Jump to content

Talk:Richard Quest: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Demiurge1000 (talk | contribs)
Line 36: Line 36:
== public figure public domain ==
== public figure public domain ==
arrest records are public record in the USA and fully reportable by any publication, including the rope and sex toys [[Special:Contributions/217.16.113.220|217.16.113.220]] ([[User talk:217.16.113.220|talk]]) 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
arrest records are public record in the USA and fully reportable by any publication, including the rope and sex toys [[Special:Contributions/217.16.113.220|217.16.113.220]] ([[User talk:217.16.113.220|talk]]) 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

:What you're saying is that there is no law in the USA saying that Wikipedia ''cannot'' mention such things. But equally, that does not mean that Wikipedia necessarily ''should'' mention such things. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 20:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:30, 5 December 2012

BLP noticeboard report - 2

Hi - please be aware there is a discussion at the noticeboard regarding some disputed content and join in the discussion at the BLP noticeboard - here - thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find it there. Rothorpe (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not in the article??

(BLP violation removed) Elizium23 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another comment by 108. from my Talk page:

Is Reuters considered a reliable source? http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/19/us-quest-idUSN1832900220080419 I note that in Don King's article, a reference is made to the fact that he killed two people. Why can this exist and not the informetion on Richard Quest? Again, thank you in advance.

--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, these incidents occurred in 2008. The Reuters article states that after Quest's arrest Quest appeared in court. The Reuters article is a mite confusing about what he was arrested for (in one place it says violating the park curfew and in another it says for possession of a controlled substance). According to Quest's attorney, the judge said he would dismiss the case if Quest attended counseling. The judge ordered 6 months of counseling (one presumes for drug issues, but the article doesn't say), and one also has to presume that the case was dismissed, although again the article doesn't explicitly say that.

WP:BLPCRIME states that we should not include material in a BLP article about a crime the person may have committed unless the person has been convicted. Here, there is no indication that Quest was convicted of anything. In addition, the details reported by The Post and Huffington are more properly confined to tabloids, and not to Wikipedia (Huffington happily alludes to this stuff as "lurid details"). He was not arrested for any sexual offense or charged with any sexual offense. Thus, to insert those details is WP:COATRACK and a further BLP violation.

Put more simply, this is crap about a minor contretemps that occurred four years ago that is more noteworthy for the "lurid details" than for anything else. It negatively impacts a BLP, it has little or no relevance to his Wikipedia article, and it cannot be included.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation, esp the part about actual conviction being the threshold for inclusion. I did not know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.30.185 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, it's tough learning all the policies and guidelines at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


BLP/N discussion results in the current edit. When a judge orders drug counseling - it meets the WP threshhold. Collect (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


public figure public domain

arrest records are public record in the USA and fully reportable by any publication, including the rope and sex toys 217.16.113.220 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you're saying is that there is no law in the USA saying that Wikipedia cannot mention such things. But equally, that does not mean that Wikipedia necessarily should mention such things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]