Talk:R. C. Sproul, Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	Calvinism Portal R. C. Sproul, Jr. falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 2007-05-08

[edit] Neutrality

For discussions of neutrality and how we settled on the present text, see the talk archives. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Flex, a neutral POV also follows journalistic precedent on the question of libel and slander. To say someone broke a law when a court of law has not found him guilty of such is defined as libel and is actionable.

The RPCGA is not a court of law and is not qualified to find Mr. Sproul or anyone else, guilty or not-guilty of illegal acts of any kind. The RPCGA's publication of a "judgment" declaring "illegal" acts were committed is libel because no court of law has found these people guilty of a crime, even if the acts really were committed.

To repeat the charge in a Wikipedia, without qualifying it as "alleged" is also libel. Improper or allegedly illegal, you choose. But if you change it back to illegal without qualification, I will roll it back until you make it a case. So just save us the trouble and make it a case if you refuse to take either of the legal alternatives.

Cadwallader 21:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the course of action you propose if we disagreed is not in accord with the policies here (cf. WP:CIVIL). Second, as you can see in the archives, we are on the same side in this discussion, but I don't think the text as it stood was libelous. It specifically says that Sproul was defrocked "under charges including ... illegal use...." Those charges do not necessarily imply anything about his guilt or innocence in a court of law. That being said, I'm fine with inserting "alleged", as it does make this more apparent. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that Flex. I've raised the libel issue here before. For that matter, the men were never formally "charged" by the RPCGA either.

For the benefit of those who might wish to change it back, I quote the Wikipedia article Defamation, subsection, defamation per se - note the fourth category:

All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. In the common law tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. Traditionally, these per se defamatory statements include:

• Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
• Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
• Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
• Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[14]

What this means is that a person is automatically guilty of libel if he publishes a statement that person X engaged in criminal activity, if person X has not been convicted of such. Even an indicted person is protected against this kind of libel.

The general way that newspapers and other media publishers avoid committing libel against an un-convicted person when discussing alleged criminal activity is to use the word "alleged". Dr. Talbot put himself out on a limb by declaring Dr. Sproul & fellow elders guilty of identity theft. By doing so he committed libel - which is a civil wrong, not a criminal one, so I can legally accuse him of it here. :-) Fortunately for Dr. Talbot, Dr. Sproul is not a litigious person.

Cadwallader 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)