User talk:Illuminatus49

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. ''The Biography of living persons policy applies to talk pages as well as articles. The sources you supplied are not reliable and the information does not belong on the talk page or in the article unless a reliable source can be found for this information.''  GB fan  talk 00:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm at a loss then if a factual statement statement put forth by a directly involved party on one of their official channels is not a qualified source. Additionally, if libel constitutes anything that may be defamatory, how is anything other than censored content every going to get posted? If person X commits an act, of which it's public knowledge would be considered damaging, then that is just supposed to be swept under the rug? My profs have long hated wikipedia as a source but I used to have some respect because of the community involvement. It seems however that the lawyer and the dollar signs have taken over the wikipedia project as well now so it seems the time has come to locate a new source for community contributions that features content that is not so overtly suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminatus49 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 9 December 2009
 * Wikipedia policy is that any information about living people that can be considered contentious must be sourced to reliable sources. Neither Wiki answers nor twitter pages are considered reliable.  Either of them can be written by anyone without regard to the truth.  Reliable sources check the facts before they publish information.  Unless there is independent confirmation of this information it does not belong because it is better to be overprotective of the reputations of people and not publish something than it is to possibly ruin someones reputation on incorrect information.   GB fan  talk 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the official policy DOES list tweets as a reliable source for a living person IF it is self published. However, Paige Dunham redirects to Jeff Dunham's page and hence a conflict with this policy occurs. Either Paige Dunham should have a separate entry OR the article that is a redirect of her query should make her tweets permissible. The two are mutually exclusive under current policy. Illuminatus49 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)