Bsirvine

John Edwards

• We is wikipedia.
• The assumption of good faith is not optional, it is a requirement of wikipedia.
• If you repeatedly insert the same material (contrary to Wiki policy or guideline) then it is considered disruptive editing, and will result in a block.
• Other good reading: Neutral Point of View, Attribution.

Hope this helps!  :-) /Blaxthos 21:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your acknowledgement. Regarding your inserted text, I think that the major problems you're going to run into are (1) we assume good faith; (2) by saying "possibly unknown" you violate WP:NPOV by implying that his direct statements may be a lie; and (3) WP:BLP prohibits characterizations of that nature. Anything is possible, but we can't use Wikipedia to challenge "what someone knew." If he states "I did not know x", then we can't go implying he's a liar. /Blaxthos 16:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is very clear, as is WP:NPOV. We do not write articles that imply that a subject is lying unless it is reliably and accurately sourced. Once again, by inserting your text you imply that the man was lying. Anyone could be lying at any time, but we do not imply such in articles. I am wholeheartedly glad that you discuss before repeatedly inserting change (bravo), and you earn much respect from me in that capacity. However, I am sure that if you check with some others (check out the related discussion pages to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV) you will find my assertions to be sound. /Blaxthos 17:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try once more to clarify:

• By saying "possibly knew" you are implying that the Senator may be lying. Any implication of that nature without solid evidence of such is unencyclopedic and definitely not from a neutral point of view.
• Likewise, due to libel laws, Wikipedia is very strict on what may be said in biographies of living persons.
• I have encouraged you to seek the opinion of the community writ large by asking on the NPOV and BLP talk pages. I have no doubt that the answer you receive there will be in line with my assertions here.
• I made no threat, I simply pointed out that repeatedly inserting negative conjecture into a BLP is disruptive behavior, which will result in a block.
• I have no ability to block you from editing any article... even if I did, I would defer to an uninvolved third party, as I consider it bad form to block someone with an opposing opinion with whom I am involved in a content dispute. To your credit (as I have already noted) I appreicate your willingness to discuss instead of instituting unilateral change.
• I have no affiliation with, or particular interest in, John Edwards or his political ambitions. I do, however, have an interest in ensuring that Wikipedia holds true to content policies and guidelines (most especially WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:RS. Resorting to the "you must be a _insert_politician_here_ supporter" is not really a productive argument -- try to comment on content instead of the editor involved. If we're going to go down that road, I would posit that your own edit history (and remarks by other editors) suggest that you've been known in the past to try and politicize articles.

In the end, I think we both agree that this isn't really a Big Deal. I'm glad this isn't going to turn into some big edit fight. Cheers! /Blaxthos 19:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)