On 2/24/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Sorry, but I may need a little more context.
Rob Smith wrote:
Do you feel the current article doesn't meet BLP and other standards?
Yes. The article was created primarily so nested criticism in another article could be removed, using a source citation to allege Mr. Brandt
was
associated with, or somehow aligned with an entirely unreputable organization. In fact, that claim remains in the PIR article, although
I
have thoroughly documented the source of the claim is ( a ) self publishing, ( b ) violates WP:ATT Questionable and self published
source.
Which organization are you saying the current article incorrectly claims he's associated with? I didn't see anything like that in the article. For what it's worth, I'm looking at the Google cache, as I don't have access to the most recent deleted version.
And just to be clear, I'm explicitly not asking about the history of the Brandt article or the interactions around it. I'm sure it's fascinating, but I strongly like to avoid bringing up something that is apparently a sensitive topic.
Thanks,
William
Footnote 1 in the PIR entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Information_Research
is a self published source (alleging a link with IHR, which I believe is on the spamblock list). The introduction from the self publishing source references the original Guardian article, a questionable source per WP:ATT.