Fr3hnfuf4hn3oow

February 2023

Hello, I'm Primefac. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to The Miami Valley School have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not defamatory to post a police report. However, thank you for removing it. Redmanbigman (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It can be defamatory to assert that the statements in a police report are objectively true. And even if it weren't, please take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and in particular these sections:

• WP:BLPCRIME, regarding alleged criminals—note that these concerns are greatly amplified when the person was a minor at the time of the alleged crime
• WP:AVOIDVICTIM, regarding alleged victims
• WP:BLPPRIMARY, regarding sources such as police reports

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin,

That is non-actionable opinion and it's neither defamatory or tortious. It's not libelous because it's not asserting a fact. It's an opinion. Frankly, the concern would be more around invasion of privacy than libel. This could be libelous in another country but not in the United States. Redmanbigman (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I would add that this person couldn't sue for invasion of privacy because they are a New York resident which doesn't recognize invasion of privacy as a common law tort. Redmanbigman (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if this post seems confrontational. I'm somewhat of an expert on USA libel law/invasion of privacy torts so it's important to me. Redmanbigman (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

You can make the unverifiable assertion that you are an expert in libel law/invasion of privacy if you want, but it is very obvious that you are not an expert in Wikipedia's policy about Biographies of living people. This is a worldwide project with some pretty stringent content policies. Your claimed expertise in the laws of one country will not protect you from the consequences of policy violations. So be very careful going forward. Cullen328 (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I'm an expert. Notice the word SOMEWHAT before expert meaning to a moderate degree. However, I'm VERY familiar with the libel and defamation laws in most states and I can say with almost 100% certainty that nothing I said was libelous. Redmanbigman (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edit contained multiple provable assertions of fact, so yes, it is potentially defamatory if any part of it is false; but as Cullen says, either way, defamation is but a subset of what we prohibit under our Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. Among other things, truth is an absolute defense to defamation in the U.S., while it is not an absolute defense to a BLP violation on the English Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)