Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:31, 16 February 2007

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Move to Paul Staines?

It looks as though this article is going to be more about Paul Staines than his pseudonym, Guido Fawkes. I propose creating a Paul Staines article and moving this page to it. Alan Pascoe 16:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed under Early life and education

I got these facts from Altered State : The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House, as this is a link to Amazon and you can search inside the book (using the search term 'Staines'). But I can't work out how to cite this reference. I will come back to it in due course, but if anyone can help that would be great!) Skandha ji 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Source of Lawyer's Letter

The information about the Nevis company is cited here - does anyone know where this letter is from? As a blind link, how reliable is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.123.235 (talk • contribs)

Not very, I've removed it. I've left the text in, apart from the statement about Nevis. The rest of the information appears in the footer of the Guido Fawkes blog. Alan Pascoe 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reinserted the reference to Nevis with improved sources. DWaterson 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This section has a problem - a legal problem. The reason why the blog is published through Nevis is stated to be through some desire to make libel actions more difficult (the claim being that you have to deposit $25,000 to start a libel case). However, this is actually irrelevant. So long as the author of an alleged libel is based in the United Kingdom, they can be sued through the United Kingdom courts. The Nevis connection would only apply if anyone wishing to sue wanted also to target the publisher, but such actions are only secondary to the main action which is always directed at the author. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to Guido Fawkes

The redirect is inappropriate. Guido is much better known than Staines. 147.114.226.174 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The original article was for Guido Fawkes (blogger), but very quickly the article contained more material about Paul Staines than his blog persona. Alan Pascoe 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from the Subject

It is not my intention to amend this article in any way.

Assertions are being made without any evidence beyond hearsay and the scribblings of journalists whom I have never met or spoken with.

I am a private person and am increasingly bemused by what is taken for fact. I hold no public office, no position in a public company and no position on a board or a public body of any kind whatsoever. Just because something is written elsewhere does not make it a fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul.Staines (talk • contribs) 18:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC).

Paul, feel free to edit your own article if you wish, this is no longer a taboo given the current revision of Misplaced Pages policy on biographies of living persons. If there is a comment which you contend is untrue, and in the article it is either unsourced or the source is wrong, then correct it. Personally, I can't see anything terribly controversial or unbalanced myself at the moment, whether it be from the 'scribblings of journalists' or not, however... Whilst you may be right in stating you are a private individual with no official role, you undoubtedly are notable in Misplaced Pages's terms as the author of one of Britain's top-ranking blogs. If you'd prefer that this article be located at Guido Fawkes rather than under your own name, I assume people would be happy to consider that request. DWaterson 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you any verifiable evidence beyond speculation as to the identity of the author of the Guido Fawkes blog? No. It is not for me to edit your article. Suffice to say that from the very first line it is riddled with errors. The whole article is unsupported by the evidence and based on mere assertion. Paul.Staines

• 1. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not the original author of this article, I am merely a minor contributor to it, and I do not speak on behalf of the Misplaced Pages community.
• 2. Surely you must agree, as with some of your own articles, that there is a point at which the weight of circumstantial evidence becomes unavoidable. Every source I have read names Mr Paul Staines as the author of the Guido Fawkes blog, and as such there appears to be no evidence to the contrary, beyond these comments. This is sourced according to the linked citations; if these are all incorrect, then that is unfortunate and should be corrected, based on new more accurate sources.
• 3. The first paragraph alone makes a number of value judgements, which I personally do not think are unreasonably unencyclopaedic; however, the community may disagree and wish to revise in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy.
• 4. In any case, I personally am a keen reader of the Guido Fawkes blog, and have no interest in entering into a dispute, so hereby withdraw from this discussion. DWaterson 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheer weight of evidence, and media statements, strongly link Staines to Guido, so that's sufficient for the article. Guido's repeated mentions in the media (and complaints if they take his stories without doing so) make him a public figure, so this article is warranted. Describing him as a conservative is always a value judgement, but you don't have to be a member of the Socialist Workers Party to be a socialist, and although Guido was originally described as an "equal opportunities stirrer" by the media when they first noticed him, the recent political slant of his column does tend to lead a number of people to feel that would describe his political leanings as not being completely non-partisan . As such, I feel the current statements are defensible, as reflecting the current opinion in the related media. 128.243.220.41 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Friends Reunited as a source for the subject's schooling

