Read WP:RS very carefully. I don't care whether you think that a million different things are 'based on the report' - which is absurd, you clearly havent read half the references - but that is irrelevant. Reliable sources can base matters on a biased report if they like, they still meet the cutoff for Wikipedia. In particular, read WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Here, even if this devilish report is not applicable, a secondary source that satisfies WP's requirements is, regardless of whether you think it partially uses information from this report. I am awaiting a reply before I revert. If I do not receive one soon, I will do so. This is a particularly lame argument. Hornplease 05:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
