no common sense"" or ""entertaining history"" comments, I would still say there is a difference of degree between those comments and repeated accusations / insinuations of lying and slander.  Even so, the fact that others may also be misbehaving does not justify you in doing the same (see WP:NOTTHEM). 

 :If you believe the article in question (found on Highbeam, apparently from AP) is ""written at a very poor quality level"", I think you should elaborate on just what you mean.  The article (or at least the first part of it, available without a Highbeam subscription) did not appear to me to be of suspiciously poor quality, but if you see something here that I missed, by all means help me and others to understand.  As for the general question of comparing the reliability of Highbeam vs. AP's archives — as I said, Highbeam is generally considered to be a reliable source, so if you believe something on Highbeam was fabricated, planted, or otherwise not what it seems to be, the burden is on you to establish this.  If someone says they were unable to find a Highbeam article in its alleged original source, they need to provide convincing evidence that the article really didn't come from where it seems to have come (as opposed to the possibility that they did their search wrong, or the piece was removed from the original source's archives for some reason, or some other non-sinister explanation).  As I said, if you really believe something is broken here, you should bring it up at WP:RSN, and please do so in as calm and non-alarmist a fashion as possible.  But unless a consensus of editors at WP:RSN or another suitable forum concludes that the article reported by Highbeam is in fact bogus, the article is entitled to a reasonable presumption of accuracy.  —  (no relation to Jimbo)  

 "