Talk:Aidan Kearney (journalist)

Latest comment: 4 months ago by Zanahary in topic This needs to be included in the summary

This needs to be included in the summary

edit

He is currently charged with 16 counts of witness intimidation, each of which carries a sentence of up to 20 years, along with charges of unlawful picketing to influence a witness and conspiracy to influence a witness.


This is verified by several different sources, including boston 25 news, which Wikipedia does indentify as a reliable third-party source. https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/mass-blogger-known-turtleboy-shares-message-jail-days-after-judge-revoked-his-bail/GIQNUFLVYFGGVM76ANYNIKYADM/ TequilaMockingBird91 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

A current news item isn’t necessarily suitable for a biography. If the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ witness protection legislation is ruled unconstitutional due to the charges against Aidan, that would be suitable for a biography. Gortaleen (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Whether it’s suitable for a biography is gratuitous. All that’s regarded for a qualified Wikipedia edit is that the edit has to be backed up by a reliable third-party source. TequilaMockingBird91 (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
“All that’s required” is too low a threshold for determining what goes into a biography. Current news items that are not of historical significance do not belong in a biography. Gortaleen (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
According to the rules of Wikipedia, all that’s needed is a reliable third-party source. What sources do you have to show that current news items are not of historical significance? People are saying that his arrest are going to be a “major chapter” in Kearny’s upcoming book. I’d say that that’s a major historical significance. TequilaMockingBird91 (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
My lord, what an edit war. We have noticeboards for a reason, not so that two editors can edit war for literally months! @TequilaMockingBird91 You're blocked from editing any articles for a week for a failure to understand WP:BLP and edit warring. Contentious material, and criminal accusations are, stay out in the absence of a consensus. @Gortaleen, you escape that sanction purely because of that, but your behaviour was suboptimal. You should have taken this to WP:BLPN long ago. Discuss this. Figure it out. Do NOT resume edit warring or there will be more blocks. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I was unaware of WP:BLP. I will refer future inappropriate changes to the article there. Gortaleen (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe Wikipedia is about the the truth. What you're doing is taking money to create and protect a "fake good" page for man who harasses people and has been sued for defamation many times over. Even a political figure sued him and he settled with her just about a month or two ago. I'm disgusted at your stance. I'll be contacting Wikipedia directl 74.193.18.116 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I guess I saw your reddit post, which also used the phrase "fake good". Wikipedia editors aren’t paid by article subjects—if you make a constructive edit anywhere on this project, you’ll be an editor yourself. You’ll notice, then, that nobody's paid you 😉
Check out WP:BLP to understand more about how biographies like this one are written. Perhaps there’s a case to include these criminal charges. If you think there is, please make that argument based on the policy at WP:BLP. Zanahary 05:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply