Appearing as the subj of a NYT article is pretty notable, perhaps some of the admins/editors protecting the article page would like to incorporate this material. It would be an excellent supplement to the section on Weiss's book and commentary about Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, and naked shorting. Here's the article with some details censored out as they are unmentionable:
"Flames Flare Over Naked Shorts"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/business/20online.html [removed copyvio] Piperdown 00:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
By DAN MITCHELL Published: January 20, 2007, The New York Times (excerpts)...The site...is devoted to combing through message boards and other Web sites to present “proof” that Mr. Weiss misrepresented himself on Amazon, Wikipedia and other sites to promote his own books and settle personal scores....Beyond calling the accusations “lies,” Mr. Weiss hasn’t addressed most of the details of the site’s “findings,” though he denied having edited Wikipedia entries under a pseudonym. Instead, he pointed out that Mr. Byrne has himself posted under pseudonyms on various message boards...Weiss became especially exercised after The New York Post reported last week that the anonymous operator of {my ed: unmentionable} was Judd Bagley, Overstock’s director for social media. Calling Mr. Bagley “hideous” and a “nauseating spectacle,” Mr. Weiss lit into Mr. Byrne and his online lieutenant in post after post...
Piperdown 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You said in your original edit that Byrne had made the accusations against Weiss. That was an error, which I am assuming was made in good faith as the Times article said explicitly that the accusations were made anonymously by a website. I have reverted your insertion of those anonymous accusations. It is simply not fair of you to insert them here, as they are libelous in the extreme, and were made anonymnously. That simply is not fair to Mr. Weiss and appears to run counter to WP:BLP, which states that poorly sourced material should be removed. The source of this was an anonymous website whose author was revealed to be the employee of a company having a major axe to grind against this person. Additionally you say that the identity of the operator of this website was revealed by the New York Times. Not correct. It was identified by the Post. Lastly, you made a correct link incorrect.-- Samiharris 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Byrne and Bagely aren't anonymous, and the article from the New York Times clearly cited who they were. And the reporter clearly stated that they are accusing Gary Weiss of some pretty unethical behavior for a Journalist/Author, and in return Weiss is accusing them of lying about him. It this all notable? It's certainly context for Weiss's comments on Byrne being used in wikipedia, and it's also the only major news media coverage of Gary Weiss in a year. This isn't from a blog, it's from the New York Times. If they are violating Gary's BLP rights, then imagine what Byrne must think about the New York Post, Joe Nocera, The Register, and Gary Weiss claiming they are qualified to issue psychological evaluations of a CEO who is pursuing some of their friends in court. Context is everything in accurate reporting and presenting a balanced article. Piperdown 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The source isn't the website. The source is Dan Mitchell of the New York Times. So what should be cited if anything is Mitchell. He is the reliable source in in this instance. No one is trying to use the unmentionable site as a source for wikipedia. Should we go down a layer and do orig research on every WP:RS that is used in BLP's? That would be interesting - where did The Register's reporter get a PhD in Pysch. to determine Byrne's mental health? Does Weiss have a qualifications to determine that Byrne is having a "meltdown"? Nocera is using him as a source - Nocera is a WP:RS, but are his sources? Every biography on here uses WP:RS's that themselves use anonymous sources, biased named sources, and a myriad of other COI's. All we can do is use those WP:RS's. If Mitchell is libeling Weiss, that is between him and the NYT. I'm sure Byrne feels that every negative source used on his wikipedia entry is "borderline libeling" him, but they are from WP:RS's, aren't they? Interesting game going on here with wikipedia rules and how to selectively apply them. Piperdown 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The three articles that we're discussing here (Antilla, Mitchell, and Boyd) used several terms to describe the purpose of Bagley's website. Boyd used: "levelling sharp charges," "launched bitter attacks," "accused," and "allegations." Antilla used: "attack." Mitchell used: "flame war," "bashing critics," and "accusations." Mitchell also said that Weiss "lit into" Byrne. You can use any of these phrases in the article, as long as they're sourced and they should be in quotations to show that they're someone's words.
