User talk:Irish eyes



You can't write rants like Joe Arpaio The True Story, not only are they libelous, but they viloate Wikipedia's policy of Neutral point of view. In addition, this reads as if it was copied and pasted from another site. If so that makes it a copyright violation, which is also banned on Wikipedia. RickK 06:31, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Everything I wrote is a matter of public record, media reports and official reports. The only things taken from other sites or articles was given proper citation. "Copied and pasted" suggests that you are accusing me of plagiarism. Hmm, not possible since plagiarism is defined as claiming credit for someone else's work. Much of what I wrote, I have personally written for other sites and, therefore, is not plagarism - you cannot plagarize yourself! Those items taken from other sites or sources have been credited accordingly - nothing has been left to the readers imagination as far as the source is concerned. In most cases, I linked to the original article. I even added other links to additional information at the bottom of the page. I'm sorry if you don't like my writing style. I guess I'll have to give back all these awards!! I don't see this article as a rant any more than the "Joe Arpaio" article is a rant. I attempted to add this information to the original article to create a more accurate and balanced accounting, but was continuously deleted by the original author. By revealing the truth, as opposed to political propaganda, the reader is left to make their own assumptions and draw their own conclusions.

The Joe Arpaio article shows you how to write a NEUTRAL article. Yours is going to be deleted because it doesn't meet Wikipedia's needs. RickK 23:12, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

And I suppose you are the sole judge of whether this article will be deleted?! The Joe Arpaio article shows nothing but how to avoid controversial subject matter at the cost of sacrificing the true and accurate story of a public figure. It does not address any of the actual issues surrounding this man, nor does it address any of the atrocities commited by him and his employees. As for the "first person section at the end," it is a direct quote from the attorney to whom it is credited. I did not change his words at all. Look a little closer - that's what the quotation marks indicate. I thought that Wikipedia was a forum that would accept differing viewpoints - I guess I was wrong. It's really too bad that someone who knows very little about the subject, no matter how widely publicized and legally substantiated, can insist that these comments must be deleted in order to pacify those who refuse to see the truth. Ah well, I suppose that when the criminal charges are filed, many will be seeing things in a new light as far as Joe Arpaio is concerned.

Odd how those who refer to this article as a "rant" don't live in Arizona, and honestly don't know what the issues are regarding the Sheriff. Even history books address the ugly as well as the safe side of monstrous figures like Stalin, Hitler, and the like. Every point made has been meticulously documented either by national organizations like the ACLU, international organizations like Amnesty International, or local groups like the Maricopa County Attorney and the Arizona State Attorney General. Many of the comment used were credited to reliable media outlets and credited accordingly. Libelous? I don't think so! Given that the primary definition of the word "A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation." [Thanks to dictionary.com and Encyclopedia Brittanica] If these statements were libelous - why have the original sources not been sued? Perhaps it has to do with the concept that a statement is not legally considered to be libelous if it is a true statement - ever look at it that way?

If 10 years of research on a topic isn't enough...
Recently compiled, this link provides the results of 10 years worth of research on this subject by a single source. There are, without doubt, hundreds of other reliable sources with just as much research. http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/special_reports/arpaio/index.html