Talk:L.A. Confidentiel
Merging...
... 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)
- As the merge tag had stayed for many days and got no support I deleted it. Socafan 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
WADA etc.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Armstrong lost the case over the rebuttal. Period. Socafan 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Armstrong lost the case over the rebuttal. Period. Socafan 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
Third Opinion
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)
- 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)