I mean even aside whether homosexual practice is outlawed by his particular church "orientation" which is what is described by being a "noted homosexual" could not possibly be condemned by any Christian organisation as far as I know, since it does not make any statement about practice.
BozMo On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Andrew Cates <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm. I am a committed Christian too but I completely failed to > understand why calling Farah "a noted homosexual" is a "defamatory > accusation"? Or libel or slander for that matter. Very puerile > certainly maybe...but defamatory? C'mon. > > BozMo > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Cool Hand Luke > <[email protected]> wrote: >> An interesting example: the article on Joe Lieberman was semi-protected one >> day because it was a "bad day for >> vandalism<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=prev&oldid=177264167>." >> It was unprotected, and hours later it picked up an IP edit >> accusing<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Lieberman&diff=next&oldid=177264167>Leiberman >> of being a "flaming homo" who had just come out on the Ellen >> Degeneres Show. >> >> You would think that an IP editor adding an outlandish and false claim on a >> high-profile biography like [[Joe Lieberman]] would be quickly reverted, >> right? Well, you would be wrong. It was not corrected for over five hours. >> >> This is how well we handle blatant vandalism in our highest-profile >> subjects. How do you think we fare with subtle defamation on obscure >> subjects? >> >> We already know the answer to >> that<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy>. >> Let's fix this already. We need BLP semi-protection. >> >> Cool Hand Luke >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> In a message dated 12/16/2008 6:01:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, >>> [email protected] writes: >>> >>> Are you denying that libel can seriously hurt real people? Or that >>> Wikipedia suffers from libel? Or that Wikipedia fails to act >>> effectively enough against libel?>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------- >>> The statement was made that this is "common" not rare. >>> I do deny that "Wikipedia fails to act effectively enough against libel" >>> >>> Yes I deny that. >>> But I also deny that this situation is "common" as opposed to rare, or >>> rather I'd like to see some hard evidence, not a lot of hand-waving and >>> hyperbole >>> :) >>> >>> Bearing in mind that this thread is not simply about vandalism or libel, >>> but >>> *rather* it is about the situation originally presented, where some >>> scandalous statement, which is also without foundation, is allowed to >>> persist for a >>> significant length of time. Remembering that scandalous statements are >>> only >>> libel if they are without foundation and known to be without foundation by >>> the >>> speaker. >>> >>> Will Johnson >>> >>> >>> **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and >>> favorite sites in one place. Try it now. >>> ( >>> http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010 >>> ) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> WikiEN-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
