On 6/23/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
They have argued long and hard for removal of this conviction from the article. I do not think neutral biography can omit it.
Without being familiar with the subject, if it explains why he stopped being publicly politically active, then it's quite plainly something which ought to be included.
The legal questions are best left to the UK lawyers among us, if it should be debated publically at all.
Lauder-Frost has had his solicitors write to one editor (who made no significant edits to the article as far as I can see) and has contacted the Foundation; Brad is involved. User Sussexman has been blocked for alluding to these legal threats before they were made - he is clearly in contact with Lauder-Frost.
I think they are gaming the system. They wanted a long puff piece about Lauder-Frost, when it was trimmed and the truth of his conviction added they wanted it deleted.
I don't think it really hurts to stub the article until the dispute blows over, it may help prevent users from getting indignant and making the article "worse" in order to spite Lauder-Frost (this sort of thing has happened many times when the subjects or articles try to influence the content).
The old versions are all there in the history, of course, for anyone who wants to look at them.