Content deleted Content added
Line 513: I think that Mr. Berlet's discovery of plagiarism in the book ''Leaderless Jihad'' is worthy of mention. See [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/07/28/leaderless].--[[User:Janeyryan|Janeyryan]] ([[User talk:Janeyryan|talk]]) 12:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC) --[[User:Janeyryan|Janeyryan]] ([[User talk:Janeyryan|talk]]) 13:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)==RfC: Is criticism of [[Chip Berlet]] by [[Justin Raimondo]] a violation of [[WP:BLP]]?== {{RFCpol | section=Is criticism of [[Chip Berlet]] by [[Justin Raimondo]] a violation of [[WP:BLP]]? !! reason=There has been a long-standing debate about the use of a particular quote. !! time=00:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)}} Line 534: : The Anti-war.com assessment as a source could be brought up at [[WP:RS/N]] which will bring much wider participation than an RFC. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 00:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC) ::That was not the case [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_10#Antiwar.com_vs._Political_Research_Associates the last time it was tried.] --[[User:Terrawatt|Terrawatt]] ([[User talk:Terrawatt|talk]]) 06:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) *I just thought it might be helpful if I pointed out that the relevant portion of BLP is, in addition to the one cited, the portion that relates to [[WP:NPF|non public figures]]. It says: <blockquote>Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source.)</blockquote> <blockquote>Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.</blockquote> This kind of charge as made by Raimondo needs to be published in multiple, highly reliable sources, and needs to be relevant to the subjects notability. Even if it's relevant to Berlet's notability, I think that Raimondo's charge in a publication he edits needs to be treated as a primary source, which needs to be published in multiple reliable secondary sources. Cheers,[[User:Janeyryan|Janeyryan]] ([[User talk:Janeyryan|talk]]) 13:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||