Talk:Paul Staines

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Move to Paul Staines?

It looks as though this article is going to be more about Paul Staines than his pseudonym, Guido Fawkes. I propose creating a Paul Staines article and moving this page to it. Alan Pascoe 16:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed under Early life and education

I got these facts from Altered State : The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House, as this is a link to Amazon and you can search inside the book (using the search term 'Staines'). But I can't work out how to cite this reference. I will come back to it in due course, but if anyone can help that would be great!) Skandha ji 15:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the templates shown here [1]--62.136.238.65 23:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source of Lawyer's Letter

The information about the Nevis company is cited here - does anyone know where this letter is from? As a blind link, how reliable is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.123.235 (talk • contribs)

Not very, I've removed it. I've left the text in, apart from the statement about Nevis. The rest of the information appears in the footer of the Guido Fawkes blog. Alan Pascoe 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinserted the reference to Nevis with improved sources. DWaterson 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section has a problem - a legal problem. The reason why the blog is published through Nevis is stated to be through some desire to make libel actions more difficult (the claim being that you have to deposit $25,000 to start a libel case). However, this is actually irrelevant. So long as the author of an alleged libel is based in the United Kingdom, they can be sued through the United Kingdom courts. The Nevis connection would only apply if anyone wishing to sue wanted also to target the publisher, but such actions are only secondary to the main action which is always directed at the author. Fys. Ta fys aym. 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone confirm that Nevis is an actual jurisdiction? I have always understood if to be just one half of the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis. See here [2] that the tourist board for Nevis links to St. Kitts and Nevis government site [3]. 62.136.238.65 03:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Guido Fawkes

The redirect is inappropriate. Guido is much better known than Staines. 147.114.226.174 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was for Guido Fawkes (blogger), but very quickly the article contained more material about Paul Staines than his blog persona. Alan Pascoe 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some arse buggering about appears to have removed the only reference we have that Staines is actually Guido Fawkes. Since we know that Staines is in a litigious mood, is it safe to link his name to a blog for "Tittle Tattle Gossip and Rumours"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.136.238.65 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment from the Subject

It is not my intention to amend this article in any way.

Assertions are being made without any evidence beyond hearsay and the scribblings of journalists whom I have never met or spoken with.

I am a private person and am increasingly bemused by what is taken for fact. I hold no public office, no position in a public company and no position on a board or a public body of any kind whatsoever. Just because something is written elsewhere does not make it a fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul.Staines (talk • contribs) 18:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Paul, feel free to edit your own article if you wish, this is no longer a taboo given the current revision of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. If there is a comment which you contend is untrue, and in the article it is either unsourced or the source is wrong, then correct it. Personally, I can't see anything terribly controversial or unbalanced myself at the moment, whether it be from the 'scribblings of journalists' or not, however... Whilst you may be right in stating you are a private individual with no official role, you undoubtedly are notable in Wikipedia's terms as the author of one of Britain's top-ranking blogs. If you'd prefer that this article be located at Guido Fawkes rather than under your own name, I assume people would be happy to consider that request. DWaterson 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any verifiable evidence beyond speculation as to the identity of the author of the Guido Fawkes blog? No. It is not for me to edit your article. Suffice to say that from the very first line it is riddled with errors. The whole article is unsupported by the evidence and based on mere assertion. Paul.Staines

1. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not the original author of this article, I am merely a minor contributor to it, and I do not speak on behalf of the Wikipedia community.
2. Surely you must agree, as with some of your own articles, that there is a point at which the weight of circumstantial evidence becomes unavoidable. Every source I have read names Mr Paul Staines as the author of the Guido Fawkes blog, and as such there appears to be no evidence to the contrary, beyond these comments. This is sourced according to the linked citations; if these are all incorrect, then that is unfortunate and should be corrected, based on new more accurate sources.
3. The first paragraph alone makes a number of value judgements, which I personally do not think are unreasonably unencyclopaedic; however, the community may disagree and wish to revise in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
4. In any case, I personally am a keen reader of the Guido Fawkes blog, and have no interest in entering into a dispute, so hereby withdraw from this discussion. DWaterson 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheer weight of evidence, and media statements, strongly link Staines to Guido, so that's sufficient for the article. Guido's repeated mentions in the media (and complaints if they take his stories without doing so) make him a public figure, so this article is warranted. Describing him as a conservative is always a value judgement, but you don't have to be a member of the Socialist Workers Party to be a socialist, and although Guido was originally described as an "equal opportunities stirrer" by the media when they first noticed him, the recent political slant of his column does tend to lead a number of people to feel that would describe his political leanings as not being completely non-partisan [4] [5]. As such, I feel the current statements are defensible, as reflecting the current opinion in the related media. 128.243.220.41 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Reunited as a source for the subject's schooling

The Friends Reunited reference is clearly written by Paul Staines, is detailed and of long standing - it is as good a reference as some of the conjecture on this page surely? Nakedbatman 17:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a poor source. The existing source is a published book, which is clearly more reliable. This is all made clear on WP:V. Alan Pascoe 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, it does raise doubt about the accuracy of the current claim about his schooling. Whilst friendsreunited is clearly a dubious source, nevertheless the conflicting evidence perhaps indicates we should remove the statement altogether until it is clarified by a third source? After all, published books are often wrong too... DWaterson 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because FU is an unreliable source, I don't think it is strong enough to question the reliability of a published book. Of course, I am making assumption; I am assuming that the book actually states what is in the article. I have not seen the book myself. On the other hand, I have not seen the FU entry. When I visited the link provided by User:Nakedbatman, all I got was a login screen. Alan Pascoe 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's my concern too. I haven't read the book either, and there is a possibility that it is either incorrectly sourced, or does not actually support the claim it is supposed to do. My inclination would be, given Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, to delete the statement altogether pending further reliable sources being identified. I'm not convinced that it is a question of the relative weight to be ascribed to a (purportedly) reliable vs a (purportedly) unreliable source, rather that, even if one is in fact unreliable, it has nevertheless cast enough reasonable doubt over the whole matter to take precautionary action. DWaterson 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. It appears likely that it is false. It's not like the book is available online to verify it anyway Nssdfdsfds 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hull University?

The Guardian article says Staines was at Humberside College of Higher Education, which was merged into the University of Lincoln, via the "University of Lincolnshire and Humberside". So unless someone has a good source, we should avoid saying Staines was at Hull University. (NB Back in 1986 the college wasn't yet a Poly, which happened in 1990.[6]) Rwendland 14:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Atari Video Games Champion.

Can anyone provide a reference for this material? --62.136.238.65 01:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a claim, maybe we should give it more prominence on the page?--Pogsurf 10:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we delete it? Sounds good to me.--Tom 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a reference, to "Collin, Matthew; Godfrey, John (1998). Altered State: The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House, 2nd edition, London: Serpent's Tail. ISBN 1852426047. " However, someone's removed the reference. Incidentally it appears it was actually the Atari Asteroids championship. There's a fairly interesting, even if not WP:RS, from Staines, saying it in the comments here: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003392.html The book is a perfectly good source though. Nssdfdsfds 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was sourced, but the source got lost as collateral damage in this edit: [7]. The reference can be restored when the page is unprotected. If possible, I will try and get hold of a copy of the cited book and verify the reference, but I'm not sure whether my local library will hold such an, eh, interesting text :) Cheers, DWaterson 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the book was rather more reliable than its summariser. Try searching for 'Atari' here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1852426047/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-9373996-5148159 Page 99 says: Staines came first in "an Atari Asteroids championship". He's also described as a Harrow schoolboy - not a Harrow School boy. Obviously whoever added the claim in was more familiar with Harrow the school than Harrow the rather large and populous area of London..... It's no different from describing someone as a former Essex schoolboy. Nssdfdsfds 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altered State : The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House

Re [8]

Staines is on pp 99-101,108,110-114,116,118,120 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unbalanced article

The article does not mention any criticism of the Guido Fawkes blog, of which there is much, and therefore breaks WP:NPOV. Fys. Ta fys aym. 14:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I had a quick search on Google News, and I could find *nothing* critical of Guido Fawkes or his blog. No reliable sources whatsoever. Unless you want to refer to the petty blog squabbles that have formed in the last few months? Surely not. Nssdfdsfds 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Telegraph piece that said he should go to jail? And his spat with the New Statesman? But your argument is ludicrous. If he is notable as a blogger then his blog is notable; then blogs that make significant criticism are notable. The source is the blogs. Blogs are sources for what is contained on them, if it is notable. Fys. Ta fys aym. 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that, read WP:NPOV: "where there are or have been conflicting views" (which there certainly have) "these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight .. and all significant published points of view are to be presented". Published includes published on the web. The article does not present the significant published point of view that Paul Staines' blogging is harmful to democracy. Fys. Ta fys aym. 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you misrepresenting things so blatantly. Said he should go to jail? Are you serious? It said nothing of the kind, please don't be so ridiculous. Here's the article:

"The Charity Commission has warned an online blogger he could go to jail unless he submits information he has gathered about the activities of the Smith Institute, the left-wing think tank under investigation for links to the Labour Party.

The formal direction was issued to Paul Staines, who runs the Guido Fawkes political website, ordering him to release documents relating to the institute by Friday."

[9]

This is not saying he *should* go to prison, in fact he and others sympathetic to him used it humorously. [10] [11] In any case, the Telegraph article is ALREADY REFERENCED IN THE ARTICLE.

'Should' means the same as "could" when a Yorkshireman uses it. Fys. Ta fys aym. 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this 'spat' with the New Statesman, I only see this. [12] It's hardly a spat, there's one sentence that's critical, "Once again he has not allowed accuracy to get in the way of a piece of mischief." You could of course report this, but it would only make sense in the context - something like "Staines alleged that the New Statesman had improper links to the Smith Institute and had failed to cover the funding scandal, Martin Bright responded saying that they didn't think their readers were interested, and accused Staines of being more interested in mischief than accuracy." I would have no objection to this. But covering the few lefty bloggers who've been attacking him? Get real. Nssdfdsfds 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a significant published point of view. "Get real" does not amount to an argument, certainly not one that gets around WP:NPOV which is absolute and non-negotiable. Fys. Ta fys aym. 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Staines' blog is not a reliable source on anyone other than himself. That is why we do not report *any* of the many allegations he makes, unless they have been further reported on *reliable sources*. Until a blog spat becomes more than just a few bloggers squabbling it is not reported here. That is why there is room for debate on referring to Tim Ireland's blog in Anne Milton, because Tim Ireland's attack blog was reported in The Times. Without that mention it would never be in the article. Blog attacks are simply not reported on wikipedia without reliable sourcing. Nssdfdsfds 20:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah now, I see where you have gone wrong. A blog is a reliable source as to what is on the blog wherever that is relevant to the topic under discussion, not just in an article on the blog itself. The position you advance has become irredeemably confused: the idea that we can only report what's said on a blog when The Times says what it is, when we actually have the blog itself, is ludicrous. What's said on a blog can be significant even if no newspaper or other source picks up on it. Fys. Ta fys aym. 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temper please, gentlemen... the article is currently protected due to edit warring, and the threat still does not appear to have lifted. Perhaps this would be a fine time to try to gain consensus on suitable wordings here on the talk page. Fys, would you like to suggest proposed edits to the article that would address your concerns? However, editors on all sides are going to have to give some leeway otherwise we are on a hiding to nothing here. And I would remind everyone of the importance of WP:BLP where anything controversial that cannot be referenced by high quality sources is concerned - especially that "zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". DWaterson 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to reporting things from reliable sources. Come up with something and we can debate it. Nssdfdsfds 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nss' objections are not founded in any policy or guideline. The fact that someone has been criticised is not in and of itself controversial. I'll work on some proposed wording. Fys. Ta fys aym. 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to join this debate because I believe Nssdfdsfds is just a time waster. He has a very partial view on the subjects he contributes to, and seems to be "guarding" Paul Staines in a very peculiar way.. My views on Staines are well known (see http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ros_taylor/2007/01/post_944.html). I wish you well in your endeavours to sort this page out. --Lobster blogster 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, this discussion up to now has been pretty pointless as you've just said "this article sucks" and haven't made any attempt to improve it. If you've got something to say say it. Nssdfdsfds 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small point to add here, that it was Nssdfdsfds that repeatedly undid revisions of mine both here on the discussion page, and on the article itself. --Lobster blogster 13:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]