Talk:L.A. Confidentiel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merging...[edit]

... an article of a living person into the article of another living person is a bad idea unless one person is only notable as a minor player in the life of the other. This is not the case here, thus the articles should not be merged. Socafan 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the merge tag had stayed for many days and got no support I deleted it. Socafan 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WADA etc.[edit]

The WADA dispute has no place here, it belongs in Lance Armstrong if anywhere.

Before including the fact that Armstrong was not granted a right of rebuuttal of the source material, it would be necessary to establish that this is signifcant. Please cite some comparable cases where the plaintiff has been granted the right to rebut the article and its sources in the newspaper in question, and give some indication of how usual this is. Just zis Guy you know? 14:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe in the principle of precedence. If you cite a lawsuit Armstrong won why not include the other one he lost? Socafan 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is obvious. As stated the article leaves the final impression that Armstrong lost, whereas in fact he won. So, unless and until you can show evidence that there is any significant precedent for people being allowed to rebut an article and its sources as a remedy in law, it is of no evident relevance. Just zis Guy you know? 09:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way you wrote it it seems Armstrong won with his claim that the whole thing is just libelous. In fact he only won one of his many lawsuits and only because the judge was in disagreement with the journalists over the degree of doubt left open to the reader. The judge in the case on the book had a different opinion, saying that there was nothing in the book that made it necessary to present Armstrong's view. You should not leave out one side. Furthermore, if rebuttals never were granted, Armstrong would not have sued. Socafan 22:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the way it's written is strictly factual: the Sunday Times was successfully sued because they implied the book's allegations were true. Legally, Armstrong is indeed completely innocent, having never been found guilty of doping in all the many tests to whihc he has been subject. The appeal is of no obvious relevance unless it would be common to allow rebuttal of sources as a remedy in law, something of which I have never heard. I am a regular reader of Private Eye, a magazine which is no stranger to the courts; I cannot recall an instance where the remedy in law has been anything other than an apology. Just zis Guy you know? 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to judge if Armstrong sues people because he is fooled by bad lawyers who are just out for his money although it is hopeless. You are not the one to decide which case is more relevant than others according to your personal preferences. And the way you present it leaves a false impression. Socafan 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one case, and Armstrong won it. The appeal was over the extent of the remedy. I know of no precedent for the subject of a libel being given space for a rebuttal of the sources of a libellous article, which is what he was asking for. I don't know whether it's ever been asked for or granted before. Unless we know much more about how common such a remedy is, it is not relevant to the case, and should certainly not be tacked on in such a way as to insinuate that Armstrong lost the case when in fact he won. Just zis Guy you know? 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Armstrong lost the case over the rebuttal. Period. Socafan 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Armstrong was not granted one of the remedies he had requested. There is absolutely no possible doubt whatsoever that the Sunday Times lost the defamation case. Just zis Guy you know? 19:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never denied that he won the defamation case. This changes nothing about the fact that he lost the other case. Socafan 22:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is irrelevant unless such a remedy has ever been granted in the past. "Libelled person fails to gain remedy never before granted to anybody" weighs rather differently from "libelled person fails to win remedy normally applied". I note that you have thus far failed to provide any evidence of how often this remedy is requested, granted or denied. This information is clearly of great relevance here. Just zis Guy you know? 10:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop this and read below. Socafan 12:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

The revert war is over text that is not good english, and is being inserted to push POV. I suspect that if the text were cleaned up to be succinct, clear and balanced it would be fine. Allow me to suggest that, if accurate and verifiable "Armstrong additionally requested that he be allowed to insert a denial into the book itself, in addition to (whatever he was rewarded from the newspaper). The courts rejected this request." Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question for me is whether this is a remedy which would normally be granted. I have never heard of anybody being granted the right to rebut sources in a national newspaper. Just zis Guy you know? 19:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. If there is a WP:RS that commented on how often such a request is requested/granted, it should be included also - for example, if someone wrote "Armstrong made a rare request that the courts" we should include the rarity information in this article. "Lost an appeal," however, is too strong language. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing a third opinion and a better wording. The text is from the source so I am a but puzzled that you say it is bad English. Furthermore, I wonder why you assume bad faith. I see it as POV pushing to present one side (he won one case) and not the other (he lost another). He also lost on appeal, this is very clear from the source and in the title of many others, so I cannot see in how far this might be seen as too strong language. JzG, it would be nice if you could at least read before you delete text. The case he lost was not about the newspaper but about the book. Socafan 22:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"this request was rejected at the appellate level." sounds to me as if he had initially won but then lost on appeal. In fact he lost and then again on appeal. Could this be made clear please? Socafan 08:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"was rejected" is the obvious solution since it carries no ambiguity. There should also be a comment in there to identify how common such a remedy might be. If it's never happened before then we should say so - or remove the sentence. Just zis Guy you know? 10:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was rejected leaves out the information that he lost again on appeal. Please stop your argumentum ad nauseam that rebuttals are never granted. First of all, this is wrong. [1] Second, as you were already told by our third opinion, it would be even more notable if he had asked for something that is never granted. Socafan 12:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can only lose a case once. Whether it goes to appeal or not is largely irrelevant, unless the verdict changes. Like I said, without any information whatsoever on how common such a request is or how often it is granted, the relevance of the case is very hard to judge. Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ad nauseam. Socafan 14:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting a shortcut to your usual response instead of the response itself. You are right that rather than your argumentum ad nauseam we can simply assume that is what you will do, and space is saved as a result. Just zis Guy you know? 13:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship abuse to push POV[edit]

Even though his merge proposal had failed and a third opinion had helped to find a consensus about the content of this article JzG abused his admin powers in order to make the articles Pierre Ballester and David Walsh (sports reporter) redirects and delete their history. Socafan 11:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on L.A. Confidentiel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on L.A. Confidentiel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L.A._Confidentiel&oldid=1208066871"