Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive13
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Michael Savage (commentator) – Inactive. – 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Michael Savage (commentator) Michael Savage (commentator) [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Yevgenia Albats – Inactive. – 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Yevgenia Albats Yevgenia Albats [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Casey Serin – Inactive. – 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Casey Serin Casey Serin [watch?]
A US Department of Justice IP of 149.101.1.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) got reported to AIV over this, possible BLP issues. - Denny (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Christopher Michael Langan – Semi-resolved, very slowly. – 10:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Christopher Michael Langan Christopher Michael Langan [watch?]I question whether the section in question was libelous but it was absolutely and without question a violation of WP:NOR, and an excellent example of why NOR is such an important rule in Wikipedia. Interpretation of complex evidence from original sources is extremely difficult and dangerous, which is why we must avoid it, and especially in WP:BLP situations.--Jimbo Wales 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC) There is currently an ongoing dispute in relation to potentially libelous material in this entry. That the material is potentially libelous has been argued by four editors: Asmodeus, DrL, Sheerfirepower, and FNMF. User Asmodeus is the subject of the entry; DrL is the wife of the subject. Other editors disagree that the material is libelous. Asmodeus and DrL are presently banned from editing the entry. In my opinion, not only is the material potentially libelous, being a one-sided representation of an uncontested lawsuit, but the material is totally non-notable and unimportant in relation to the subject of the entry. For these reasons I believe the section should be deleted. The editors that disagree have a clear antipathy toward the subject of the entry for several reasons, and I do not believe they are in an objective position to judge the issue, despite some of them being long-term editors of Wikipedia. It is my opinion that the bad faith of many of the editors of this entry extends far beyond the particular issue I have raised here, and constitutes a campaign in violation of Wikipedia's official policy in relation to living persons. I believe the potential libelousness of this section of the entry has been raised in this forum previously by user DrL. But whatever was the outcome of that process, the current state of the dispute is unsatisfactory. I wish to point out that I have no association with Langan, am not a proponent of his ideas, and am not a proponent of intelligent design (with which he has been linked, a link he insistently contests). But I am appalled at the editing which has afflicted this entry. As is the way with these things, there are an endless number of potentially relevant diffs. Here, however, are the diffs I consider to be the most critical:
I hope this helps make the issue clear. I believe this is a serious and ongoing policy violation with potential legal consequences. I believe outside assessment is necessary, given the antipathy to the subject by the involved editors. FNMF 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Certain individuals are disruptively editing this entry in an attempt to slant POV. Users FeloniousMonk, Arthur Rubin, and Guettarda have reverted reasonable edits that were worked on by a number of editors who established consensus. Instead of involving themselves in the collaboration process, they simply revert. As admins, these individuals should be fostering a cooperative environment rather than editing in a disruptive fashion. --Honorable citizen 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Some conflict at the entry has resurfaced over inclusion of a section describing Langan's ideas. After several weeks of drafting and preparing the section, an editor who had refrained from all involvement deleted the section shortly after inclusion, on the grounds of NOT and NOR. Opposing editors have pointed out that Langan's theories are notable in relation to the subject of the entry, and that secondary sources support the statements made in the section. It has further been pointed out that when the entry on Langan's ideas was deleted,* one justification given for the deletion was that the ideas could be discussed in the Langan entry itself. FNMF 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I remain unpersuaded by those editors arguing to exclude a referenced section explaining Langan's ideas. Unfortunately, these editors are determined, ignore counter-arguments, and don't properly explain their own position. I believe the fundamental reason for this is that there is a group of editors biased against the subject of the entry. Editors attempting to improve the entry have, one after another, dropped off editing the entry, no doubt due to frustration. In this context, it has become nearly impossible for me to continue arguing the case. For these reasons, I believe the entry will remain in an inferior state for the foreseeable future. FNMF 00:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Perez Hilton – Resolved. – 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Perez Hilton Perez Hilton [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Joseph Darby – Resolved. – 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Joseph Darby Joseph Darby [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Peter Werbe – Resolved. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Peter Werbe Peter Werbe [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Lewis Libby – Inactive. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Lewis Libby Lewis Libby [watch?]
