Itsaboutheritage

Welcome to Wikipedia! edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Alexander Dimitry, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! DanCherek (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Biographies of living persons policy edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Itsaboutheritage. One of the most important policies Wikipedia has is the biographies of living persons policy. Having seen your edits to Joe Brown (judge), I am concerned that you have not read the section on contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Quite a lot of the material you have been adding have been sourced to either non-reliable sources or to primary sources. Sources like Twitter and podcast transcripts and YouTube clips should be very rarely used in articles, especially for articles of people. Where we are reporting on a person's view of something, we should wait for a reliable source (like a good newspaper) to report on it first. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and we as Wikipedians have a duty to the subjects of its articles. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm familiar with the biographies of living persons policy. I read it repeatedly and felt that the edits I made actually did fit this given that they were the judge's direct words and quotes.

Which sources are you describing as un-reliable or poor?

The primary sources are relevant in this case because of the exceptions and when they can be used. I am not interpreting facts, I am actually quoting what the Judge said on different programs and it is not under question whether he actually said them, anyone can see he said them and says them publicly. They are the only sources available, and they haven't been written about yet, but should not need to be written about to be quoted.

You removed not only actual sourced documentation from valid sites that are African American media sites, but also the recent quotes from Podcasts he'd been on.

Policy

: Unless restricted by another policy,

Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

Can you make a position statement of which ones aren't and are reliable sources? You struck the entire section. I understand that the clips and youtube videos should be used sparingly, but he actually said all these things on video and they are not in question. Since you cited actual references, I will update to add those comments back in with appropriate references.

For the section on Voter Fraud Lawsuit in 2014.There are 2 links, 1 is a legit source the commercial appeal, but I see what the problem is, it requires you to answer a question before viewing the article (which it did not require of me). However, courthousenews.com and its own wikipedia page; it has staff editors and writers, so I will leave that reference in and will add this reference: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/106304521/

---

For the section on Harriet Tubman on the $20 Bill -

Both NewsOne and TheRoot are known Black Media sources. TheRoot was founded by historian Henry Louis Gates. I can remove the video, but the sources should be kept. He said some of the same things to a local news station? Fine, I'll site it along with this one: https://wreg.com/news/judge-joe-brown-stirs-controversy-with-comments-about-harriet-tubman-on-20-bill/ Is the news station more reliable than Black media sources?

--

Bill Cosby section

TheGrio is owned by MSNBC, so that's a clean source. Black News Tonight was on the Black News Channel (which is an American TV channel). The deposition is also legit since it comes from a reputable news source, the LA Times. The tweets came directly from the Judges account and links to them? Please explain why this is a problem. Everything else stands and he actually said it. The video is there so that people can verify it instead of taking my word for it.

---

Support of Heterophobia

These are direct quotes that don't require interpretation and were written by JudgeJoeBrown or his team, he states it repeatedly on podcasts and radio shows. Why shouldn't these be used?

https://twitter.com/JudgeJoeBrownTV/status/1332762520336084993

https://twitter.com/JudgeJoeBrownTV/status/1175435758750113792

https://twitter.com/JudgeJoeBrownTV/status/1511731851089661956

--

I can remove the Kamala Harris piece, but he still said it and VladTV has also interviewed Judge Joe Brown at least 2 times. I think eventually these rules will have to change because media/newspapers are often months behind actual conspiracy and right-wing researchers.

---

Alex Jones Interview Jun. 24, 2022

-What's not in question is whether Judge Joe Brown appeared on Alex Jones' show on June 24, 2022. He did. But I can't link to Alex Jones' show because it would be linking to misinformation & propaganda which researchers suggest not doing, so I chose another show and only used those specific clips. But if you were to go to inforwars.com (which wikipedia bans linking to), it is even labeled Judge Joe Brown you can see the video and the interpretation is not in question. The video is even titled, "Judge Joe Brown Puts The Smackdown On American Entitlement – Exclusive Interview"

Judge Joe Brown has his own show where he's said such things. Would this be okay to quote? I think it is very relevant that a person holding these ideas and is giving his legal opinions on shows has actually ruled over the communities he is denigrating. Itsaboutheritage (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Sdrqaz Ignore this. I no longer want to add these pieces to the bio. I'll wait until a news source covers them. Itsaboutheritage (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic