User talk:Linop2

January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, your recent edits  have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. SWik78 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits on Triumph Motorcycles
This was the statement in question that you inserted into the Triumph Motorcycles article: Currently, Triumph America treats their independent dealers like garbage. Profits are often withheld, communication with the dealers is non-existent, and dealer concerns are constantly ignored. In the future, independent dealers are advised to only become involved with Triumph America if they wish to loose money, and be consistently condescended.

You said on my talk page:

My addition to Triumph Motorcycles is not libelous because the statement is true. The number of independent Triumph dealers within the US has dramatically decreased because of Triumph's poor dealer relationships. Additionally, numerous dealers would attest to the incredibly horrid treatment they have received from Triumph. Wikipdedia.org is not supposed to be a site dedicated to glorifying its subjects, thus, dissatisfaction with a company should also be reported.


 * Note: Next time you accuse someone of being libelous, learn how to spell libelous first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linop2 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My response:
 * 1. At Dictionary.com libellous is listed as the correct spelling by both the American Heritage Dictionary as well as the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. As well, my post on your talk page was a template which you can find here. So a) I didn't spell or misspell anything, it was prewritten in standard text in a template and b) nothing was misspelled.
 * 2.Wikipedia is based on a principle of verifiability, not truth. Verifiability states All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. You provided no source to back up your claims that Triumph America treats their independent dealers like garbage and that violates the above mentioned policy. Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, said the following:


 * I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.


 * If, as you say, numerous dealers would attest to these claims, then provide a link to where any reader of the ariticle can read it for themselves and verify the information. If you cannot provide such an external link, then your statement qualifies as original research, which is also against Wikipedia policy.


 * 3.If you read What Wikipedia is not, you will see that your statement of dissatisfaction with a company should also be reported fails that policy. Wikipedia is not a consumer protection tool.
 * 4. Going back to your statement in the article itself that says Triumph America treats their independent dealers like garbage falls under at least one definition of libel which is harmful and often untrue [statement]; tending to discredit or malign. Defamation article defines libel as harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast.

In conclusion, your statement was a violation of all of the affore mentioned policies as well as the neutral point of view policy. In my honest opinion, as well as the editor who reverted your edits twice, your statement was pure opinion and it can be classified as point-of-view pushing. It doesn't belong there and, yes, it was libellous.

SWik78 (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to cite your source on that statement, you will probably be given more credit than you have been so far. However, even if sourced properly, I guarantee that your statement still would have been removed promptly by any active editor because it still isn't neutral. It is clear that you have an opinion on the subject and there are times when that can stand in your way of writing a good article. The courts would probably have to decide whether or not the statement you inserted is actually libellous but we don't want it to get that far. Hence the reason why the first message I left on your talk page does not say that your edits are libellous, it actually says could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. In warning you about possibly offending someone, Wikipedia tries to make sure that you don't get offended either, no assumptions are made. Either way, if you wish you can create a Criticism section in that article but make sure you familiarize yourself with Criticism before you do that. Also, read some examples of other articles' criticism sections to see how it is possible to say something negative about an entity yet still maintain your neutrality. Good luck. SWik78 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)