Which specific impasse? — Athænara ✉ 08:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed the archives you described. In my opinion, Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency can be used as a reliable source. His extensive ears of service with the Associated Press can be verified. JTA appears to be a very small Israeli news agency but kampeas brings sufficient reliability with him from the AP. However, investing a large amount of space in the Wikipedia article to the issue of Libby’s religious beliefs is very questionable. It’s best to reduce such material to one or two sentences, preceded by “Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency says …” NeilinOz1 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I originally posted [correction: a response to] a notice about this article in this noticeboard. I don't know where the previous material is, but extensive discussion can be found in the current and archived talk pages at Talk:Lewis Libby. I have documented the citations that I have added and all of my references have at times been deleted by one or two of the same editors. Please review the problems with this article. Thank you. [Update: The original notice re: this article that I posted [correction: a response to] is in archive 10 of this noticeboard [see links provided by user Athænara more recently; useful to consult]: [corrected link:] Archive 10, item 25. Please note: the user posting this current notice, Notmyrealname, has been involved in the content dispute, as I have been, and is not a neutral observer, in my view; s/he is one of those one or two of the same editors continually reverting mention of Kampeas' discussion or citations of information based on Kampeas. I have offered anywhere from one sentence to five lines of text in neutral language, that has been continually reverted by these other users.] --NYScholar 00:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [updated and corrected. --NYScholar 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)]
This is absurd; please stay on topic. My comment above says nothing about the previous user in the manner that that user is stating above (read my comment). I referred this noticeboard (as I have done before--[corrected link]: archive 10, item 25--to the current and archived talk pages of Talk:Lewis Libby. I mention that the previous editor is also involved himself/herself in the content dispute and that s/he needs to disclose that, just as I have done. [....moved to my talk archive 4.] For the record, I have never used the term "sock puppet" referring to any particular user in Wikipedia; that is apparently that particular user's own fixation. I am, however, concerned that there have been multiple anon. IP users who have vandalized the article on Lewis Libby, frequently leading to the need to semi-protect it (they increased from March 6, 2007, the day of Libby's conviction, on); none of us other ordinary users would know who they are, as they are "anonymous." Speaking for myself, I edit Wikipedia using one user name. This one. I do not edit Wikipedia using an anonymous IP. I think that this article still needs semi-protection, due to the potential vandalism by anonymous IP users. --NYScholar 06:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [....]
Anyone can see from the Lewis Libby logs and talk pages (or my own edit history) that I am an interested party. I have cataloged the above user's attacks on my on my talk page. The above comments and the other several hundred over the past few weeks on the talk page are typical of the situation we have on the Libby page. Again, it would be helpful for other non-interested editors to help everyone bring this issue to some sort of resolution.Notmyrealname 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [To shorten the comments that I added here in response to other user, in response to the request below, I have moved them to my own talk page archive 4. I may shorten them further if I have time. I am working on a non-Wikipedia-related project with a deadline and cannot take more time with this Wikipedia dispute. Please see the talk pages of the article on Libby. [Note: Counting edits is misleading; most of my edits are typographical corrections to the comments that I added. See my talk archive 4 for the moved comments and the current and archived talk pages of the article for other comments by me and other users specifically about the editing content dispute (not contributors; in my view, contributors are not the subject of this dispute; the dispute is about article content being deleted by users).] --NYScholar]
