Talk:Keith Henson/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Keith Henson arrested?

I just got this mail at the extropy chat mailing list. Obviously this can't be put into the article yet, but if someone can help at finding some news source, or internet resource where there's some reference to this, please reply to this message.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arel Lucas <arellu@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 3, 2007 1:47 AM
Subject: Keith Taken into Custody
To: arellu@gmail.com

(text omitted July 21, 2007)

I am Arel Lucas, and I have removed my email from this discussion list. Suffice it to say that Keith was arrested in Arizona on February 2, released on bail on February 5, 2007, taken back to jail on a no-bail governor's warrant on May 8, fought extradition until May 18 (cost $5,000 contributed by supporters), then was extradited to California on May 25. He has been in solitary for his own protection since May 26. Except for the cost to the defendant and its source of extradition legal proceedings, this is all public record. My emotional reaction to all this is not, and that is why I have removed it. It is also public record that Keith's attorney Mark Werksman is now appealing his conviction in Hemet, California, in April of 2001, and that Keith has not been released pending appeal. If you wish any further information, I will be happy to supply it from arellu@gmail.com I am also going to try to upload another photograph of Keith, since the current one has another person in it who has not given his permission for the photograph to be public. If I don't succeed in doing that I will solicit help.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.136.28.199 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I can confirm this as I am on the same list - B.K. 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Same here, I'm on the list and have seen the email too. Anyone got news about it? Miguel1626 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me B.K. and Miguel1626 can only verify they both saw that email. I did too, but this doesn't seem to help verify the email's claims about Keith Henson.

I personally called the Prescott Detention Center (928) 771-3286 about 1100 Saturday, 3 February 2007. The person who answered the phone told me they have a "Howard Henson" listed under case #389486 with an appointment in Superior court next Monday.

My questions:

Would posting this violate No Original Research?

Does my claim of a telephone call count as a reliable source? --JayDugger 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and no. We must wait for either primary sources to be publicly released in a verifiable fashion (ie. transcripts published online), or for secondary sources to cover this stuff. Remember, Wikipedia is only a tertiary source, by design. --Gwern (contribs) 18:59 3 February 2007 (GMT)
Digg this please! Creating an account in digg is easy. 193.136.28.199 12:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A link to a webzine popped up today in Google news: [1] I am unsure about the reliability of if this report from a non-notable webzine. It may only be using the list email as a source. However, scroll down to the bottom and view the comment that was posted earlier today. That message reeks of cultist, and in my mind that adds credibility to the report of Henson's arrest. However, I don't believe that feeling is verifiable. Gregarious Lonewolf 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just added an EL to a report from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies which seems to be a reasonably reliable and notable organization. AndroidCat 23:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

May be this article should be protected for the time being since the page is being vandilized and of "fair game" ?SACP 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism doesn't look nearly so bad as to warrant semi-protection, much less full protection. --Gwern (contribs) 00:56 7 February 2007 (GMT)

Striping references and fact-bombing

I've seen both done, rarely in good faith. I think this is the first time I've seen both combined. AndroidCat 04:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Smee 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I cannot revert again - but I would hope that others concerned with the truth will revert back about oh, 12 or 13 edits into the past, and get rid of the obvious vandalism and removal of sourced citations... Smee 04:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
Don't know what you mean. If you are referring to my edits, they are justified. See the RS and see my comments. I guess the "fact-bombing" means inserting cn templates by BD? OK, instead insert an unsourced template. What is the big deal? --Justanother 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Your edits seem to be fine, but they are built on top of BabyDweezil's striping of valid references and then {{fact}}-bombing the article which I don't think is acceptable. AndroidCat 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I did not look closely enough at the edits to read between one editor's good faith attempts and another's obvious vandalism. Hopefully others will sort this all out. I still think it would be best for someone to undo "BabyDweezil's striping of valid references and then {{fact}}-bombing the article", and go from there... Smee 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

huh?

