Other then your say-so, do we have a source that gives your spelling?
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
Talk:Tetsusaiga
Talk:InuYasha#Naming_Conventions
Summary: in the Inuyasha series, a sword is named the "Tessaiga".
The English licensor made a mistake in the translation, calling it
"Tetsusaiga".
One person insists that because that is the official English translation,
the article *must* be called by the incorrect name; moreover, since we don't
have a reliable source for the name being a mistake, we can't even treat it
like an incorrect name. (Note that hiragana in Japanese is phonetic and the
name lacks ambiguity.)
I can see how the rules can be read that way, but this is clearly being
mindlessly literal, secure in the knowledge that the wrong result is In The
Rules, so nobody can stop it.
And the same guy has been at it for years; here's one from 2004:
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles/tessaiga .
Hi folks,
I've been thinking about something like this for a while, having found
myself repeating pretty much verbatim the same conversation 7 or 8 times
recently.. all thoughts and feedback most welcome;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_for_parents
I'm happy to discuss the need, form and function of such a page here, but
would welcome being removed from moderation....
cheers,
Peter
PM.
Wikipedia operates under the laws in Florida. Somewhere in the system it
explicitely states that.
The Star Wars boy could only sue under two jurisdictions. Either the one
where he lives, or the one where Wikipedia headquarters lives. He can't choose
to sue anywhere in the world. It would probably set a legal precedent were
some court in the US to decide that merely "naming" a person is harassment or
whatever.
Yes of course "mere reporting" can be libel. But naming a person cannot be
construed as "libel". Unless of course their name is "Ugly fart head".
Privacy laws (which is a very vague term) do not cover public databases sources.
A newspaper is a public database.
The cat is already out of the bag Ian, merely reporting on the case cannot
be construed as "lynching" or "punching". If you report on a murder are you
murdering the person? If you report on a fire, are you setting the fire? If
you report on fraud, conspiracy, rape, are you doing those actions? No you
are not.
A reporter shows what's going on, they don't hide from it on some moral high
ground while wearing blinders. Our job is to show the world as it is, not
as we wish it were by hiding from it.
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In a message dated 6/22/2008 3:22:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ian.woollard(a)gmail.com writes:
So far as I am aware the guy's name was placed in the
public domain without his request, and this has been repeated by a
bunch of publications. He also received a large award in an out of
court settlement, and could possibly have a case against the wikipedia
if they chose to *perpetuate* it (the wikipedia may not *ever* go
away, but other publications tend to fade).>>
-------------------------------------
This is not correct.
Once the genie is out-of-the-bottle there is no law under which you can
"sue" to silence it.
"Naming" someone is not harassment, it is reporting. If you think it is,
name one case, any case at all, where this theory has been successful in a
finalized court proceeding. In the US.
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In a message dated 6/23/2008 11:32:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ian.woollard(a)gmail.com writes:
They're not the same, but they have large areas of overlap, so in that
sense, in those areas, no I don't.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
So in your opinion "presumption of privacy" means "we cannot report any
information that somebody might consider private, regardless of how widely
disseminated it might already be."
Have I correctly stated your position?
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In a message dated 6/23/2008 5:32:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ian.woollard(a)gmail.com writes:
When people are only victims of some mischance, then the
argument is, it seems to me, and BLP agrees, that
some presumption of privacy and restriction of information
ought to be apply, and even if others aren't doing so.>>
------------------------
"Presumption" is not the same as "news blackout".
I'm sure you can agree with that.
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In a message dated 6/23/2008 1:26:38 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes:
And the NYT and the like, compared to Wikipedia, aren't
going to "fade" anytime soon. Archives of major newspapers from over a
century ago are available. >>>
-------------------------------------------
I'd like to add, that contrary to newspaper reports going away over time,
the opposite is happening.
The huge surge in interest in genealogy, is bringing many old newspapers
out-of-the-grave and onto sites like ancestry, genealogy and newspaperarchive.
Thousands of pages per day are being put back into the "easy part" of the
public domain. That part you can view from your desk instead of going to some
repository. The ability to trawl these old newspapers is now becoming a core
feature of many genealogy services and will soon be hitting history and
biography in a major way as well.
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
The counter-argument might be that our purpose is not to protect our
readers, especially in the face of our policy which says that this sort of privacy
only applies to things not "already widely disseminated."
And before you say that approach is immoral, I would say the
counter-approach can also be seen as immoral. I certainly do not wish to be protected from
the information I'm seeking, and I would see people who want to do that as
engaging in censorship neither asked for, wanted, nor warrented.
Jon Voight pleading for Angelina Jolie to reconcile with him, might be
embarrassing to him, or her, or a general reader. But it's widely disseminated
and we should be in the business of suppressing that information, acting as
moral judges for the rest of the world.
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)