I would add to this discussion whether others think it appropriate to list Libby on the Temple Rodef Shalom page. He is the only congregant listed. Notmyrealname 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Would the various parties involved agree to binding arbitration? Notmyrealname 17:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC) This reference to "binding arbitration" is clearly premature. This user keeps making this matter a dispute about contributors, as "various parties"; it is not. It is a dispute about the content of an article. There are many so-called "parties" to this editing-content dispute. This clearly-premature reference to "binding arbitration" is yet another red herring focusing on particular contributors and not on the content of the article (to which the above user has actually contributed barely any content at all (one disputed statement since corrected). As a longtime contributor to this article, who has helped to develop many parts of it (including its citations and references sections), my view is that the article needs the eyes of truly-neutral Wikipedia administrators who themselves do not have editing histories of editing articles pertaining to subjects relating to the article on Lewis Libby#See also. Administrators involved in "policing" Wikipedia's references to "Jewishness" and "Israel" in other articles cross-listed in Lewis Libby#See also are, very often, it appears to me and others, not neutral. To find the number of Wikipedia users and editors who have expressed viewpoints on editing the article on Lewis Libby, please consult Talk:Lewis Libby, its linked talk archives, and the previous BLP noticeboard linked already by User Athaenara above: archive 10, item 25, where a number of other users ("parties") have contributed their views. The particular content in dispute has a long history of contentious disagreements by many editors (contributors) and other Wikipedia users (all "parties" to the dispute). --NYScholar 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Please Note: (as per my talkpage header): I will be engaged in extensive domestic and European travel, academic research conferences, and related academic research throughout the months of April, May, and June, away from my home computer, and will most likely not have any time for Wikipedia-related work or any such content editing disputes as this one at least during that period and/or from that time on. --NYScholar 19:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Carl Djerassi – Resolved. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Carl Djerassi Carl Djerassi [watch?]
I have seen several additional problems with the article’s tone; you may have overlooked these problems, because they were clustered in the last section of the article. I’ve cleaned them up. If there are any further problems, please let us know. NeilinOz1 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Dmitry Salita – Resolved. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Dmitry Salita Dmitry Salita [watch?]User:German.Knowitall and other material is deleted without reasonable explanations. // TAG 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC) - Unsourced personal opinion added by
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Dominic Davi – Article deleted. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Dominic Davi Dominic Davi [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Andrew Pugliese – Article deleted. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Andrew Pugliese Andrew Pugliese [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Wayne LaPierre – Resolved. – 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Wayne LaPierre Wayne LaPierre [watch?]
Unsourced potentially libellous material removed per WP:BLP April 2 2007. — Athænara ✉ 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Don Murphy – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Don Murphy Don Murphy [watch?]
Please see talk page- User: Phil Gronowski has added libelous material to Murphy entry while in a feud with Murphy himself. Murphy says clearly that the fight didn't happen. IT IS NOT referenced under Tarantino's entry the guy who hit him supposedly nor Hamsher's, whose book supposedly was responsible. It is not, clearly, even a minor event much less a major event in the guy's life. Yet here it is PUT THERE by a guy who admits to being in a feud with Murphy. That is NOT what Wales would have us do. WE MUST err on the side of protecting the rights of BLP. The guy himself says it didn't happen - personally, on the very website that Gronowski cites, donmurphy.net. Therefore if we take one thing as evidence we should take all things. PanFordThunder 06:44, March 20, 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Zakir Naik – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Zakir Naik Zakir Naik [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Nick Palumbo – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Nick Palumbo Nick Palumbo [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Daz Sampson – Resolved. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Daz Sampson Daz Sampson [watch?]
A user, using both an anon IP (86.6.207.111) and as Brine Pepaz is continually adding libellous material to the Daz Sampson article, suggesting that he bears a resemblance to a certain child murderer. This is clearly not encyclopedic and not factually based. It is also potentially serious libel. However, whenever I revert the edit he restores it. // TomPhil 13:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Richard Walter – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Richard Walter Richard Walter [watch?]
Bturvey (talk · contribs) & 24.240.17.187 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) have been battling over this article, with 3RR violations and threatening comments from both to each other. The content dispute centers around allegations of perjury and falsification of credentials. I'm signing off for the night, so hopefully others can step in. -- Scientizzle 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
This biograhy page seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "www.richarddwalter.com". Walter's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake - his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony). This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006). I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor. I expect that they will change the edits again and that this issue will become something that needs an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts them because of their association with him. Not only has editor 24.240.17.187 repeatedly removed the accurate edits made to the Richard Walter article that I have made, but this individual is also repeatedly removing my attempts to discuss it in the talk section. Clearly, this person is attempting to further the perpetration of fraudulent information in hopes of staving off the inevitable discovery of Walters as a fraud by the public. See: "The Forensic Fraud Archive", which my company maintains to document such cases. Walter is listed alphabetically at the end, with links to supporting court records. The acrobat file was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 10 documents per page to see it. Please feel free to contact me directly. Brent E. Turvey, MS Forensic Scientist bturvey@forensic-science.com Bturvey 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Arbitrator: Richard Walter seems to have been created with a large amount of false information, perhaps gathered from a phony/ anonymous press release posted at "www.richarddwalter.com". Walters's false testimony was actually confirmed in NY v. Robie Drake. In 2003 and again in 2006 his testimony was determined to be false, misleading and could be presumed perjurious on at least one point (perjury being a very specific type of false testimony) by a fedeal judge. This is all confirmed in the judge's ruling at: "NY v. Robie Drake" (2006). The acrobat file here was obtained from United States District Court, Western District of New York. Just select judge John Elfvin's rulings for March 2006 re: the Drake case. You'll need to select more than 100 documents per page to see it. Get the drake file. I editted the many factual inaccurancies in the page with references to the court record online and articles regarding Mr. Walter's false testimony. However an anonymous editor immediately swooped in and removed those edits. I have reverted the page and posted a warning to the anonymous editor. Now Buzzle45 (talk · contribs), an original anonymous creator of this false information page designed to rescue Walters flailing credibility, has stepped in to replace anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). I am not certain these are two separate individuals. At any rate, I expected that whoever created the page would change the edits and that this issue would become something that needed an official look - as there are quite a few dedicated and obsessed people determined to keep the actual substance of this court ruling from being public. It hurts Walter, and it hurts more than a few because of their association with him. Anonymous editor 24.240.17.187 has removed the Richard Walter page at least six times aleady and has also removed this section from the Talk: Richard Walter page at least six times, since 3/18/07 to prevent me from even having a civil discussion about it with others. Buzzle45 (talk · contribs) has done the same. Not exactly actions that are conducive to resolution, let alone communication. They just don't want the ruling public because of their hero worship (that's assuming that one of the individuals is not actually Richard Walter -this a very distinct possibility). This information is not libelous. It is corrective. It is the posting of a court's ruling using the court's own document. The Wikipedia entry currently states that Walters was exonnerated by the judge in the Drake case. This is not just false, it is beligerantly deceptive at this point. Note please that I am the only person in this dispute who must testify in court on a regular basis, under oath - and that I am also the only one willing to be identified. As it stands, the article is full of false and bloated information about Walters that is designed to prop him up despite the court ruling - so that those who use Wikipedia as their primary nfo source (and there are many too many) will be misled. It is a disgrace to the professional community, and it is the furtherance of a weakly crafted fraud. Do not hesitate to contact me for further assistance. Brent E. Turvey, MS - Forensic Scientist Bturvey 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Brent