I removed a whole bunch of references that, e.g., linked to some dude's website when his name was mentioned, but DID NOT in any way verify that he had anything AT ALL to do with the subject. Go back and look at how it was--it's rather ridiculous. I added fact tags to the extensive unsourced material. Wazza matta with that? BabyDweezil 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I wish that others might take a bit more understanding look at BD's points. While I am no expert on his edits in general, I do not see asking for cn on an article that is a real dog's breakfast is so terrible. Certainly not vandalism; though it is better to pick and choose a bit and use unsourced-section template, IMO. This article is organized terribly, also, and needs major rewrite! --Justanother 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There are too many valid references that were stripped by BabyDweezil to let that edit stand. Some of the references could certainly be contested or improved, but presented with a lump edit like that, it needs reverting. I see that Antaeus Feldspar has already rolled it back before I did. It might have been more productive for BabyDweezil to spend the hour after block expiry discussing it on the Talk page and gaining some consensus. AndroidCat 04:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Resolving merge

My thoughts on bits of the two versions, feel free to add points, but comments should go under.

  • "whose retaliation" Yes, of course it was (IMO), but without references of that's what it was, I don't think it can stand.
  • "The jury was not permitted to hear" Needs a reference. There should be a press story that's citable.
  • Reference to 'California Penal Code, section 422.6 should remain since it shows exactly what civil rights and law was involved.
  • Vietnam. Interesting but it's a bit of a sidetrack, isn't it?
  • Missing: nothing on the other charges that were dismissed.
  • Hanson [sp] fled to the Unites States. Fled seems POV.

Carry on, I'm either going to bed (logical vote) or watch Stargate:Atlantis (emotional vote). AndroidCat 05:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Same for me (bed). Good points and mine exactly:
  • Retaliation - POV if unsourced
  • Permitted to hear - that is retrying the case here. Find a RS, then sure.
  • Penal code - sure
  • Vietnam - dross
  • Missing - sure, add it
  • Fled - that is what the source said and is what you call it when someone runs instead of appearing
Good night all. --Justanother 06:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is basically unreferenced and an original research essay

the references that are in there are fluff--websites for prosecutors, lawyers, and various bits of nonsense but ZERO actual sources how any of them are related to the articles subject. Nothing about Henson himself is referenced--all those other references seem to be there to look like this Original research essay has any sources.BabyDweezil 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The vs. scientology section is using wikipedia as a soapbox for someone's Pro-This-Guy and Anti-scn views. The guy broke some laws and lost some court cases. We don't need a blow by blow account especially since that account is 1) original research and 2) makes horrendous anti-scn assumptions which renders it utterly, obviously, blatantly POV. I mean come on this thing reads like an unedited diatribe from operation clambake. Someone that cares about this guy start hacking the crap out of it please - in discussable chunks. This is not encyclopedic! The vs. Scn stuff is an attack piece, plain and simple. Slightlyright 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Let us also think about this article from Mr. Henson's point of view. He was held in jail, for a time denied his cardiac medications, and made to sleep with one blanket. The sources are reputable and the account is accurate. Smee 08:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
No, lets not think about it from anyone's POV. This is an encyclopedia. Your appeal to use Wikipedia to advocate for your pet causes couldnt be more obvious (since you said it!). BabyDweezil 08:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
PLEASE STOP YOUR VIOLATIONS OF Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks!!!. I was merely pointing out that if Slightlyright wants to look at the article from Scientology's point of view and voice his opinion that this reads like an "attack piece" it is also worthwhile to look at the article from the POV of the subject of the article. It was a rhetorical statement and not reflective of my own personal opinions. Yeesh. Smee 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Please calm down. BabyDweezil 08:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should he be calm when you are openly and unrepentantly violating the rules against personal attacks, BabyDweezil? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Improper and misleading use of referencing

The following is an example of the misleading and rather bogus use of sources throughout the article:
Henson stated through counsel[1] (the reference is to the attorney website, not a source for a statement)
that he is fighting extradition and requested release.
The judge[2] set a future court date for March 5, 2007 (the reference is to the judge's homepage, not a source for the court date being set) at 1:30 pm in the Prescott Justice Court[3], and fixed the security for his release at $7,500 cash or bond, with standard conditions. (the reference is to the webpage for the courthouse, not a source for bond being set)