The Friends Reunited reference is clearly written by Paul Staines, is detailed and of long standing - it is as good a reference as some of the conjecture on this page surely? Nakedbatman 17:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it is a poor source. The existing source is a published book, which is clearly more reliable. This is all made clear on WP:V. Alan Pascoe 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I must say, it does raise doubt about the accuracy of the current claim about his schooling. Whilst friendsreunited is clearly a dubious source, nevertheless the conflicting evidence perhaps indicates we should remove the statement altogether until it is clarified by a third source? After all, published books are often wrong too... DWaterson 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Because FU is an unreliable source, I don't think it is strong enough to question the reliability of a published book. Of course, I am making assumption; I am assuming that the book actually states what is in the article. I have not seen the book myself. On the other hand, I have not seen the FU entry. When I visited the link provided by User:Nakedbatman, all I got was a login screen. Alan Pascoe 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's my concern too. I haven't read the book either, and there is a possibility that it is either incorrectly sourced, or does not actually support the claim it is supposed to do. My inclination would be, given Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons, to delete the statement altogether pending further reliable sources being identified. I'm not convinced that it is a question of the relative weight to be ascribed to a (purportedly) reliable vs a (purportedly) unreliable source, rather that, even if one is in fact unreliable, it has nevertheless cast enough reasonable doubt over the whole matter to take precautionary action. DWaterson 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it. It appears likely that it is false. It's not like the book is available online to verify it anyway Nssdfdsfds 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Redaction

I now learn that a quoted article has "apparently" been redacted. No source. If it is so apparent, could you at least say by whom, and when? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.136.238.65 (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Libel_risk_on_Paul_Staines for links to multiple retractions of the material. The material is evidently regarded by the subject as libellous. As there's no way to prove the article to be true, it is indefensible in UK law. By repeating the allegations published in 1986, wikipedia is creating its own libel. Nssdfdsfds 23:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the links you quote actually say there has been no retraction. Not sure why you are obstructing me here. 62.136.238.65 04:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not there has been a formal retraction by the article author is beside the point. The article was published in 1986, and the allegations have not been repeated by the publishers since then. However, the links clearly state that all the bloggers who republished the allegations have, following legal complaints from Mr Staines, removed the article from their website. Do you, or do you not, dispute this fact? As I said above, and you appear to have been ignored, unless you can prove the truth of a statement (which would be impossible 20 years on), it is indefensible to republish a defamatory statement, under English libel law. I saw on one blog, incidentally, that the article in question has actually now been removed from Lexis Nexis, following complaints from Mr. Staines. Nssdfdsfds 07:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Merely referring to the existence of the newspaper report and giving the newspaper in which it is published is not, however, libellous. Nor is referring to the fact that Paul Staines has been involved in a struggle to suppress this newspaper report from being republished. Whether or not the story is true is, to me, beside the point: the issue, which is an important one, is that his reaction to it now is notable. Skillful writing can mention this fact without repeating the libel (if libel it be). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree that his legal response to a 20-year-old gossip piece is of itself notable. You appear to be attempting to place him a Catch 22 situation: if he defends himself against the libel, you want to report that, and if he doesn't then you will link to the libel as a true story. Reporting that an untrue story was spread about the subject of an article and that the subject responded to say it was untrue is not a fair thing to do. Nssdfdsfds 13:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Nssdfdsfds, I am very uncomfortable with what you are saying here. I made a fully referenced edit to a newspaper with some early 1986 biographical details. You deleted it, telling me the article had been redacted. It hadn't. Would you kindly restore the biographical details and reference as I originally made? 62.136.238.65 14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to this any further, as you've repeatedly ignored the legal issues here. I refer you to my response of 07:39 16/2/07 above, which you've ignored. Nssdfdsfds 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to have proof from Lexis-Nexis (not from Paul Staines) that the piece has been removed. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Staines has said it has been removed. If it had not, you can be sure that Mr Ireland or someone else would have called his bluff, as anyone can verify the veracity of this statement. Either way this is all irrelevant, as the blogs that published this information have removed it and replaced with a legal notice. Repeating libellous allegations (and they cannot be proved) is libellous. I'm not sure why this point is being argued, as with very clear evidence that it is a clear libel risk, there's just no way to mention it on Misplaced Pages. Nssdfdsfds 15:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That is untrue - the article is available on several blogs. Unlike copyright violations, no libel law says that it is contributory to the libel to link to its source (describing what is alleged is different). See for blogs carrying copies of the piece. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, I did a quick search for that, and the first one I came across is labelled "Paul Staines (aka) Guido Fawkes sue me and see if I care..." The author of the article is one John Hirst, who brutally killed his landlady with an axe , and served "25 years in prison because, the authorities say, of violent offences he committed while he was a prisoner". I do hope you're not suggesting that we should link to this stuff. You appear to be saying "it's libellous, but let's link to it because that's not libellous to link to a libel". This does not seem a constructive attitude for building an encyclopedia.Nssdfdsfds 16:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. I was simply contradicting your assertion that the 1986 Guardian article had been removed from every blog which used to carry it: it has not. I am not suggesting that we link to it at all. However, I am saying that the furore over Staines' efforts to get it removed is significant and worthy of mention. The relevance of John Hirst (who?) to anything escapes me, I have to say. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