continues to write libel. His above post states: "Mr. Walter whom has long been regarded as a charlatan by the courts." That is, in itself, a libelous statement. To accuse someone of perjury is a serious charge. Mr. Turvey makes that claim on his own websites, but that is a matter between Mr. Walter and Mr. Turvey to settle in civil court. I hold Wikipedia to a higher standard. In reading the court document, in the final ruling in the Drake case, the judge overturns the appeal. In his opinion, the judge states that Mr. Walter "may" have committed perjury (which he did not), but he rules that such an issue is a moot point because Mr. Drake does not have the basis for appeal. Thus, Drake's appeal, and all of its allegations are ruled false. I welcome you to read the decision on Lexis-Nexis and not Mr. Turvey's doctored version on his websites. While on Lexis-Nexis, I would also encourage you to read about Mr. Turvey's false statements under oath in Mississippi last year and his previous false statements under oath regarding his employment by the Sitka, Alaska Police Department as a detective. (Mr. Turvey lost in court in his bid to claim that he was employed as a detective in Sitka). Because Mr. Turvey was not allowed into the AAFS, he has spent his short career creating his own organizations and schools. His organizations are nothing more than him and a few of his former "students" posing as a substitute for the AAFS. Still, the bitterness of rejection has never been exorcised from his soul. He maintains a website that lists several well-respected forensic pathologists as "frauds" (Mr. Walter is not his only victim). With all due respect, his situation reminds me of a jealous child in the playground who wants to "take his toys and play on his own". I suggest that the Richard Walter page remain permanently locked in its pre-March 17th state. Please disregard Bturvey's threat to "show why wikipedia can't be trusted as a source in my class". He has many more enemies than friends; no one will stand in his defense. Buzzle45 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC) I don't know if this is the proper place to make a comment on this, but I believe I can act as an impartial party in this dispute. On the one hand I do believe that whomever created the page in question, and some related ones, is doing so in an attempt top promote this person in an way that is deceptive to some facts. I did some edits in the past to try to fix this (might have been on as an IP account at the time). On the other hand the accusations that Richard Walter was a charlatan in the court case that made the news are simply one sided, unrealistic in my opinion (some lawyer tried to get a conviction over turned because Walters as an expert witness testified about "picquerism" as a term that allegedly no psychologists heard about... which has just got to be complete nonsense, as the term is included in most abnormal psychology classes and even introductory psych textbooks and is, in fact, used professionally by experts in the field of criminology and psychology, for example Robert D. Keppel in several books and articles). Any mention of this case needs to meet WP:NPOV criteria, which would not be simply repeating outrageous accusations of one side if they were truth. The accusations made above by both sides are quite extremely biased and do not meet the expectations of this project. The standard policies here of NPOV and Verifiability can and should apply. It was what I was doing with earlier edits and I think it can succeed in the future as well. DreamGuy 17:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This is Buzzle45. No one is sitting over my shoulder and I am not a publicist. I am concerned that once unlocked, Bturvey or someone on his behalf will continue to post libelous information on Richard Walter's page. Mr. Turvey has a personal vendetta against Richard Walter and apparently cannot rest until he slanders him all over the internet. I am hoping that the article remain locked. If need be, the whole "Drake case" incident can be left off. No information about that case is better than libelous information. User:Buzzle45 00:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales says that in an article about a living person, “no information” is better than “inaccurate information.” It would be best to stub the article, put full protection on it, and allow administrators to do all the direct editing. The people who are arguing about article content should still be allowed to participate on the talk page. If they provide information from reliable sources, administrators can put it in the article. But as a long-term solution, article protection is unacceptable. At some point, protection must be removed; and these editors must understand and accept that they can’t be allowed to use the article to present their own points of view. This is a reasonable and neutral solution. NeilinOz1 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Robert Sungenis – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Robert Sungenis Robert Sungenis [watch?]