This faux referencing is done throughout the article, largely, it seems, to give a false sense of notability to the subject. Comments welcomed. I do think the bogus/misleading sources should be removed, since they give a false appearance of proper sourcing. BabyDweezil 16:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say "sofixit" but not if "fixing it" means wholesale deletions. The article is already tagged, sonme work is being done on it, so let's see where it goes. I think that the examples that you gave above are easy enough to source and my "sofixit" would be to source them and edit to match the source. No-one can argue with you if you find an RS that covers the material that you claim is unsourced and then edit to match the RS you found. That is an improvement while wholesale deletion is problematic. I go into this topic a bit on my user page under "doing the work". --Justanother 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave it to someone who considers the subject notable enough to provide the proper sourcing. As it is, the article is 99.2% lacking in RS's--the references that do appear in the biographical sections follow the same pattern of sourcing events, people etc but not sourcing at all Henson's connection to them. I haven't the resources to establish those connections before my rapidly approaching cryonization. BabyDweezil 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, but just keep in mind that if some people are building a house they are not going to much appreciate someone standing on the sidewalk saying "You guys are doing it all wrong". They would not likely object to that same guy picking up a saw and showing them how it should be done. That is what I mean by "just people" here and "the normal interactions of people". I think that certainly most editors and admins here are aware of bias problems and OR problems but since the ones complaining are doing more complaining than fixing then there is a tendency to close ranks and defend the ones that are actually creating articles here against the perceived enemy that appears to be solely interested in tearing articles down. The only solution is to join in, find sources, edit articles. So instead of heading rapidly for the freezer, slow down and contribute. --Justanother 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Duly noted and appreciated. And even though some pugnacious Russians from more interesting times have noted the creative side of tearing things up, I, guided as ever by Corinthians, only mean to offer the most constructive of criticisms. BabyDweezil 17:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Just like that guy on the sidewalk. "Sidewalk superintendents", we used to call them back when I worked in a ditch up to my waist in water. Big help, they were too. Couldn't have done the job without 'em. Laff --Justanother 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Illustration of above point. Note workers. Note "sidewalk superintendent". Note condition of coveralls on all parties. "Hey, you are holding that shovel the wrong way. Choke up on it more." (Should note that the sidewalk guy seems to be the actual superintendent or foreman; the term "sidewalk superintendent" refers to casual bystanders, not employees. But the image made my point so well) --Justanother 17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I can dig it.BabyDweezil 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ha, I just got that. Man, am I slow :-) --Justanother 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This "sidewalk superintendent" stuff is nothing more than a fairly lengthy PA. Tanaats 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, before you go accusing me of PA, would you please be kind enough to let us all know exactly who you think is being attacked??? As in "personal". Kinda needs a "person", don't it? --Justanother 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It is abundantly obvious which editors you are referring to. Sarcasm, innuendo, and mocking humor and laughter constitute PA whether you actually specifically name the targets or not. Tanaats 20:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You totally miss what went on above. Sorry if you feel offended but the "target" of my "attack" was BabyDweezil and it was my (pretty obvious, I thought) attempt to persuade him to turn from the path that led him to one block and the threat of another. Don't know why you would take my comments to mean you or anyone else that you know. If they can be taken to mean anyone but BD, it would be pro-Scn editors that are disruptive, and that is what the bit on my user page is about. --Justanother 20:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
"Just like that guy on the sidewalk. "Sidewalk superintendents", we used to call them back when I worked in a ditch up to my waist in water. Big help, they were too. Couldn't have done the job without 'em. Laff." Tanaats 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
(repeat of my post elesewhere) Tanaats, I never doubted for a second that Justanother was mocking me in those comments, and in fact I believe I thanked him for the advice to me more than once. (I'm not going to look for the diffs because this whole thing is getting to childish). However, I might suggest editors take a look at WP:OWN. Without delving too deeply into psychobabble, I can't help think that some of the knee-jerk, trigger-happy angry reverts of my edits, as well as the hostile and distorted "complaints" that led to my brief Wikilynching are rooted in some sort of personal outrage that I have dared challenge a number of distorted bits of POV pushing that have been festering in a number of articles. BabyDweezil 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeez, another PA, quite blatent this this time, in which you express your attitude towards fellow editors.
And not for the first time, either. See also my comments on your 3RR complaint as regards your prior demonstrated blatent disrespect for fellow editors as well as administrators.
I'm done here. Tanaats 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Tanaats, all due respect but you are one confused wikipedia editor. That are not my words above, that is BabyDweezil. Seriously, if you cannot correctly interprete what you read then you should make accusations against other editors with only the greatest of caution! I sincerely hope that you truly are "done here" if by that you mean "done" trying to make other editors look bad for reasons known only to yourself. --Justanother 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Call me a pedant...

