Talk:10 Zen Monkeys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Guardian reference

A U.K. newspaper just cited this controversial magazine as the reason that Gawker fired Nick Douglas. This Wikipedia page should include a reference to that.

That citation just seems to be a review of the blogs by Jack Schofield. He's just saying "look what people are saying in blog town". I'm somewhat unconvinced that it's of any import. Your statement that the Guardian attributes Douglas' firing to this blog/zine is incorrect. --Tony Sidaway 12:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a better citation from the New York Times. It was in the previous verision of Wikipedia entry. (I agree that that deletion looked like vandalism...)

I've been removing poorly sourced stuff like that. The claims carried there need to be substantiated by reliable sources, not blogs (no, not even that New York Times blog. Poorly sourced negative claims about a living person should be removed from an article, preferably without discussion. That is not vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You're removing more than negative claims. You're removing every single thing in the article.

Check the diff. I'm only removing unsourced statements and those that are supported solely with references to blog sites and the like. --Tony Sidaway 19:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Please do not edit war over pages, especially where legitimate concerns about WP:BLP compliance have been raised. I suggest you discuss here what material is appropriate to readd and make a request for unprotection either on my talkpage or at WP:RFPP when you have reached a consensus. WjBscribe 19:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Nick Douglas was fired by Valleywag" is sourced by a statement, from Valleywag, about Nick Douglas, and then an article on the New York Times' site. (Any problem could have been adjusted with a change of words, rather than deleting the entire article.)

That's true of the second section as well. The statement about an EFF lawsuit was sourced by a link to the EFF's text of their lawsuit. Again, numerous well-sourced facts were deleted.

Tony Sidaway hasn't listed which material is and isn't in need of better sources; he's simply deleted all of it -- and he has a very long history of inappropriate edits.

If you're going to delete such a large proportion of content from an entry, you should definitely be very specific about what you're deleting and why, in each case. Thebonobo 00:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If it will help resolve this dispute, here are references for the rest of the entry...

A Details magazine article (published by Conde Nast, which also publishes the New Yorker and Wired Magazine) will verify the first sentence of "The Crook Controversy."

The second and third sentence -- about the DMCA takedown -- can be substantiated with the Exhibit D document filed in the resulting lawsuit, which reproduces that takedown notice in its entirety.

The next (and last) sentence of that paragraph -- "Diehl filed a lawsuit with the EFF" -- can be substantiated with the text of the actual lawsuit, on the EFF web site.

The statement that a DMCA notice was sent to Laughing Squid can be verified on page 4, line 13 of the complaint. BoingBoing also published online the DMCA notice they received from Crook.

The second sentence, about the settlement terms, can be verified by reading the actual settlement terms agreed to by both parties.

This is in addition to the hyperlink which is already in the entry, in which those settlement terms are read, out loud, by the man described in the Wikipedia entry. -- Faulknerfan 8:02, 29 June 2007 (PST)

That's much better. --Tony Sidaway 05:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the list of "notable posts" or whatever because really we're not a link farm. The added paragraph is still inadequately sourced and I'll have to go back to remove and protect if it isn't properly sourced soon. These are pretty serious allegations and I'm going out on a limb giving you time to put references up. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? You haven't indicated which of the 11 sentences need additional sourcing. (Also, three paragraphs were re-added, not one.) -- Faulknerfan 9:50, 30 June 2007 (PST)