One other thing, Samiharris, you're trying to have it both ways. You have an extremely weak argument for keeping negative opinions of Weiss' actions out of the article because they are from one of the biggest and most credible newspapers in the world and the opinions/accusations are clearly explained from who they come from and why. Yet, you want to keep Weiss' negative opinions of others in the article, using the very same sources and Weiss' blog. This and all the other associated articles (Byrne, Overstock, Naked Short Selling, etc) should clearly be able to repeat anything and everything from those three articles (Antilla, Boyd, Mitchell) as long as everything is sourced. That's how it works. Look at a few other BLPs here in the project and you'll see that that's the standard for inclusion, that it has to be from a major news source and be quoted in context, which is the case here. The online conflict between Weiss and Byrne is now "notable." Articles in the New York Times and New York Post, two of the largest newspapers in the United States, have made it notable. Now, our duty as project editors is to present the story, without spin. Cla68 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your full response and efforts to compromise. I don't have any problem with the way the paragraph reads now. But for the record, since this issue will probably arise again in the future as the press continues to follow this story, I'll give a full response to what you say above. In order to make sure I don't misunderstand or misrepresent you, I'll outline what I believe your argument is along with my response.
Thanks yr reply. I read the Clay Aiken article and could find no reference to his sexuality. In fact actually I think that this article supports my position fully. I went to the discussion page and found that apparently consensus was reached AGAINST using blog allegations of his sexuality in the article, despite having been repeated by the media. I refer to the archived discussion that can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clay_Aiken/Archive_13#gay_Clay. I'd like to draw your attention to the following point made by one editor:
I could not have expressed it better myself. Here you don't have tabloids of questionable veracity but something much worse, an anonymous blog run by a person with whom Weiss is in a dispute. It is hard to imagine a less credible source of information. Wikipedia should not be used to spread vicious rumors, for indeed that appears to have been the purpose of creation of the website by the CEO in question. Yes, I do not doubt it is run by him. The issue is now mentioned with appropriate citations and sourcing, but without spreading vicious rumors, as was obviously the intent of creation of the website.
I am glad that you agree that the wording is correct and am pleased that this is a resolution. The reason why I felt you and the other editor were singlmindedly focused on adding this libelous material was the content of the section that was added. [2] I was surprised when I saw this added section as it struck me as an odd addition considering what else could be added. I was aware of the Forbes column and was surprised that it was not mentioned. I imagine that my thinking at the time was, "Why are these people focused on this and not on adding biographical material of greater significance?" The talk page focus on this and some other comments made had influenced my view on this, but I am glad you clarified.
The "meltdown" quote was not from the blog. It was from the New York TImes article. There are no quotes from the blog in the article added by me. However, as was pointed out to me in editing another article and confirmed by an administrator in a note to me, the blog can be added as a link and can be used for personal information.
As for the off-wiki attacks of each side on the other, that can be reflected in the article without spreading vicious rumors planted by one or the other side.
Thank you again for your comment and I do hope to visit your articles on military history as that is an interest of mine as well. My personal interests are in finance and I am not a "Weiss advocate" as I read his book and disagreed with much of it. However, he is a respected financial commentator and people of good will can disagree.-- Samiharris 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the following paragraph, which was removed from the article by User:Samiharris, doesn't violate WP:NPF:
“ | Weiss has been critical of Overstock.com and its chief executive Patrick M. Byrne and has made critical comments about him in articles and in media interviews. [1] Weiss and other Overstock.com critics, including other journalists critical of Byrne and Overstock, were attacked by a website whose anonymous operator was later revealed by the New York Post to be an executive of Overstock.com. [2] | ” |
My reasoning is that the New York Times and New York Post are major, credible secondary sources and their reporting on the naked short selling disagreement between Weiss and Overstock.com definitely makes the issue part of Weiss' notability, especially since earlier in the article it mentions Weiss' outspoken opinions on the naked short selling issue. I invite comments from other interested parties below. Cla68 06:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability.