"OK, you're a pedant." Ahem.

In this edit, Smeelgova italicized a quote that (since Henson tried to have the opinion entered into evidence) can be reasonably characterized as a pro-Henson position, but not the corresponding quote from the Scientologist. It would seem (regardless of my personal opinion of the individuals quoted) that to maintain NPOV, it is unfair by implication thereby to treat one as the horse's mouth and the other as the horse's ass. I conclude one should italicize either both quotes, or neither. Anyone care to try for consensus as to which? Abb3w 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC), SP

I have implemented your suggestion... Smee 06:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
After checking WP:MOS, I believe that these italics are inappropriate in both cases, and will Be Bold and {{fixit}}. Abb3w 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability, verifiability, original research

This article needs a major quality check. His bio data is not verifiable, he himself is notable because is a refugee from justice and the main part of the article contains lots of original research. The discussion should be on the BLP notice board. COFS 21:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: the above editor has self-identified as an employee of the Church of Scientology. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I have known of Henson in the context of Lagrangian points and the L5 Society since the very early 1980s, more than two decades before this article's issues were posted on the BLP noticeboard. Any claim that Henson's notability derives solely from friction with Scientology and Scientologists is completely false. — Athaenara ✉ 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Heinlein's influence?

The article says:

"The science-fiction author Robert A. Heinlein played a major role in influencing his early life."

Did they know each other personally? Or was reading Heinlein's books the influence? Steve Dufour 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Two new news sources

These should be added to expand the article with reputable secondary sourced citations... Smee 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Heads up, recent Slashdot

Isn't anyone going to do something about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.253.209.1 (talk • contribs).

Well, the Extropy Institute set up a defense fund (and then dissolved, hmm). —Tamfang 03:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

5/20 - Former resident faces extradition over Scientology clash

This should be added to the article somewhere... Smee 10:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Done, along with a general cleanup of all the original research. Jehochman Talk 15:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

I've removed the following text per WP:BLP. Please restore if sources are found. --h2g2bob (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Um . . . BLP applies to talk pages too. If it can't stand in the article, it can't appear here either. Interested parties can find the removed text in the history of the article (and now this page as well). -- But|seriously|folks  08:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

COI tag

Reviewing Ariel's edits, I doubt that anyone would think that changing a photo and adding minor details in current events is "someone who has substantially contributed to it". I think WP:BITE applies as well. AndroidCat 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Capture bonding

Welcome back. I am no longer qualified to mediate this dispute because I've been involved in a related Arbcom case. The article seems quite. I suggest you post recommended changes to the talk page, and see where that leads. There's no rush. Take it slow to avoid conflict. - Jehochman Talk 17:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be quite, but is it as quite as it could be? —Tamfang 06:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Cite sources

"In 1985, having been convinced by Eric Drexler that nanotechnology provided a route to make it work, Henson, his wife and their 2-year old daughter signed up with Alcor for cryonic suspension.[citation needed] "

I can't find a published source for this though it is true and could be verified by the date we signed up (in 1985) and my daughter's age. The records are with Alcor. Keith Henson 09:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)