[WikiEN-l] Joseph Farah: Another dissatisfied customer

[Andrew Cates]

I mean even aside whether homosexual practice is outlawed by his
particular church "orientation" which is what is described by being a
"noted homosexual" could not possibly be condemned by any Christian
organisation as far as I know, since it does not make any statement
about practice.

BozMo

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Andrew Cates <Andrew at soschildren.org> wrote:
> Hmm. I am a committed Christian too but I completely failed to
> understand why calling Farah "a noted homosexual" is a "defamatory
> accusation"? Or libel or slander for that matter. Very puerile
> certainly maybe...but defamatory? C'mon.
>
> BozMo
>
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Cool Hand Luke
> <failure.to.communicate at gmail.com> wrote:
>> An interesting example: the article on Joe Lieberman was semi-protected one
>> day because it was a "bad day for
>> vandalism<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=prev&oldid=177264167>."
>> It was unprotected, and hours later it picked up an IP edit
>> accusing<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=next&oldid=177264167>Leiberman
>> of being a "flaming homo" who had just come out on the Ellen
>> Degeneres Show.
>>
>> You would think that an IP editor adding an outlandish and false claim on a
>> high-profile biography like [[Joe Lieberman]] would be quickly reverted,
>> right?  Well, you would be wrong.  It was not corrected for over five hours.
>>
>> This is how well we handle blatant vandalism in our highest-profile
>> subjects.  How do you think we fare with subtle defamation on obscure
>> subjects?
>>
>> We already know the answer to
>> that<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy>.
>> Let's fix this already.  We need BLP semi-protection.
>>
>> Cool Hand Luke
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM, <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>>> larsen.thomas.h at gmail.com writes:
>>>
>>> Are you  denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that
>>> Wikipedia  suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act
>>> effectively enough  against libel?>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------
>>> The statement was made that this is "common" not rare.
>>> I do deny that "Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against  libel"
>>>
>>> Yes I deny that.
>>> But I also deny that this situation is "common" as opposed to rare, or
>>> rather I'd like to see some hard evidence, not a lot of hand-waving and
>>>  hyperbole
>>> :)
>>>
>>> Bearing in mind that this thread is not simply about vandalism or libel,
>>>  but
>>> *rather* it is about the situation originally presented, where some
>>> scandalous statement, which is also without foundation, is allowed to
>>> persist  for a
>>> significant length of time.  Remembering that scandalous statements  are
>>> only
>>> libel if they are without foundation and known to be without foundation  by
>>> the
>>> speaker.
>>>
>>> Will Johnson
>>>
>>>
>>> **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and
>>> favorite sites in one place.  Try it now.
>>> (
>>> http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010
>>> )
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>