The following section has been added to the Overstock.com article:
Although this issue has been discussed somewhat above, the discussion at the Overstock.com talk page gives a fresh perspective that the issue with this website that attacks Weiss, among others, is notable. The above paragraph is well referenced by notable and credible sources including the New York Times and Bloomberg. I believe that a small section on the dispute between Weiss and Overstock.com executives and this website and its allegations, which have been reported on in the NY Times article, be added to this article. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on the wording here on the talk page. Cla68 20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability.
I also wanted to point out that the Arbitration Committee is hammering out a decision on references and links to this particular website. It seems to be moving along pretty quickly. Even though the issues here are BLP and not so-called "attack sites," we should wait to see what ArbCom decides. It is possible this site is so objectionable it can't even be referenced in Overstock.com.-- Samiharris 13:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's the text I propose to add to the article. I believe that it's well-cited with reputable sources, including one of Weiss' books and gives both sides of the issue:
Weiss, in his book, Wall Street Versus America, criticized Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne for his stance against naked short selling. [8] Apparently in response, an Overstock.com employee, Judd Bagley, at first anonymously, attacked Weiss's and other Byrne critics' credibility in a website titled AntiSocialMedia.net. The website accused Weiss and other Byrne critics of unethical behavior. [9] [10] [11] Weiss called Bagley's accusations "lies" and further added that Bagley was "hideous" and a "nauseating spectacle." [12]
{{RFCbio | section=RFC !! reason=Editor desires to add section on website that makes personal attacks on subject of article, and question is whether that is relevant to notability of subject and thus permissable under WP:NPF !! time=23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC) }}
I would like to add the following text to the article but another editor feels that it violates WP:NPF. None of the information below is from Bagley's website. It's all from NYTimes, NYPost, Bloomberg, or one of Weiss' books. Because it has been in the news recently in three major news sources, I don't believe it violates NPF. Cla68 23:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC):
"Overstock.com controversy
"Weiss, in his book, Wall Street Versus America, criticized Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne for his stance against naked short selling. [13] Apparently in response, an Overstock.com employee, Judd Bagley, at first anonymously, attacked Weiss's and other Byrne critics' credibility in a website titled AntiSocialMedia.net. The website accused Weiss and other Byrne critics of unethical or bad faith behavior. [14] [15] [16] Weiss called Bagley's accusations "lies" and further added that Bagley was "hideous" and a "nauseating spectacle." [17]"
The editors opposing the addition can hardly be considered independent and impartial on this issue, as they are well known to be a tight-knit clique who regularly back one another up on issues they feel strongly about, which includes anything to do with Weiss or Bagley. *Dan T.* 03:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
NPF states as follows:
"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution."
Your proposed addition is not worded in a neutral fashion, and in my opinion definitely violates WP:NPF. This material is clearly not relevant to Weiss' notability. I also think that your proposed addition is excessive in length for the subject matter, and provides far too much detail on what appears to be a kerfuffle. This is not to say that ASM can't be mentioned simply because it is ASM, but simply that your proposed text is clearly a nonstarter.-- Mantanmoreland 23:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't see what purpose it serves to have this in the article. I'll have more to add but I think that probably sums up my stand unless some better reasons for why this is compatible with BLP can be presented.-- MONGO 10:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help), Mitchell, Dan,
"Flames Flare Over Naked Shorts," New York Times, Roddy Boyd, The New York Post (Jan. 2, 2007).
"Overstock.com Lashes Out at Critics on the Web". {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help), Mitchell, Dan, "Flames Flare Over Naked Shorts," New York Times, Roddy Boyd, The New York Post (Jan. 2, 2007).
