Talk:Jason Rapert

Arkansas Times sourcing

The question has been raised whether Arkansas Times is a reliable source. It has only been discussed recently as an RS at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Jason Rapert from a single editor who said it is a reliable source. There is one mention at RSN in which it was deemed not a great source for a particular bio. A discussion could proceed here. Brianhe (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say it should not be used. Looking at the tone of the articles that particular blogger (or journalist?) has published about Rapert there seems to be some obvious bone-to-pick factor that doesn't jive with the idea that we are supposed to pick the least biased sources if possible. These types of local/county/state level "newspapers" taking potshots at liberals/conservatives (depending on their leaning) are a dime a dozen on the internet. On the other hand however, most of the material sourced to the AT can be likely sourced to other media that is demonstratively reliable, so I don't think it will be a problem. I don't see what we would flat out have to remove if we lost the AT. Perhaps the Facebook part? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

For example this. I'd say that's OK since we're not losing the basic information. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Point of clarification, this is a print publication, an alternative newsweekly to be precise, see audit info etc. on p. 3 here: [1] Discounting its editorials as "just a blog" is false and in any event there are plenty of worthy online-only sources, the Seattle P-I and Slate come to mind. Not saying Ark. Times is in their league, but should be considered on its own merits.— Brianhe (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Allegation re "false information"

NOTE: THE JASON RAPERT WIKIPEDIA PAGE IS BEING MANIPULATED BY SOMEONE WITH HOSTILITY DIRECTED AT SEN. JASON RAPERT AND HAS HAD NUMEROUS FALSE CLAIMS, ERRONEOUS REPORTS, LIBELOUS COMMENTS AND UNTRUTHS POSTED FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW. RATHER THAN THIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE BEING USED TO REPORT ON THE LIFE AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF SEN. RAPERT LIKE MOST OTHER PAGES, THIS PAGE IS USED TO SPREAD MISINFORMATION AND QUOTE LIBERAL BLOGGERS RATHER THAN LEGITIMATE NEWS SOURCES. THE "ARKANSAS TIMES" IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF INFORMATION ONE OF THE EDITORS USES TO PROMULGAGE FALSE NARRATIVES ABOUT SEN. RAPERT AND THE "ARKANSAS TIMES" EDITOR IS WELLKNOWN FOR HIS DISLIKE OF SEN. JASON RAPERT BECAUSE HE IS A SUCCESSFUL REPUBLICAN LEADER IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. THE "ARKANSAS TIMES" IS LITERALLY GIVEN AWAY FREE, IT IS NOT A PRINT SUBSCRIPTION PAPER - IT IS PUT IN FREE NEWSPAPER RACKS AROUND CENTRAL ARKANSAS, POSTED ONLINE AND IS WELLKNOWN FOR LIBERAL BIAS. *SEN. JASON RAPERT HAS ASKED FOR WIKIPEDIA PERSONNEL TO REVIEW AND CONTROL THE SITUATION ON THIS PAGE MANY TIMES, ALL TO NO AVAIL. ALL POLICY POSITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED GIVE EITHER MISLEADING OR HALF-TRUTHS, AND "CONTROVERSIES" MENTIONED ARE CONTRIVED BY THE CONTRIBUTING EDITOR USING THE PAGE FOR A POLITICAL WEAPON RATHER REPORTING COMPLETE FACTS IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER. JANUARY 10, 2016 Sjrapert (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The above message is not appropriate. Please do not write in all caps in Wikipedia. If you have concerns they can be discussed but please do not shout. Thanks, Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not "shouting", it is bringing clear attention to a disclaimer that warns readers that the "Jason Rapert" page continuously has false, erroneous and libelous information posted with poor sourcing to purposely harm my reputation. Unless you want to take full responsibility for that false information, there is no reason the disclaimer cannot be posted. It is worth noting that ALL corrections with truthful information is typically removed by one particular editor and only the false, erroneous and libelous information remains. We have politely complained multiple times asking that this situation be monitored more closely. Sjrapert (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please review the information posted on your Talk page last summer at User talk:Sjrapert#Contacting Wikipedia Directly for Assistance. That information on Wikipedia policies and procedures applies today just as it did then. General Ization ^Talk 03:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an old issue and the vandalism to the page about me personally continues with no one at Wikipedia taking responsibility. Why do you think YOU or anyone else has a right to post on the "Jason Rapert" page, but any comments correcting the errors or posting a disclaimer are not welcome? You are violating my right to have a disclaimer posted that warns readers that much of the information being posted is libelous and erroneous. I suggest you leave the disclaimers in place - not doing so shows that Wikipedia censors out the truth and prefers falsehoods.Sjrapert (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

"Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Jason Rapert. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This includes the posting of disclaimers created by you, which are inappropriate within articles. Please also review the policies at Conflict of interest. General Ization Talk 03:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)"

