Talk:Jamie Sorrentini
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Cirt in topic Identification as a Scientologist
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jamie Sorrentini article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | A fact from Jamie Sorrentini appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 July 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Identification as a Scientologist
edit[1] - Recent additions by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) failed WP:RS on a WP:BLP page. They have been removed. Please, do not add them back again. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am perplexed by your statement, Cirt, since you yourself have used the same source to indicate that people are members of the Church of Scientology. I'm sure I can find an example where it is used on BLPs. Is it acceptable on other articles, but not on this one, or jut not acceptable at all? I've taken the liberty of changing the title of this thread since it seems to be singling me out in a way that makes me uncomfortable. I would prefer that it not be changed back. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have not used that source for years, after discussion on multiple talk pages and consensus against using that website as a source. -- Cirt (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could find links to some of those discussions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Responded, at WP:RSN. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could find links to some of those discussions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have not used that source for years, after discussion on multiple talk pages and consensus against using that website as a source. -- Cirt (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Now at WP:RSN, at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.truthaboutscientology.com_usage_in_BLPs. -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Since the source is currently used in other BLPs and there is a discussion started at RSN, I am adding the disputed information back to the article. Although I understand there may not be a consensus on the use of the source, I can't see how this is a BLP violation (and Cirt has yet to provide the requested explanation). No one has disputed that Sorrentini is a Scientologist. If this really is an issue, it can be removed, but I think it is clear that Cirt is far too involved to be the one to do it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is a BLP, material contested under the policy stays OUT until we have a consensus that it is safe to put it in. The source looks problematic to me, although I've not reached a final opinion. DO NOT replace it for now, or you may be blocked.--Scott Mac 09:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs), thank you. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is a BLP, material contested under the policy stays OUT until we have a consensus that it is safe to put it in. The source looks problematic to me, although I've not reached a final opinion. DO NOT replace it for now, or you may be blocked.--Scott Mac 09:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)