This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jason Rapert article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
((edit semi-protected))
template. --allthefoxes (Talk) 20:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)At a 2011 Tea Party rally, Rapert said, "we're not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in".[1][2] Rapert later claimed that his remarks about minorities were taken out of context.[3] 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.[4][5] The Arkansas act had been criticized for prohibiting gay couples from adopting.[6]
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.[7] According to The Chicago Sun-Times, responses to the Facebook post were "largely mocking".[8] 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."[9] 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."[9]
References
Titaniumtroop (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Main article: Fetal heartbeat bill § Arkansas |
Rapert authored a bill to ban all abortions in Arkansas after twelve weeks of pregnancy.[1] Then-Governor Mike Beebe (D) vetoed the bill as unconstitutional, but "the Republican-led Legislature overrode his veto."[2] In 2013, a federal judge stopped the law from being implemented, saying it was likely unconstitutional.[3] In January 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the case.[4] 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.[5]
References
Titaniumtroop (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
You know what? Fuck it. Do what you want.
WP:NPOVN consulted (permlink) for third opinion on reintroduced EL. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
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)