"Overstock.com Lashes Out at Critics on the Web". {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Appearing as the subj of a NYT article is pretty notable, perhaps some of the admins/editors protecting the article page would like to incorporate this material. It would be an excellent supplement to the section on Weiss's book and commentary about Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, and naked shorting. Here's the article with some details censored out as they are unmentionable:
"Flames Flare Over Naked Shorts"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/business/20online.html [removed copyvio] Piperdown 00:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
By DAN MITCHELL Published: January 20, 2007, The New York Times (excerpts)...The site...is devoted to combing through message boards and other Web sites to present “proof” that Mr. Weiss misrepresented himself on Amazon, Wikipedia and other sites to promote his own books and settle personal scores....Beyond calling the accusations “lies,” Mr. Weiss hasn’t addressed most of the details of the site’s “findings,” though he denied having edited Wikipedia entries under a pseudonym. Instead, he pointed out that Mr. Byrne has himself posted under pseudonyms on various message boards...Weiss became especially exercised after The New York Post reported last week that the anonymous operator of {my ed: unmentionable} was Judd Bagley, Overstock’s director for social media. Calling Mr. Bagley “hideous” and a “nauseating spectacle,” Mr. Weiss lit into Mr. Byrne and his online lieutenant in post after post...
Piperdown 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
You said in your original edit that Byrne had made the accusations against Weiss. That was an error, which I am assuming was made in good faith as the Times article said explicitly that the accusations were made anonymously by a website. I have reverted your insertion of those anonymous accusations. It is simply not fair of you to insert them here, as they are libelous in the extreme, and were made anonymnously. That simply is not fair to Mr. Weiss and appears to run counter to WP:BLP, which states that poorly sourced material should be removed. The source of this was an anonymous website whose author was revealed to be the employee of a company having a major axe to grind against this person. Additionally you say that the identity of the operator of this website was revealed by the New York Times. Not correct. It was identified by the Post. Lastly, you made a correct link incorrect.-- Samiharris 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Byrne and Bagely aren't anonymous, and the article from the New York Times clearly cited who they were. And the reporter clearly stated that they are accusing Gary Weiss of some pretty unethical behavior for a Journalist/Author, and in return Weiss is accusing them of lying about him. It this all notable? It's certainly context for Weiss's comments on Byrne being used in wikipedia, and it's also the only major news media coverage of Gary Weiss in a year. This isn't from a blog, it's from the New York Times. If they are violating Gary's BLP rights, then imagine what Byrne must think about the New York Post, Joe Nocera, The Register, and Gary Weiss claiming they are qualified to issue psychological evaluations of a CEO who is pursuing some of their friends in court. Context is everything in accurate reporting and presenting a balanced article. Piperdown 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The source isn't the website. The source is Dan Mitchell of the New York Times. So what should be cited if anything is Mitchell. He is the reliable source in in this instance. No one is trying to use the unmentionable site as a source for wikipedia. Should we go down a layer and do orig research on every WP:RS that is used in BLP's? That would be interesting - where did The Register's reporter get a PhD in Pysch. to determine Byrne's mental health? Does Weiss have a qualifications to determine that Byrne is having a "meltdown"? Nocera is using him as a source - Nocera is a WP:RS, but are his sources? Every biography on here uses WP:RS's that themselves use anonymous sources, biased named sources, and a myriad of other COI's. All we can do is use those WP:RS's. If Mitchell is libeling Weiss, that is between him and the NYT. I'm sure Byrne feels that every negative source used on his wikipedia entry is "borderline libeling" him, but they are from WP:RS's, aren't they? Interesting game going on here with wikipedia rules and how to selectively apply them. Piperdown 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The three articles that we're discussing here (Antilla, Mitchell, and Boyd) used several terms to describe the purpose of Bagley's website. Boyd used: "levelling sharp charges," "launched bitter attacks," "accused," and "allegations." Antilla used: "attack." Mitchell used: "flame war," "bashing critics," and "accusations." Mitchell also said that Weiss "lit into" Byrne. You can use any of these phrases in the article, as long as they're sourced and they should be in quotations to show that they're someone's words.