John Hirst's blog (jailhouse lawyer) came up for the search you gave. He has the libellous article on his site Nssdfdsfds 16:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It has not been established that the article is libellous. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are the multiple retractions following legal threats not enough? Do you plan to subject wikipedia to similar legal action? If not, what is your point? Nssdfdsfds 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Paul Staines says it's libellous does not mean that a libel jury will so find it. That's my point. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So you must be proposing to bring Misplaced Pages before such a jury and subject to such a libel action? Otherwise, your point is rather pointless. Nssdfdsfds 17:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you, I am not arguing either for a link or for a repeat of the contents of the article. I am simply correcting your many factual mis-statements. You have claimed this article is libellous. No court has found it to be. You have claimed it has been removed from the web. It is still there. You keep implying that I want it linked to. I have never said that. Do not repeat any of these statements. You know them to be false. They are lies. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't call me a liar. It does not have to been before a court to be libellous. If I were to say " is a murdering paedophile" that would libellous, regardless of it going before a court. The fact is: 1. the article is defamatory. 2. It cannot be proved. Therefore it is libellous. Very simple. I know this to be true. It has been removed from the web, from multiple blogs. Multiple (hostile) bloggers have said that anyone posting the allegations in comments will be deleted and banned from their blogs. This is also a fact. All the blogs that originally posted these allegations have removed them. This is a fact. As I said above, a convicted axe killer has posted them on his website with the exhortation to sue him. I am not denying this. So why are you calling me a liar? Nssdfdsfds 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, there is no need to bring in claims about third parties here. However Staines himself lead a co-ordinated attack upon a government Wiki project (the result's of which can still be found here ) and so I'm sure we all agree that we should be treating any claims he makes with some degree of caution. The question is really how do we agree to go forward in this particular collaborative project?

I'd like to note here that the biographical detail I included cannot possibly be libellous since it was merely to do with being the leader of a university student body in 1986. I am afraid I am unable to check Lexis-Nexus myself as I am not a journalist and I believe it is newspaper article archiving system. I don't think Nssdfdsfds is being helpful by adding further potentially libellous material at this stage. 62.136.238.65 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't pretend you don't know what you're playing at. Outside Lexis Nexis, the article in question has *only* been published on blogs which have removed it with legal threats. Why keep up this pretence in respect of an obscure 1986 article that only surfaced briefly on blogs, and which you can't have seen anywhere else. Nssdfdsfds 16:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Still peturbed by your arguments, now also by your tone Nssdfdsfds. You said yourself above that the article was published in 1986. Can you please address the points I make, or withdraw (as you said would above). 62.136.238.65 17:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat, why are you playing silly games claiming that you want to source this article, removed from the newspaper archives as libellous, to prove he was at Hull University, when it's a fact that the only place you could have seen this article is on a blog where it's now been removed following legal threats, and that the purpose of this article's publication on these blogs was to smear Mr. Staines. Nssdfdsfds 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Right, Fys and 62.136.238.65, this has all gone quite far enough. Fys: don't be so pedantic, you're splitting hairs over Nssdfdsfds's wording without responding to the thrust of his main argument. You should know better than to bite the newcomers.

