Rhododendrites (talk | contribs) |
162.197.6.47 (talk) Tag: Reply |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Also, suggest that those who have been making these changes be blocked from editing this page again. [[Special:Contributions/162.197.6.47|162.197.6.47]] ([[User talk:162.197.6.47|talk]]) 05:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
Also, suggest that those who have been making these changes be blocked from editing this page again. [[Special:Contributions/162.197.6.47|162.197.6.47]] ([[User talk:162.197.6.47|talk]]) 05:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:It looks Wikipedia is just summarizing what USA Today reported. I didn't add the content initially (and I'm neither San Diegan nor Antifan), but it looks ok to me according to Wikipedia policy. The article ''does'' look ugly with a largely negative paragraph taking up so much of the page, but the answer for that is to build out the rest of the article. If you have sources which talk about the San Diego Reader in some depth, please share them here. I'd be happy to take a look. Maybe we can make that line just one small piece in a larger article. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 03:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
:It looks Wikipedia is just summarizing what USA Today reported. I didn't add the content initially (and I'm neither San Diegan nor Antifan), but it looks ok to me according to Wikipedia policy. The article ''does'' look ugly with a largely negative paragraph taking up so much of the page, but the answer for that is to build out the rest of the article. If you have sources which talk about the San Diego Reader in some depth, please share them here. I'd be happy to take a look. Maybe we can make that line just one small piece in a larger article. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 03:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
::USA Today has published more than one article. Can you supply a reference? The statement in the article implies without any proof that the people Antifa fought with -- the victims, who testified against them -- are white supremacists. I don't recall any article by USA today claiming the victims of the violence were white supremacists. They may have claimed that white supremacists were at the rally. That would not be supported by fact either. Whoever you can't defame a crowd of more than 25 as I understand it. In this article the editor is defaming the 6-7 victims of the violent mob of up to 40 Antifa that attacked individuals. One of their victims was a father from the neighborhood trying to remove his daughter from the riot, another a 17-year-old school boy, a vulnerable woman, two senior ladies and several innocent bystanders and passersby. The Antifa felons were not brawling with a white supremacist mob. They were severely beating anyone whom they thought were not on their side and also reporters recording the event for news purposes. If you leave this defamation of the victims on this page I have heard that some of them are already discussing a lawsuit against Wikipedia. I am not that familiar with working with Wikipedia, but I will be trying to escalating this at some point higher up in Wikipedia. This will also be reported to the judge as a possible violation of the release agreement of the convicted Antifa members, some of whom will be sentenced in a few days. These Antifa were convicted by a jury in the most liberal jurisdiction in San Diego, downtown. They received a very fair trial. But they and their supporters are apparently angry about it and using Wikipedia a tool for retaliation against the San Diego Reader, which was the local newspaper of record in this case. It doesn't matter on this talk page, but I have no connection to the San Diego Reader, except I have been a long-term reader of the paper, which is generally regarded as a liberal newspaper. I have been following this case, however. [[Special:Contributions/162.197.6.47|162.197.6.47]] ([[User talk:162.197.6.47|talk]]) 13:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:14, 11 June 2024
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
Wow. I check in on this page every now and then since I started it, and this addition sounds like a hit piece. Shall I put a link to a Reader article in the SD:U-T page about the 'generous' contributions of the Copley family to Mayor Sanders, and the downsizing of the news staff while David Copley throws lavish yacht parties? FireballX301 (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Also I'm quite sure that the personal viewpoint of a newspaper's editor belongs on that editor's page, not the paper's page, since it's irrelevant. Going to remove the section and reference. FireballX301 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Removed the following:
" Because of the weekly's success, editor and publisher Jim Holman, a conservative Catholic who also publishes the online California Catholic Daily, has spent more than $5 million of his own money on three separate ballot measures (Props. 73, 85 and 4) that would require a doctor to notify the parents of a minor female before performing an abortion. The most recent measure, Prop. 4, which would have amended the state constitution, was defeated 52 percent to 48 percent on Nov. 4, 2008. "
Belongs on a 'Jim Holman' page, not pertinent to the San Diego reader itself, as per my prior comment roughly a year ago FireballX301 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Mutilation of this page by convicted Antifa felons and/or their associates.
Twelve members of Antifa have been recently convicted in San Diego for "conspiracy to riot", severely beating a number of innocent bystanders, including a 17-year old school boy, trying to burn down a police substation and other crimes. Because the San Diego Reader covered this story, Antifa or Antifa sympathizers have retaliated by mutilating the Reader's Wikipedia page. They defamed the victims of the attack by Antifa as "white supremacists" without any credible references showing that they are white supremacists, which they deny. The Antifa riot was in Pacific Beach, a neighborhood of San Diego, on Jan 9, 2021.
They also exposed the name of one of the Readers reporters who covered the Antifa trial. This Reporter has covered local crimes for many years, including many violent crimes. Antifa is using Wikipedia to "dox" her and expose her to retaliation by the violent criminals that she has covered over the years, as well as those recently convicted, violent Antifa members that she has more recently covered. Reportedly, she has received threats of violence for her coverage of the Antifa trial.
Whoever is making these changes is putting Wikipedia at great risk of multiple lawsuits for defamation and other reasons. I suggest that you reverse the changes and restore the page as it was on 18:10, 17 April 2022, before the page mutilation and the doxing of the Reporter occurred. Also suggest you not allow any other edits that reference this contentious, political Antifa trial or allow the name of this reporter to be exposed again. This page should be about the Reader, generally as a business, not a tool of retaliation for those angry about a couple of news articles out of the tens of thousands that the San Diego Reader has produced over the last 50 years.
Also, suggest that those who have been making these changes be blocked from editing this page again. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- It looks Wikipedia is just summarizing what USA Today reported. I didn't add the content initially (and I'm neither San Diegan nor Antifan), but it looks ok to me according to Wikipedia policy. The article does look ugly with a largely negative paragraph taking up so much of the page, but the answer for that is to build out the rest of the article. If you have sources which talk about the San Diego Reader in some depth, please share them here. I'd be happy to take a look. Maybe we can make that line just one small piece in a larger article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- USA Today has published more than one article. Can you supply a reference? The statement in the article implies without any proof that the people Antifa fought with -- the victims, who testified against them -- are white supremacists. I don't recall any article by USA today claiming the victims of the violence were white supremacists. They may have claimed that white supremacists were at the rally. That would not be supported by fact either. Whoever you can't defame a crowd of more than 25 as I understand it. In this article the editor is defaming the 6-7 victims of the violent mob of up to 40 Antifa that attacked individuals. One of their victims was a father from the neighborhood trying to remove his daughter from the riot, another a 17-year-old school boy, a vulnerable woman, two senior ladies and several innocent bystanders and passersby. The Antifa felons were not brawling with a white supremacist mob. They were severely beating anyone whom they thought were not on their side and also reporters recording the event for news purposes. If you leave this defamation of the victims on this page I have heard that some of them are already discussing a lawsuit against Wikipedia. I am not that familiar with working with Wikipedia, but I will be trying to escalating this at some point higher up in Wikipedia. This will also be reported to the judge as a possible violation of the release agreement of the convicted Antifa members, some of whom will be sentenced in a few days. These Antifa were convicted by a jury in the most liberal jurisdiction in San Diego, downtown. They received a very fair trial. But they and their supporters are apparently angry about it and using Wikipedia a tool for retaliation against the San Diego Reader, which was the local newspaper of record in this case. It doesn't matter on this talk page, but I have no connection to the San Diego Reader, except I have been a long-term reader of the paper, which is generally regarded as a liberal newspaper. I have been following this case, however. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)