One other thing, Samiharris, you're trying to have it both ways. You have an extremely weak argument for keeping negative opinions of Weiss' actions out of the article because they are from one of the biggest and most credible newspapers in the world and the opinions/accusations are clearly explained from who they come from and why. Yet, you want to keep Weiss' negative opinions of others in the article, using the very same sources and Weiss' blog. This and all the other associated articles (Byrne, Overstock, Naked Short Selling, etc) should clearly be able to repeat anything and everything from those three articles (Antilla, Boyd, Mitchell) as long as everything is sourced. That's how it works. Look at a few other BLPs here in the project and you'll see that that's the standard for inclusion, that it has to be from a major news source and be quoted in context, which is the case here. The online conflict between Weiss and Byrne is now "notable." Articles in the New York Times and New York Post, two of the largest newspapers in the United States, have made it notable. Now, our duty as project editors is to present the story, without spin. Cla68 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your full response and efforts to compromise. I don't have any problem with the way the paragraph reads now. But for the record, since this issue will probably arise again in the future as the press continues to follow this story, I'll give a full response to what you say above. In order to make sure I don't misunderstand or misrepresent you, I'll outline what I believe your argument is along with my response.
Thanks yr reply. I read the Clay Aiken article and could find no reference to his sexuality. In fact actually I think that this article supports my position fully. I went to the discussion page and found that apparently consensus was reached AGAINST using blog allegations of his sexuality in the article, despite having been repeated by the media. I refer to the archived discussion that can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clay_Aiken/Archive_13#gay_Clay. I'd like to draw your attention to the following point made by one editor:
I could not have expressed it better myself. Here you don't have tabloids of questionable veracity but something much worse, an anonymous blog run by a person with whom Weiss is in a dispute. It is hard to imagine a less credible source of information. Wikipedia should not be used to spread vicious rumors, for indeed that appears to have been the purpose of creation of the website by the CEO in question. Yes, I do not doubt it is run by him. The issue is now mentioned with appropriate citations and sourcing, but without spreading vicious rumors, as was obviously the intent of creation of the website.
I am glad that you agree that the wording is correct and am pleased that this is a resolution. The reason why I felt you and the other editor were singlmindedly focused on adding this libelous material was the content of the section that was added. [2] I was surprised when I saw this added section as it struck me as an odd addition considering what else could be added. I was aware of the Forbes column and was surprised that it was not mentioned. I imagine that my thinking at the time was, "Why are these people focused on this and not on adding biographical material of greater significance?" The talk page focus on this and some other comments made had influenced my view on this, but I am glad you clarified.
The "meltdown" quote was not from the blog. It was from the New York TImes article. There are no quotes from the blog in the article added by me. However, as was pointed out to me in editing another article and confirmed by an administrator in a note to me, the blog can be added as a link and can be used for personal information.
As for the off-wiki attacks of each side on the other, that can be reflected in the article without spreading vicious rumors planted by one or the other side.
Thank you again for your comment and I do hope to visit your articles on military history as that is an interest of mine as well. My personal interests are in finance and I am not a "Weiss advocate" as I read his book and disagreed with much of it. However, he is a respected financial commentator and people of good will can disagree.-- Samiharris 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the following paragraph, which was removed from the article by User:Samiharris, doesn't violate WP:NPF:
“ | Weiss has been critical of Overstock.com and its chief executive Patrick M. Byrne and has made critical comments about him in articles and in media interviews. [1] Weiss and other Overstock.com critics, including other journalists critical of Byrne and Overstock, were attacked by a website whose anonymous operator was later revealed by the New York Post to be an executive of Overstock.com. [2] | ” |
My reasoning is that the New York Times and New York Post are major, credible secondary sources and their reporting on the naked short selling disagreement between Weiss and Overstock.com definitely makes the issue part of Weiss' notability, especially since earlier in the article it mentions Weiss' outspoken opinions on the naked short selling issue. I invite comments from other interested parties below. Cla68 06:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability.