Whether any, all, or none of the contents of the article were true or untrue, is quite irrelevant. The only thing that is important here is that they were potentially libellous, and all users of Misplaced Pages have a duty incumbent upon them to avoid placing Misplaced Pages at risk of legal action. Misplaced Pages is funded by public donations and does not have the financial resources to defend itself. As neither of you have been able to demonstrate that the article was *not* retracted by the Guardian, we have err on the side of caution in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living people, which clearly states, "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Misplaced Pages articles, talk pages, and user pages." As I am certain the issue can be construed within that wording, I consider any attempt to cite the article for any purpose - even "factual" statements - to be unencyclopaedic. (If one word of the article is a libel, how can we believe any of the others?) DWaterson 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you are doing it too, lying about my position. Let me spell it out to you. I have never argued that the article should be linked to. I have never argued that its contents should be reported. The dispute is over whether to mention that, when confronted with an accusation against him which he disputes, Paul Staines threatened legal proceedings, despite having criticised the libel laws in the past. That criticism is well sourced and is notable. And Nss seems quite familiar with key WP policies. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of lying, I would remind you of WP:CIVIL please. You will note that my remarks were directed at both you and 62.136.238.65, who is the one suggesting the article should be linked. I did not say that you were. The dispute *could* be notable, however no one has found any reliable, third-party sources that are not blogs to substantiate its notability. I would remind you that generally blogs are not considered reliable as they are a self-published source (aside from the acceptable uses the policy lists). Until this controversy is itself reported by, say, a national newspaper, we cannot say whether it is notable enough for inclusion and therefore err on the side of caution given its sensitivity. DWaterson 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not of a piece with 62.136; I have nothing to do with him. "Lying" is purely descriptive where one person contributes something they know to be false, and Nss is continually doing so because I have told him my position and he represents it as other than what I have said. But the position you are advancing is an incredible one. The situation is that X is criticised by Y on Y's blog. Y's blog is not a reliable source for the statement that X has done what he is criticised for, but it is a reliable source for the statement that "Y criticised X". I am arguing that the statement that "Y criticised X" is notable and should be included. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I didn't say you were 62.136, I was merely responding to you both at the same time to save effort. That is hardly unreasonable. 2. You have misconstrued. It is indeed a reliable source 'for the statement that "Y criticised X"', but being a reliable source for a fact does not establish that fact as notable. The weather outside my house was rainy today, and the weather reports would be a reliable source to demonstrate that (maybe!). But there is nothing notable in that fact. If, however, that rainy weather had caused flash flooding and the death of 300 people, then it probably would be notable. In this case, you have provided no evidence to demonstrate that "Y criticised X" is the notable event you claim. On Misplaced Pages, such notability should be evidenced by reliable third-party sources, of which none have been forthcoming. 3. Lastly, your edit summary, "even a drunken child could understand this", is extremely impolite. Please do not direct such comments at me again. Anyway, I have better things to do on a Friday night than chat here, bye. DWaterson 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I alone will take responsibility for referencing a Guardian article, to add a biographical sentence to the effect that Staine's was a leader of a student body at Hull University in 1986. I had no idea that the article had been redacted. Why should I, there is no redaction. I am happy to withdrew if anyone can quote a reference to the said redaction. DWaterson's point "(If one word of the article is a libel, how can we believe any of the others?)" is going to be difficult if we apply that logic to the Guy Fawkes blog itself. There are many newspaper articles to the effect that Staines was libelling the Deputy Prime Minister. Should we now go about deleting all parts of the wiki that are sourced from the Staines' blog? 62.136.238.65 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles