Talk:Geoffrey Alderman

Charedi
Re charedi abuse by alderman. Why the abusive language here? I am rather offended by your attitude, and I believe you have not assumed good faith. Just because you have a reputation, that does not make you right or just!

The fact is that the PCC are investigating this given the number of complaints they received, even if they did not investigate the initial one. The fact is that the JC published one of a number of of proforma letters they received and another letter of complaint a week earlier. The fact that there was a complaint at the PCC which I referenced and the fact that the JC published two letters of complaint shows controversy. Even if letters are no available online, they are still valid as wiki references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.138.196 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLP very carefully. Wikipedia is very strict on what kinds of material it allows into biographies of living people. The fact that someone complained about an individual, or wrote a letter to the editor of a small newspaper complaining about that individual, is not enough to include the material in that individual's biography. Furthermore, the link provided to the PCC complaint indicated that the complaint was dismissed. For something to qualify as a "controversy" on a WP:BLP, it must have been reported by multiple, high-quality, reliable, secondary sources. Again, WP:BLP is a very strict policy, and administrators are given wide latitude to ensure material about living people on Wikipedia adheres to it. Please click on all the links in my post, and read the material there carefully. Jayjg (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept your arguments here, despite the fact that the PCC wrote to me on enquiry for the purpose of this edit saying: "Following several complaints over the Jewish Chronicle’s article by Geoffrey Alderman, the Commission has decided to investigate the complaints. The investigation has now been on-going for some time", and despite the fact that common sense suggests that saying "It is, however, well known that charedi men are notorious harassers of the opposite sex" is rather controversial. As I said I will hold off with this edit to see how the PCC case concludes and what action the JC take if any so that the controversial nature of Alderman's statement is well established.
 * I cannot however accept the tone of voice you use here which is offensive, rude and does not assume good faith, where my actions were indeed in good faith. If there were a way to complain about your behaviour which drives novice editors away from wikipedia, I would complain... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.138.196 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry you feel unwelcome. Wikipedia has a responsibility to the living people about which the encyclopedia writes, and that is to ensure that the material written about them meets the highest possible standards of writing and sourcing - see WP:BLP. That means that even when specific individuals are, for example, highly incensed at something Alderman has written, that doesn't mean they make that material a "controversy" in Alderman's biography. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not what you must address, but rather it is the assumption of bad faith on your part and the labelling of an edit as nonsensical, because you felt it was not well sourced. You cannot speak as if you are wikipedia whilst resorting to ad hominem attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.125.84 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)