Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-02 Chuck Berry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Discussion from Talk:Chuck Berry 1.1 voyeurism allegations 2 Notes 2.1 Libel 2.2 Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors 2.3 Rumors 2.4 Wikipedia is not censored

[edit] Discussion from Talk:Chuck Berry

[edit] voyeurism allegations

Does anyone have a source for the voyeurism allegations? I think it's especially important that something negative like that have a credible source. --Allen 02:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No one responded, so I took it out. Feel free to add it back with refs. --Allen 22:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing news stories about this, but unfortunately this was BI (Before Internet). 23skidoo 03:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What about stories that he used to eat the feces of women. I heard he used to freeze the feces of women and he'd heat it up and eat it while he was out on the road.

Right, and I heard he bites heads off of live chickens, likes to sniff his socks and used to be a white woman called Martha ;) I mean LOL, people, you can't just throw this kind of allegations without any sources whatsoever. It's silly. Chuck Berry may not be the most amicable person in the world, but he is a rock'n'roll legend and deserves every respect. So please, let's tribute him by keeping nonsense like this out of the article. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 21:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now found a source, as you requested, that names the distributor and the content of the tape, but also have added a disclaimer that there is no way for knowing if it actually is berry. This has nothing to do with respect. If you are going to erase any negative info you are violating NPOV. Please leave the information. Frankly I think the info helps mr. berry as the rumor itself is extremely wide spread and out of control. Its best to explain exactly what is on the tape and how it is likely not berry. --Mark 2000 19:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As you yourself said - it's a rumor. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, it doesn't deal with rumors. Unless you can find a reputable source that claims with absolute certainty that the man in the tape is infact Chuck Berry, I see absolutely no reason to include this rumor here. I'll revert now, please don't revert back, discuss instead. --Dr.Gonzo 21:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know what gives you the right to remove something without discussing it? You want to discuss until you get your way. The reason to include it is that it is part of the mythology of the man. Everyone and his mother has heard it. And a tape infact exists. The tape is not a rumor and the Village Voice is a reputable source. Its better to inform people of the existance and possible invalidity of something as solid and real as a video tape than to not speak about it and let them assume its completely true or worse than it actually is. If you take a look at the pages for other musicians you'll find the same possible/not possible legends. Because the item is sourced and factual I am reverting it back. If you feel the info could be better stated lets work on that; however, if you revert again without a logical and dispassionate reason I'll have you blocked for making 3 reversions in 24 hours. Thank you --Mark 2000 01:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. I've removed it because it is an extremely malicious rumor, and, as you yourself said, and it's stated in the article that there is absolutely no way of knowing if it's him on that tape. Following the same logic, I could say I have a tape of you pissing on underaged girls but there's no way of knowing if it's you in that tape, however, I'll just include it in your resume when you next apply for a job or whatever, because it's "out there", and "everyone and his mother has heard it". That's exactly the kind of thing this encyclopedia SHOULDN'T deal with, and if you insist, i'll get an administrator to tell you the same. Your call. Oh, and by the way, you already violated the 3RR so don't threaten me, please. --Dr.Gonzo 10:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see where there was a personal attack. I have only reverted 2 times to your three. And I am going to report you and I want a moderator. You obviously don't know the difference between hero worship and completeness. The fact is that the tape is part of the national consciousness of the person. People will come here looking for that info. They should get a full story. So please, lets get an admin. >*Update* I have put this issue up to the Moderation Cabal. Lets let this be until the check it out. Thanks<--Mark 2000 19:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"I'd like to see where there was a personal attack" - "You want to discuss until you get your way"... That's assuming I somehow want to obfuscate "the truth". Also "You obviously don't know the difference between hero worship and completeness" is also Ad hominem. However - may I direct you attention to WP:Verifiability? This is not verifiable, and is as such not encyclopedia material. Infact, if we include every rumor like this, Wikipedia would pretty soon devolve into "Jimbo's Big Bag 'o Trivia" as some journalist eloquently put it. Please post a link to the moderator discussion page here so I can participate in the decision also. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 20:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The first of all the first item you list is not a personal attack at all. Its a summing up of the situation which is that you don't want to discuss anything. You don't want to search for a solution. You want the material off period. Am I wrong? The second is an observation of your look at mr berry. you don't want any negative information. Your above comments about respect toward mr berry is proof of that. "he is a rock'n'roll legend and deserves every respect" sounds POV to me.

Verifiablity is central to this, you are right. There is no verifiable info on who is on the tape exactly, but thats mentioned in the acticle. The existance of the tape, however, is. Its not rumor, it exists. And Mr. Berry is claimed to be on it. In fact, its called "Chuck Berry's Home Movies". You can buy it here: http://www.internationalhardcore.citymax.com/catalog/item/2452087/1898567.htm . As for Wiki being a big bucket o trivia, it already is. Go look at the number of articles on the fake technology of Stargate SG-1. Its rediculous, but its legal. Sorry, your own philosophy on what wiki is shouldn't influence articles. That's POV.--Mark 2000 01:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You're damn right I wan't it off! It's just this kind od hear-say nonsense that a serious encyclopedia should avoid. Ask yourself - would Encyclopaedia Brittanica have a section of its article about CB dedicated to an alleged sex tape that POSSIBLY has Chuck Berry in it, but very bloody unlikely? And besides, whatever you may think about Wikipedia there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of users like me who try their best to keep this encyclopedia respectable, NPOV, verifiable, etc. Let's put it this way - some kind of tape does exist, but since it can never be proven conclusively that the man in the video is infact Chuck Berry (unlike many other "sex tapes" like Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton) and the man himself has denied this rumor on every possible occasion, it's only fair not to include it in the article. Besides if you read up on WP:Verifiability policy you'll see it clearly states "verifiabiltiy, not truth". It's not about "it's claimed" but "who's claiming it". So there you have it. It can't ever reasonably be verified (the act, not the existance of tape itself) so according to Wikipedia official policy it should be deleted. End of story. --Dr.Gonzo 09:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And you still don't get the idea of informing the user as fully as possible. You also don't understand that addressing something that is part of the collective unconscious is important. This isn't some random allegation. This is a big part of the myth of the man. In fact I suggest we further expand the citation to something more full such as:

In the late 1980s and early 1990's Berry became the target of a number of rumors and allegations in the media concerning video tape. Rumors spanned the gamut of Berry spying on women with hidden cameras to actively participating in filmed sexual acts. The most prolific allegation is contained in video footage currently distributed commercially by Video Search of Miami, FL which purports to show Berry urinating on a young woman in a bath tub. While the voice sounds similar to Berry's, because the face is never seen there is no way of cofirming it actually is Berry.[1] Berry has denied all allegations against him.

The reason being not to spread rumors about Berry, but to bring note that for some unknown reason over the course of 5 years the man was a target of a multitude of attacks. You can help me make this sound more favorable to him if you like, but you really believe there is no basis for this? Let's get something straight: Wiki is not Brittanica. It's much more expansive. Brittanica doesn't have aulbums, individual pokemon, and Star Trek extras in it. So don't bother comparing the two. I don't see the harm. I don't see why your so emotional about it. Just calm down, man.--Mark 2000 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely calm, don't worry. But man, you're not listening to what you're saying. On one hand you say you're all for verifiability, on the other you want to include this piece of info which is nothing more than pure sensationalism. You can say reemoval of that sentence is censorship, but I implore you to wake up and smell the roses, Wikipedia is full of censorship. Besides, nothing can really ever be hidden here, since this very conversation we are leading is enough for someone interested in the rumor to get all the info he/she needs. What I'm saying is that piece of info is not encyclopedia material, since it's not a verifiable fact. People don't expect such unsubstantiated rumors in a serious encyclopedia. Let's make Wikipedia better, not worse! Besides, Mr.Berry certainly had his share of scandals, but those included in the article are all very easily verified, unlike this one. You don't see me removing any of that info do you? Bah, do what you want, i give up, but I will ask for someone to come and check this out, moderator, administator, whatever, so let's just see what they say ok? Alrighty then. --Dr.Gonzo 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what I am saying, my friend. And I know that the existance of allegations in the media and a video tape is verifiable. I'm guessing the two of us are on two different ideas of verifiability. Also your ideas on make wiki better or worse are POV. Seriously, you are extremely biased. Now instead of being so cranky, help me make the above paragraph palletable. Thanks, man!--Mark 2000 19:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have my POV, it would be sad indeed if I had no opinions of my own. However, my POV stays here, on these pages, and not in the article. In every single edit I ever make I try to stick to NPOV policy. Besides, man, you don't know me, so please don't make any assumptions about my intentions. A wikipedian should always assume good faith on the part of others but you just entered this discussion so sure you're absolutely right. Well, where I'm from we have a saying "the smarter (one) yields". I don't agree with your POV, but since we can't come to an understanding i'll just leave this to someone else, a moderator possibly. I can't compromise on something that shouldn't be included in the first place. Bye. --Dr.Gonzo 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you User:64.131.199.43 for fixing up the paragraph. I like it. I hope Gonzo likes it too. --Mark 2000 00:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

[edit] Libel

• The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point-of-view style of prose, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability. For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous revisions from the page history. [2]

[edit] Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors

• Many persons who are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia are likely to have critics. Their views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject's notability, is based on reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate voice to critics as you could be representing a minority view as if it were the majority view, and if the criticism represents a tiny-minority view, it has no place in the article. Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence from reliable sources regarding the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, or other generalizations. Articles about ideologies, beliefs, or policies warrant criticism, whereas a section of criticisms of an individual is almost certain to result in contention. For example, to have a criticism section in the article Communism is encyclopedic, but a critique of communism on the article of each individual communist figure is not. The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics. [3]

[edit] Rumors

• "Unless you can find a reliable, solid source for ANY information in Wikipedia, and especially for the biography of a living person, it must not be included in the article if it is under dispute"..."Negative and dangerous information must be excluded from Wikipedia unless it can be sourced to a RELIABLE source. We are not a forum for repeating gossip and rumors". [4]

[edit] Wikipedia is not censored

• Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted. [5]