User talk:69.154.18.251

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FWIW, I just discovered this: "3RR rule and BLP disputes"= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Exceptions There are other instances where multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy: reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons);69.154.18.251 15:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my edits at an article, please discuss them on that article's talk page. I have done nothing but provide a citation for material in the article (which you have not removed), and changed some material in the article to match what the two available citations state. Feel free to explain your position at the article's talk page. The Jade Knight 04:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

note: WP:BLP violations or alleged violations "should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." 69.154.18.251 17:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

You do not seem to understand the purpose of this policy. It does not oppose adding citations to articles, but rather the addition of unsourced or poorly sourced text to an article which could be taken as libelous. Where citations can be provided, adding them would actually be exactly what WP:BLP encourages! Moreover, there is nothing in WP:BLP which states that discussion about edits should be removed—the only material which should be removed from talk pages is unsourced or poorly sourced material which could be considered libelous. None of the material you removed could be considered libelous, as it was simply a discussion of your reverts, and contained no content defaming anyone. The Jade Knight 05:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay...please give me a minute to absorb what you just said, I'll check it out and reply, shortly..okay I checked out WP:BLP and I find that yours was an intriguing suggestion, but evidently isn't accurate. Check out this first paragraph again:
"We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."
--and then if you click the wikified word "references" it predominantly means citations....and when it says "...poorly sourced contentious material" it means both quotations from an article or citations linking to the whole article. This makes sense, because otherwise, slanderous articles from all over the web could just be LINKED to a wikipedia article, and most certainly would be, and the effect would be the same: private individuals, living persons would be smeared right and left under the aegis of Wikipedia. As it is, defamatory material, including direct links to defamatory material, are prohibited by WP:BLP.69.154.18.251 05:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You still don't seem to understand the citation is not "unsourced or poorly sourced material". It's a source. The only thing that can be discussed is whether or not the source is poor—you have not removed any actual content, simply sources. Just because you don't like a source is no reason for its removal—if the source is an unreliable one, then it should be removed. But this is why I brought up the discussion on the talk page—that it is unreliable needs to be demonstrated, as newspapers are generally considered (categorically) reliable unless there is specific reason to believe otherwise. The Jade Knight 05:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
newspapers are NOT 'generally considered to be (categorically) reliable, especially in a courtroom setting. And I say this as a trained journalist/newspaper reporter. This is one reason, for example, that high-profile trials are held in another venue (location) than the alleged crime: Because courts realize that the more newspaper and media reports potential jurors are exposed to, the less likely the defendant will have a fair trial. Most unreliable are "day after" reports, when deadlines dictate that details are sketchy and largely uncorroborated. 69.154.18.251 06:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
hmmm (lol) was it you I just spoke with on the phone a couple of hours ago? Because you still don't seem to understand that I would know better than anyone whether the citation is poorly sourced or not. It is very poorly sourced. Incredibly poorly sourced, incredibly inaccurate, and the "rebuttal" at the bottom of the page was hastily written, not comprehensive, and wasn't intended to be posted verbatim, but it was posted verbatim. It is difficult and expensive to sue a newspaper for libel, but that is what should happen in this case. 69.154.18.251 05:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
for instance, no local media ever interviewed the suspect, nor attempted to. How can you rely on a newspaper report which avoids asking a single question of the subject of the article...ever? 69.154.18.251 06:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Er, it's not clear to me how this is supposed to work. If the source is a BLP violation, how is the material it's being used a source for valid? What, specifically, about the source violates BLP? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
good question, and the answer is simple: The Jade Knight has both ignored and deleted from the Wikipedia article, explanations that the cited report contains numerous falsehoods. Instead, he has insisted that newspaper reports are to be considered fundamentally reliable, even though he has then been told several times now, that no court in the U.S.--or most other nations--recognizes the accuracy of published newspaper or television reports. For any other questions, please closely examine various threads in the Article's page history, and The Jade Knight's talk page, and the talk pages of each of the usernames, anonymous IP's or otherwise, who edited this article since last Friday (GMT). To date, the only reliable and verifiable sources of information about the incident described are the church in question (contact information is at their website which is linked at the bottom of the Wikipedia article), local law enforcement and court records, and the activist, who has never been contacted or interviewed by local media, nor yourself, nor The Jade Knight. To repeat: Unverified or unverifiable claims about a living person are not to be discussed on this Talk page, or any Talk page at Wikipedia, nor included in any Wikipedia Article. For any explanation why not, see WP:BLP. 69.154.18.251 13:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)