My account has been sabatoged (not necassarily related to this) so I am operating anon. Truth_Seeker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.81.205.20 (talk • contribs) 20:33, March 21, 2007 (UTC)
Please do so, and keep it in the current "mild" form until all editors can agree. How do I get my account fixed? Thanks, Truth_Seeker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.81.205.20 (talk • contribs) 21:03, March 21, 2007 (UTC) P.S. I created a new account. Truth seeker new 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I got it to work. I wonder if I can delete my new accout? Anyway, here is my proposal for the new section on Sungenis' Jewish viewpoint. What do you think? Position on the Jews Robert Sungenis strongly holds to a view of Biblical inerrancy which, as he claims the Church has traditionally done, tends to emphasize the literal interpretation strongly where appropriate. This, plus his interpretation of Patristics, Conciliar, and Papal pronouncements has lead him to some of the following positions on the Jews and Judaism: 1. The Jews did have (in the time of Christ) a "hardened heart", and still predominately have this condition today (ref. Rm 9:18-32; 11:5-23) 2. The Jews are no longer a special people (above the gentiles) in God's eyes (ref. Gal 3:28 '...There is neither Jew nor Greek...',Col 2:11-16; Eph 2:11-16; Ac 10:34-35; 5:1-4; 6:12-16; Rm 2:28-29; Heb 7:18; 8:13; 10:9; 2Co 3:6-14). 3. Jewish converts to Catholicism should not practice Jewish rituals and festivals, nor seek special identity markers within the Church (Acts of the Apostles, Council of Florence) 4. Though speculatively possible, there likely will not be a massive conversion of Jews at the second coming of Christ. Robert also identifies theological difficulties in holding this position. Robert holds that only a remnant will be converted, and this throughout the time of the gentiles. (see the Mark Cameron debates) 5. Today's national Israel was not predicted in the Old Testament (misinterpertations of Isaiah 66, Genesis 12:3),nor does this represent the final fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (this already occured in the Old Testament, Joshua 21:43-45; 1Kings 8:56; Nehemiah 9:7-8), nor does the the cedeing of control of Jeruseluem to the Jews of Israel in 1967 indicate the time of the "fulfilment of the gentiles" (Luke 21:24, Rm 11:25). 6. The Talmud is an anti-Christian document. 7. The Mosaic covenant was fulfilled by and replaced by the New Covenant with Christ (ref., Hb 7:18; 8:13; 10:9; 2Co 3:6-14; Gl 3:10-29). 8. The New Covenant fulfills the Old, not vice-versa. 9. Jews do need to convert to Catholicism to attain salvation. The same thinking, Biblical exegesis, and interpretation of Patristics, Concliar, and Papal pronouncements which have led to Robert Sungenis being lauded by Catholic apologists when applied to Protestant ideas, have caused some consternation amongst some Catholic apologists and even secular groups when applied to the Jews. Especially contentious to some apologists are his speculations interpreting points 1,5, and 6 to events and people today. END PROPOSAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth seeker (talk • contribs) 03:35, March 24, 2007 (UTC) Truth Seeker, don’t try to delete your “Truth Seeker New” account. Just provide a link to it from your “Truth Seeker” account with an explanation that you used it briefly when the “Truth Seeker” account wasn’t working. In almost all cases you should use just one account, so use the “Truth Seeker” account and stop using the other one. For the Robert Sungenis article, as a general rule blogs are not acceptable under our WP:ATT policy. Specifically, they do not satisfy our concerns about reliable sources. There are a few exceptions, but the blog that’s being used as a source for anti-Sungenis criticism doesn’t meet the criteria for an exception. The blog, all references to it, and all material taken from it should be deleted from the Robert Sungenis article. NeilinOz1 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how someone can be writing (in the Talk section) without IP tracking on? Truth_Seeker 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Carlos Mencia – Resolved. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Carlos Mencia Carlos Mencia [watch?]
When in doubt, take it out. Any material that is questionable should be removed. Reduce it to a stub if necessary. Then you can have a discussion on the talk page, to decide what should be put back into the article. Use only reliable sources, preferably those with a neutral point of view. Partisan sources, especially self-published ones, should be used with extreme caution or not used at all. NeilinOz1 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Geoffrey Giuliano – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Geoffrey Giuliano Geoffrey Giuliano [watch?]
