Talk:Sam Sloan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Early comments

(vulgarity-filled section removed)

  • Restored in "vulgarity-filled section": see below. Billbrock 08:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Man, this dude is f****d up" would have been a less obtrusive edit. Sometimes the truth is vulgar. :-) Billbrock 03:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Check the entry now. I have re-written it from a neutral POV. Nagaflas 18:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Much improved. But still silent on felony conviction. Overemphasizes Lékó (tempest in a teapot) and is silent on allegations of sexual relations w/ minors (which Sloan's allies vigorously dispute). Billbrock 19:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You are free to make any modifications. I was just establishing a neutral base so that the article could at least stay online. As you know, Sloan's life is too well documented, so I purposely left some things out so that others could pick up the slack and so that I could write from an impartial viewpoint. Nagaflas 22:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sean WI that it's not right to "pick and choose comments to delete (especially when written by others))." I inadvertently restored some comments & not others (forgot to save at end of edit). Adding to the confusion, the original passage (characterized as "vulgarity-filled" by another editor, not me), was edited by an anon who did not sign as such. Billbrock 08:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The "vulgarity-filled section"

(vulgarity-fill section removed) This edit was made by an unregistered user who objected not so much to the vulgarities, as to the thoughts behind them. I have restored the deleted passage, editing the expletives. Billbrock 01:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

man, this dude is f***ed up. [1]. jglc | t | c 21:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC) + Edited expletive Billbrock 01:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

- :It is a not a surprise to me that the info is there. I have been aware of him for more than a year. He is certainly a bright man in many ways, but he obviously does not value what we would call his "privacy". Maybe he feels he can afford to be completely honest about his personal life. His life is unique and interesting and accomplished. That is why I created his page. BTW: If you would like to see Yale and F-ed up together, try this page: Elizabeth Morgan. And you are a philosophy major? Amorrow 22:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC) +

- ::Oh, yeah, I'm not gonna call into question his achievements or whatever. I find something vaguely demeaning in his description of sexual encounters, though. And, yeah. Yale's mad f***ed up. Rumor is that there's a portrait of Eli Yale, in Yale, Inc.'s boardroom, with him holding a slave by the collar. That's f***ed up. And, yup, philo and bio double-major. jglc | t | c 23:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Italicized section restored. Billbrock 08:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was this page up for deletion?

I think it goes against the idea behind Wikipedia not to include Sam Sloan. The man obviously is well-known on the Internet.

Sam is well-known on the internet only because he constantly cross-posts every little detail of his life in various newsgroups.


Yes, he does tend to disregard restraint when talking about the personal details of his life, but this is one of the reasons why he is so interesting.

I vote to keep this wiki up. Even if you don't agree with his lifestyle, Sloan is worthy of at least a short article on Wikipedia.

Nagaflas 03:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia. Had I know about neutrality dispute, I'd have gone for that instead of VfD. Now that that's out there, would be happy to withdraw VfD. What's proper procedure? Billbrock 17:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I too am very new to Wikipedia. I have no strong feelings about Mr. Sloan one way or the other, but to not include him is hard to fathom. If you walk into a chess tournament crowded with players, and shout out "Hey, there's Sam Sloan!" I guarantee you that at least half of the people there will turn their heads. I once heard him described as a "gadfly", a perfect word for him. Yes, he is a self promoter! His chess skills are mediocre, to be sure, but I assure you, he etched himself a place in chess history long before the internet existed. Don't delete the article. Sorry to be so verbose. --Daniel Freeman 06:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I responded on Daniel Freeman's talk page: there was a deletion discussion last year, that closed in favor of keeping the article. It's not currently under consideration for deletion. Phr (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Sloan a chess Master?

Bill Brock, who is known for his personal hostility towards to me, has just posted two lies about me.

I have never been charged with nor convicted of kidnapping. Also, although it is true that right now I am rated as a Class A player, I was a rated expert or master for 40 years and I recently defeated Bill Brock, a rated expert and former master, in a chess match with a $1000 stake. Thus, it is generally accepted as correct to refer to me as a chess master even though my current rating has fallen to Class A.