The following section has been added to the Overstock.com article:
Although this issue has been discussed somewhat above, the discussion at the Overstock.com talk page gives a fresh perspective that the issue with this website that attacks Weiss, among others, is notable. The above paragraph is well referenced by notable and credible sources including the New York Times and Bloomberg. I believe that a small section on the dispute between Weiss and Overstock.com executives and this website and its allegations, which have been reported on in the NY Times article, be added to this article. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on the wording here on the talk page. Cla68 20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability.
I also wanted to point out that the Arbitration Committee is hammering out a decision on references and links to this particular website. It seems to be moving along pretty quickly. Even though the issues here are BLP and not so-called "attack sites," we should wait to see what ArbCom decides. It is possible this site is so objectionable it can't even be referenced in Overstock.com.-- Samiharris 13:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's the text I propose to add to the article. I believe that it's well-cited with reputable sources, including one of Weiss' books and gives both sides of the issue:
Weiss, in his book, Wall Street Versus America, criticized Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne for his stance against naked short selling. [8] Apparently in response, an Overstock.com employee, Judd Bagley, at first anonymously, attacked Weiss's and other Byrne critics' credibility in a website titled AntiSocialMedia.net. The website accused Weiss and other Byrne critics of unethical behavior. [9] [10] [11] Weiss called Bagley's accusations "lies" and further added that Bagley was "hideous" and a "nauseating spectacle." [12]
{{RFCbio | section=RFC !! reason=Editor desires to add section on website that makes personal attacks on subject of article, and question is whether that is relevant to notability of subject and thus permissable under WP:NPF !! time=23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC) }}
I would like to add the following text to the article but another editor feels that it violates WP:NPF. None of the information below is from Bagley's website. It's all from NYTimes, NYPost, Bloomberg, or one of Weiss' books. Because it has been in the news recently in three major news sources, I don't believe it violates NPF. Cla68 23:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC):
"Overstock.com controversy
"Weiss, in his book, Wall Street Versus America, criticized Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne for his stance against naked short selling. [13] Apparently in response, an Overstock.com employee, Judd Bagley, at first anonymously, attacked Weiss's and other Byrne critics' credibility in a website titled AntiSocialMedia.net. The website accused Weiss and other Byrne critics of unethical or bad faith behavior. [14] [15] [16] Weiss called Bagley's accusations "lies" and further added that Bagley was "hideous" and a "nauseating spectacle." [17]"
The editors opposing the addition can hardly be considered independent and impartial on this issue, as they are well known to be a tight-knit clique who regularly back one another up on issues they feel strongly about, which includes anything to do with Weiss or Bagley. *Dan T.* 03:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
NPF states as follows:
"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution."
Your proposed addition is not worded in a neutral fashion, and in my opinion definitely violates WP:NPF. This material is clearly not relevant to Weiss' notability. I also think that your proposed addition is excessive in length for the subject matter, and provides far too much detail on what appears to be a kerfuffle. This is not to say that ASM can't be mentioned simply because it is ASM, but simply that your proposed text is clearly a nonstarter.-- Mantanmoreland 23:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't see what purpose it serves to have this in the article. I'll have more to add but I think that probably sums up my stand unless some better reasons for why this is compatible with BLP can be presented.-- MONGO 10:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help), Mitchell, Dan,
"Flames Flare Over Naked Shorts," New York Times, Roddy Boyd, The New York Post (Jan. 2, 2007).
"Overstock.com Lashes Out at Critics on the Web". {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help), Mitchell, Dan, "Flames Flare Over Naked Shorts," New York Times, Roddy Boyd, The New York Post (Jan. 2, 2007).
"Overstock.com Lashes Out at Critics on the Web". {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)