Talk:Joseph Bishop

Stripping out of content

Before his list of college administrative positions was stripped out there was sourced evidence he meests WP:PROF for being President of several different schools. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't "stripped out" for fun and games, it was removed because it was a copyright violation, which you moved into mainspace without addressing, Legacypac. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see that because there was mostly a list of dates and positions which even if copied word for word, is not copyrightable or could have easily been adjusted to be compliant. As in he was President at (1970-1974), Dean of Y (1975-1979). There are only so many ways to weote that info in chronological order. I also recall there were several sources which are now gone. Surely the ref links are not copyrighted. It's great you found a copyvio, but think about WP:PRESERVE to where a little rephrasing would keep the article facts there. Also removed was all the new additions by several other editors. We can debate the appropriateness of the additions but that was likely not copyvio Legacypac (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It was almost a full 100% copyright violation and was copied word for word. That's not just his positions. Be more careful in your moves. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A dump of references follows:

References

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Ritchie333 & User:Chrissymad, this comment is to memorialize that the above multitude of sources posted above did NOT derive from stuff moved here from Draft space. They rather were from stuff I'd contributed to the live blp and as you can see, these refs have nothing to do with the cut'n'paste from Weber State's Bishop bio. Altho it couldn't possibly be WP's protocol in such an instance to put these refs here on Talk naked from all that text I'd painstakingly composed, I presume this was an oversight and not advertent.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed law had specifically exempted such cases as this

“Notwithstanding Subsection (7)(b), a wire, electronic, or oral communication may be recorded with the consent of one party to the communication when the person making the recording reasonably believes that the communication: is likely to involve or convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, injury, abuse, whether physical, psychological, or otherwise, other unlawful requests or demands, or evidence of a crime.”

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Article about scandal

A child article to this biography, that is also an article in its own right about the scandal, is here: Joseph Bishop sexual abuse allegations. The edit history is in a tag above on this Talk page and the parent article contains a summary of this child, both per wp:SUMMARYSTYLE.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

We do not need a WP:SPINOUT The allegations are pretty mild amd not worth a stand alone page. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. They seem no more "mild" than, say, Weinstein's, when taking into account its alleged venue and the nature of his relation to his alleged victim. No? In any case, this article easily passes wp:N in its own right, and its topic doesn't even properly belong as part of the Bishop biography, conncerning as it does legal actions involving the LDS church, as well. This #MeToo-era allegation is very timely in that it deals with how both the LDS church and jurisdictions in Utah handle allegations of sexual and pastoral abuse. And, such coverage to the scandle as "Some Mormons say their church needs a culture change" have little to do even with litigation, speaking to broader concerns. Issues about leaking a victim's recording to the public initially without her consent also are only tangential to Bishop's own biography. And so forth.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I am struggling to see any justification for the creation of the second article (or, indeed, the level of detail that was originally added here). Regardless, WP:PROSPLIT suggests that, unless a consensus forms that it should have been done, the action should be reversed. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no dual pov's in that the scandal's coverage here at the "adult" article is a straightforward summary of its coverage in greater detail in the "child" article. Since WP is not wp:Censored, the only question remaining is whether the scandal itself is notable. Basically I basically wrote an article section and moved it for wp:Undue weight concerns. I wasn't trying to wp:Own the contrib. I honestly didn't anticipate an article on this topic would end up being at all controversial. Dorsetonian, your arguement seems less about whatever pertinent questions at hand and more about editing courtesies and protocols.

But: Let's do get into the non- merely procedural issues at hand. With rgd their being a child article about the scandal (to reiterate): This topic is by no means just about Bishop. It's about the accuser; about her various ecclesiastical leaders, on local and general-church levels, after the fact, about Utah law enforcement procedures involving accusations of this kind involving the church, about the upcoming civil litigation within Bishop and the church are co-defendants, about the #MeToo public discussions sparked by the case: Should the accuser's recording have been leaked initially without her approval? Should devoutly religious people accept a cultural evolution to not subtly or overtly shun outright or alleged victims, develop greater compassion and understanding and less tendencies to judge, cavil, and doubt. (Cf.: "Religious censorship.") Very many of these things, while pertaining directly to the events or impetus of the scandal, apply only obliquely to Bishop himself.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Accuser's account

She told KUTV: "Bishop had been...taking her out of class to talk about the sexual abuse she had suffered as a child. She said he seemed to enjoy the discussion, then one day he invited her to a place he called, 'special.' 'He didn't tell me there was a bed or a TV or a VCR down there, he just said it was this really special room,' she said. ... ... ... The woman said she did get away from him, but that she felt like she invited the attack. ... ... ... 'I have great respect for members of the church, this is about bringing down a man who's a predator,' she said."[1]--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)