You say Giuliano STOLE a tape from PETE TOWNSHEND of the WHO!!! You say this because it was in an article in Eye Magazine WHICH WAS LATER SUED FOR THIS MATTER AND PAID GIULIANO $250,000 USD. So WHY are you REPEATING IT? We ALL know that legally to REPEAT A LIBEL IS A LIBEL. Please remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.185.66 (talk • contribs) 21:22, March 21, 2007
If a court has found that the statement was libelous, then the article should indicate that it was a false statement. A court case resulting in a $250,000 judgment for libel is notable. It would vindicate Giuliano’s claims. Where can we learn more about this judgment for $250,000? We need reliable sources to support this if we’re going to use it in the article. NeilinOz1 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Paul Martin – Resolved. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Paul Martin Paul Martin [watch?]
“Outing” Martin’s son as gay is an invasion of privacy and must be removed. Questions of sexuality are especially sensitive, especially if the son is not a public figure and has avoided the spotlight. Unsourced criticism of Martin should also be removed immediately. Beyond that, the article about Martin should not be allowed to be used as a campaign advertising vehicle by his political opponents. Nevertheless, if there is a real controversy about Martin (as distinguished from a “manufactured” controversy that his opponents have blown out of proportion), if it’s about his performance in public office, or some illegality in his private affairs, and if it comes from a reliable source, it should be represented fairly in the biography. The Wikipedia article can’t “side with the critics.” It can’t even appear to do so. It can’t be used as a “laundry list” of every criticism raised by his political opponents. The sources used should be neutral. NeilinOz1 19:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Archimedes Plutonium – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium [watch?]I've rewritten this based upon sources. Please review. Uncle G 22:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
George Vithoulkas – Inactive. – 17:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
George Vithoulkas George Vithoulkas [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Amir Taheri – Article protected. – 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Amir Taheri Amir Taheri [watch?]
The following user/IPs have generated nearly all of the disruptive and tendentious editing of this article in the past two months:
Their edits in the past month (samples: 1 2) typically:
As of 13:05, March 22 2007 (UTC), the article is protected from editing. — Athænara ✉ 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Heather Wilson – Resolved. – 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Heather Wilson Heather Wilson [watch?]
Despite these smear tactics, Wilson won re-election and now a Wikipedia editor wants to reward their efforts by permanently enshrining them in Wilson's Wikipedia article. Hone was never arrested or charged with any crime and the county prosecutor, a Democrat, admitted in a 1996 interview that Wilson broke no law by moving the file. My efforts to enforce WP:BLP have been met with accusations of vandalism. Please help. Kzq9599 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Lorraine Kelly – Article protected. – 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Lorraine Kelly Lorraine Kelly [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ken Bennett – Resolved. – 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Ken Bennett Ken Bennett [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
James Hydrick – Resolved. – 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
James Hydrick James Hydrick [watch?]
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Ryan St. Anne Scott – Discussion continued on article talk page. – 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Ryan St. Anne Scott Ryan St. Anne Scott [watch?]
(Cont'd on the article's talk page) AvB ÷ talk 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Peter Bucknell – Article deleted. – 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Peter Bucknell Peter Bucknell [watch?]
Note: I have tagged Peter Bucknell first as a {{db-bio}}, later as a {{db}} with a reason, but in both cases it got detagged. The article was earlier deleted, AFAIK because it was created by the subject of the article, and now has been recreated again by the person who is the subject of the article. I will leave it for now, could someone else have a look at the article, the editor, and the subject. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Howard K. Stern – Article semi-protected. – 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Howard K. Stern Howard K. Stern [watch?]
The article is semi-protected; there have been no edits to it in the past week. — Athænara ✉ 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Patrick Haseldine – Inactive. – 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Patrick Haseldine Patrick Haseldine [watch?]
There have been no edits to this article since mid-March. — Athænara ✉ 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Bob Clark – Resolved. – 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Bob Clark Bob Clark [watch?]
Neutral point of view editors have agreed on the article talk page that these facts can be included appropriately without being given undue weight. — Athænara ✉ 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Paul Bérenger – Resolved. – 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. |
Paul Bérenger Paul Bérenger [watch?]
The article has been edited for neutral point of view. — Athænara ✉ 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. |