Sam Sloan

  • Factually incorrect about Bill Brock, whose peak was rating is 2170, and therefore makes no claims to be a master. Billbrock 04:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Some months have passed, and Sloan's claim that "it is generally accepted as correct to refer to [him] as a chess master" still stands. Unfortunately, he never was a chess master. Billbrock 01:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"[I]t is generally accepted as correct to refer to me as a chess master" is a weird locution. Ganerally accepted by whom? If one's master rating is from the United States Chess Federation, as Sloan's purported master rating is, one is a "master" if and only if one's current USCF rating is 2200 or above. Sloan's current rating, by his account, is Class A (between 1800 and 1999) so he's not a "master" as I (and everyone else I know) understands the term. (Since Sloan likes questioning people's credentials, I am currently a USCF master (over 2200) at over-the-board chess and a USCF senior master (over 2400) at correspondence chess.) If Sloan's USCF rating was at some point 2200 or above, but is no longer so, it would be correct to refer to him as a "former master" -- or possibly a "Life Master" if the USCF awarded him that designation for having a rating of 2200 or above for 300 games. Sloan's claim that he previously was a rated master would be easier to verify if he provided the date(s) when he was so rated. Krakatoa 19:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The convicted felon claims to have been a master (or, more correctly, claims that "it is generally accepted as correct to refer to [him] as a chess master") based on UNRATED results circa age 21. I have been unable to find a USCF rating for Sloan at or above 2200 in any year since 1965. Heh. Billbrock 18:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I was last board on the U.C. Berkeley chess team that went to Toronto to compete in the National Collegiate Chess Championship, some time in the late 1960's. I do not remember exactly which year, though it was before I graduated in 1969, and Toronto had just survived its worst blizzard of the past several years. I recall that we had an IM-strength first board, Sam was master strength at second board, Bob Hammie was strong Expert at third board, and I was a middling Expert at fourth board. Contemporaries on the Berkeley chess scene at that time were Frank Thornally, Dennis Waterman, Alan Benson, Mike Goodall, Randy Hough, Larry Christiansen, John Grefe, and Julio Kaplan. Maybe they could comment on Sam's chess strength back then. On a side note, Sam Sloan was team captain, and it was his efforts that lead the university to fund the trip. Speaking of bias, what does "convicted felon" have to do with whether Sam is/was a chess master? Sounds like bias to me. DavidForthoffer 06:00 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On June 15, 2007, some anonymous person removed my statement that Sam was master strength at the time of the Toronto National Collegiate Chess Championship in the late 1960's. I reinstated it today (June 19). Although Wiki guidelines do call for removal of poorly sourced statements regarding contested issues, and this is a poorly sourced statement (though better than a no-sourced statement), it is the only fact proffered for Sam's chess strength in the late 1960's. Perhaps Billbrock could post the ratings (and sources) he found for Sam in the late 1960's. A highest rating of e.g. 2170 would not change my opinion that Sam was master strength in the late 1960's (because my opinion is based on his results against acknowledged masters of the era), but would make my opinion less credible, perhaps leading to "near master strength in the late 1960's". Note: I diligently searched for National Collegiate Chess Championship records on the web back to then, but could not find anything that old. I do agree with Billbrock it is not appropriate to refer to Sam now as a master. Although certain titles are permanent, such as Grandmaster, International Master, and Life Master, other titles reflect a player's current chess strength, such as National Master, Expert, Class A Player, etc.. Sam is not now a master or master strength, even if he were to occasionally beat an acknowledged master. DavidForthoffer 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Coincidentally, my peak to date, circa 1989, was (exactly) 2170. There may have been stretches in my playing career when I played at master strength: I certainly don't consider myself an objective judge. But I certainly never was a "rated master," and never claimed to be one. I do not dispute, and have never disputed, that Sloan may at one time have been of master strength, at a time when he had an admirable talent for multitasking. But was Sloan ever a "rated master"? Rated by whom? (Some folks may be smarter than the average Ph.D. Does this give them the right to append the degree to their résumé? Sloan, who spends an inordinate percentage of his day calling the credibility of others into question, thinks not. On that, we agree.) Billbrock 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this footnote. It's not that I don't believe you - its that citations are for verifiability, and need to point to published works. --Smtomak 17:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sloan is a convicted felon

