| Revision as of 02:37, 23 January 2013 editSummerPhD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers91,322 edits →BLP exception to 3RR: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:38, 23 January 2013 edit undoBigBabyChips (talk | contribs)805 edits You can't see how identifying a MUSIC FANBASE as a GANG and MUSIC FANS as GANG MEMBERS is not contentious?Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == BLP exception to 3RR == | |||
| Re : Yes, there is an exception to ] related to ]. However, there are two significant reasons this does not apply to the material you are removing. | |||
| *1) The material is '''''NOT''''' making contentious claims about identifiable living persons. Yes, most Juggalos involved are likely living. But, we have not labeled any individual person as a criminal/gang member/murderer/drug dealer/whatever. "Some people who live in New York City are gang members" is not a BLP issue (in addition to being obviously true) because we have not said "John Smith and Jane Doe are gang members." | |||
| *2) The material is ''very'' well sourced. We are saying the FBI, various states, etc. have classified them as a criminal street gang. This is clearly true: The FBI '''''absolutely, positively, without any reasonable doubt''''' has said the Juggalos are "a loosely-organized hybrid gang". Whether or not Juggalos are a gang, the FBI '''''has'''''' said they are. | |||
| <small>Incidentally, we are not "slandering" anyone. Slander is spoken. You mean "libel". That we have not said anything about any individuals, though, it isn't libel either.</small> - ] (]) 02:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||