That is exactly why I posted a disclaimer - which is a last resort after multiple attempts to get editors to monitor the page and remove false, erroneous and libelous comments. I am quite tired of seeing false information left on the page ABOUT ME PERSONALLY which is meant to defame me while any information posted with truth to the contrary is removed. It is quite ludicrous. Sjrapert (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Sjrapert (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to have a full review of the Jason Rapert page on Wikipedia by someone in charge at Wikipedia. I would also like to know why truthful information is immediately edited off of the page, while false, erroneous and libelous information is left to mislead people who do not know me personally. This amounts to Wikipedia being coopted into an act of defamation which is wrong and illegal. If someone does not act to correct the errors, I can personally conclude that Wikipedia cannot be trusted to share reliable information and in some cases even knowingly reports false information. If you have any integrity, you would work to ensure that false information is removed, or at least have the decency to allow readers to be advised some of the information has been challenged and allow a disclaimer. I can't believe that you allow this sort of thing to continue when it is intended to harm the reputation and character of individuals. Sjrapert (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No one is "in charge" of Wikipedia. There are plenty of people here who might be happy to help you but you continue to grandstand instead of simply talking. btw you might want to read WP:REAL.Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

For community awareness, this conversation is being continued at User talk:Sjrapert. – Brianhe (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Iran Nuclear Deal

I deleted the section on the Iran Nuclear Deal, which was sourced solely to tweets. This was because it lacked any third-party sourcing, which meant that the analysis of what the tweets meant was ours (more of a concern with the second tweet than the first), but also that without any third party commentary, there are issues of the attention on those tweets being WP:UNDUE. Given that this is a WP:BLP currently arousing concern, deletion for the nonce seemed prudent. The concerns with this material should be addressed before reinserting it in some form. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Position on minorities

At a 2011 Tea Party rally, Rapert said, "we're not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in". Rapert later claimed that his remarks about minorities were taken out of context. The "minority" comments Rapert made in 2011 referenced both Barack Obama and a ballot initiative (Arkansas Proposed Initiative Act No. 1 (2008)) stricken as unconstitutional that prohibited unmarried cohabitating couples from adopting. The Arkansas act had been criticized for prohibiting gay couples from adopting.

On June 7, 2015, Rapert took to Facebook to "urge everyone to contact the Conway City Council and Mayor Tab Townsell and tell them that you oppose them for allowing activists to march through the streets of Conway on a Sunday to purposely mock Christian values and accuse Christians of being bigots", in protest of the Conway Gay Pride Parade that was scheduled to take place later that same day, which he deemed an anti-Christian activity. According to The Chicago Sun-Times, responses to the Facebook post were "largely mocking". On June 30, 2015, the Jason Rapert for Arkansas Senate Facebook page announced, in response to a post suggesting that the rights of minorities aren't subject to the whims of majorities, that "we the majority grant you rights by choice." Later on that same day, the Jason Rapert for Arkansas Senate Facebook page accused Max Brantley and the Arkansas Times as a whole, of reporting that Rapert does not "recognize God has endowed us with natural rights that are given by God that no man can take away."

References

Titaniumtroop (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That last paragraph does not seem to belong with the rest under this header; while, yes, gays are a minority, as stated here this is an example of Rapert's position on that ruling and on the Constitution; it doesn't show him making a statement about "minorities". --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The preceeding paragraph (not edited by me) also references gays in discussing the gay pride parade. Perhaps a new heading for Rapert's position on LGBT rights, rather than lumping it under minorities? Titaniumtroop (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Last paragraph removed from this section due to objection Titaniumtroop (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but in the previous paragraph he is saying something about gays, a minority, at least. In the other paragraph, he was saying something about the ruling and its Constitutionality, which is not a direct comment on the minority. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Incorporated the substance of this request in other edits Titaniumtroop (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016

Position on reproductive law

Main article: Fetal heartbeat bill § Arkansas

Rapert authored a bill to ban all abortions in Arkansas after twelve weeks of pregnancy. Then-Governor Mike Beebe (D) vetoed the bill as unconstitutional, but "the Republican-led Legislature overrode his veto." In 2013, a federal judge stopped the law from being implemented, saying it was likely unconstitutional. In January 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the case. The State of Arkansas was ordered to pay over $97,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing plaintiffs before the Supreme Court decision was finalized.

References

Titaniumtroop (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Social media, bills

User:JasonBSnow Wikipedia is an 'encyclopedia - not a newspaper, and not a blog. We do not report blow by blow daily activities of anyone, but summarize accepted knowledge that is of enduring interest. This is described in the policy, WP:NOT. Please read that, and please also read WP:BLP. Please base edits on what independent, reliable sources say, and please avoid adding content about things like bills that are proposed that do not become law and actually change anything.

Think Britannica, not some blog or newspaper article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Then why is there a WP:NOTNEWS section? By your logic, the entire page shouldn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBSnow (talk • contribs) 20:05, 18 December 2017(UTC)

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what.

This is as basic to the etiquette of Wikipedia as "please" and "thank you" are in the real world.

I indented and signed for you in my previous edit. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You know what? Fuck it. Do what you want.

(edit conflict)WP:NOTNEWS is not "my logic" but rather is Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were created by the community to govern itself over the last sixteen years. While this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", that privilege comes with a responsibility to learn and follow the spirit and letter of the policies and guidelines. We all know that it takes time to learn them, but you are obligated to authentically engage with them. We restrict or remove editing privileges from people who refuse to learn. If you like, please see User:Jytdog/How, which I wrote to provide new editors with an overview of the mission of WP and how the community works. I hope you take the time to read that and learn how Wikipedia works. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOVN for external link

WP:NPOVN consulted (permlink) for third opinion on reintroduced EL. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ten Commandments

The person who had been accused of damaging the Ten Commandments installation was acquitted. I have removed the allegation, and it should not be reinstalled, per WP:BLPCRIME. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)