Talk:Rocco Napolitano
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Re: Removal of Content Hello. I removed all text from Rocco Napolitano that does not pertain to the following terms or individuals: a.k.a. "Remo" a.k.a. "Rocky"; Greenpoint, Brooklyn; Gambino crime family mob associate; fathered by the powerful Brooklyn, New York capo Dominick Napolitano; Peter Napolitano; Carmine Napolitano; Bonanno crime family; Joseph Pistone, a FBI Special Agent had infiltrated the Greenpoint, Brooklyn street crew of his father, Dominick; His father was subsequently executed following the investigation into the Bonanno crime family that year; After being rousted by the Lucchese crime family, Genovese crime family and Colombo crime family; involved in the drug trade; enbarked in the sale of steroids; suspected of partaking in the disappearance of two drug trafficking gang members who disappeared after they were arrested. The removed text referenced sources that are not cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question and may damage the reputation of a living person with a similar name. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.
Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to applicable laws in the United States and to our content policies: · Neutral point of view (NPOV) · Verifiability · No original research We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2] Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. –Jimmy Wales [3] External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality, and in full compliance with this and other policies and with the external links guideline.[4] Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation (see Invasion of privacy#False light). Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above). Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs[5] should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we? Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details). 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.[2] –Jimmy Wales In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material. Jimmy Wales has warned editors to think twice when encountering such attempts: "... reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do." –Jimmy Wales [6] Anonymous edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person should be evaluated carefully. When the subject is of ambiguous notability, such edits should not be regarded as vandalism in the first instance, and recent changes patrollers should bear in mind that they may be dealing with the subject. Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth. In a similar vein, Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. Notes 1. ^ Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006. 2. ^ a b Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006 3. ^ . "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006 4. ^ Note that where the external links guideline is inconsistent with this or other policies, the policies prevail. 5. ^ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. From Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-4. 6. ^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006
Justiceace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justiceace (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