Bill, please reference your claim that he was convicted of kidnapping. Until then, I am removing it. ausa کui ×04:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • ok: here's one (search for "felony" on this rather large page & you'll find what purports to be Sloan's public record. Granted, on the net, anything can be spoofed: bear with me a minute and I'll get you a second source. Billbrock 05:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • This is more informal proof: Larry Parr is a frequent defender of Sloan. In the given link and elsewhere, he characterizes the felony conviction as the State's unnatural intervention in a family affair. (Note further that in the given link, Parr is responding to Wick Deer, who is admitted to the Indiana bar.Billbrock 05:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Both of those sources are second-hand. ausa کui ×05:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
How about this? Note that this felony conviction is in addition to the attempted abduction conviction (but that's admittedly a technicality; both appear to have arisen from the same affair)Billbrock 05:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Who has the NPOV issues here? I'm happy to correct anything factually incorrect. Sloan is correct that I was in error to describe his felony conviction(s) as (a) kidnapping conviction; in fact, they were for attempted abduction (important mitigating factor, of his own daughter), and failure to appear. Sloan vigorously contested the court's jurisdiction. Innocent people do get convicted in these United States; a felony record is a factual matter, not a matter for debate. Billbrock 05:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Saying that someone is a convicted felon is a serious matter that should be established without question before Wikipedia reports on it. Please do not escalate this debate with ad hominems. ausa کui ×05:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, what would you consider sufficient proof? I can order the criminal records of "M. Ismail Sloan" from the Commonwealth of Virginia at nominal cost. Would you first accept that Sloan is also known by that name? Would the records need to come directly to you? Would email be acceptable? Alternatively, you could ask Sloan.... Billbrock 06:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sloan's felony conviction is hardly a secret to members of the U.S. Chess Federation: ADM 05-18, which would have prohibited a convicted felon from serving on the USCF Board, was viewed by many as a transparent attempt to keep Sloan from participating in future elections. The motion failed. Billbrock 06:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Meanwhile, the father was tried in absentia on December 16, 1991 and sentenced to ten days in jail on the misdemeanor charge of contempt of a 1986 order. The father was also tried and convicted on January 13, 1993 of the attempted abduction of his own daughter and sentenced to five years in prison. The appeal of that sentence was affirmed by a 6-3 vote of an en banc panel of this court. See Sloan v. Commonwealth, No. 93-0934-3. The matter is still pending before the United States Supreme Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari, Sloan v. Virginia, No. 95-8909. The father was released on parole after serving about two years of his five years and ten day sentence.

(Possible defense: perhaps Sloan does not own the domain "samsloan.com".) Billbrock 06:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is a WHOIS of samsloan.com. On 16 June 2007, it showed that the Registrant is Sam Sloan, 1664 Davidson Ave., Apt 1B, Bronx NY. DavidForthoffer 16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have provided sufficient proof of Sloan's felony record, and will restore a NPOV version to the article. Billbrock 06:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Samsloan.com is registered to him. I find that link satisfying, but you might want to get a hard copy of the materials in case he sees this and takes it down. Thanks. ausa کui ×06:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

One final comment that reflects well on Sloan's major accomplishment: it's amazing that a convicted felon won a pro se case before the USSC on an unrelated civil matter. Cojones are required. Billbrock 07:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

To retrieve Sloan's felony conviction records, go to http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/courts.html

Select "Circuit Court Case Information" (not "Circuit Courts")

Select Lynchburg Circuit and press Begin

Select Criminal and press Continue

Go to Case Search enter Name: "SLOAN"

Press Search by Name; results are returned under SLOAN, ISMAIL M.; SLOAN, M. ISMAIL; SLOAN, SAMUAL H.; SLOAN, SAMUEL HOWARD Billbrock 00:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious as to who submitted the information regarding Sam on Wikipedia. As Sam is a shameless self-promoter, I would guess he did it. If this is the case, I strongly recommend deleting everything about him.


Yes Sam is a convicted felon.

Virginia Courts Case Information
Lynchburg Circuit - Criminal Division
CR91003195-00 
ATTEMPTED ABDUCTION 
Code Section: 18.2-26
Charge Type: Felony 
01/13/93, 5 year sentence

of which he served about two years. Even though I have removed the Shamema section, I note that he was abudcting his own biological daughter from Shemema's custodians, after being ordered from the court not to do so. Note that the VfD discussions have emphasized that we restrict the article to important historical data. This whole Shemama/felony thing seems to fall under "not encyclopedic". 69.181.82.221 01:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

But it's relevant to his major accomplishment! Impressive that he won pro se; much more impressive that a convicted felon won pro se. I have therefore restored the reference. I'm not happy with its obtrusiveness myself; feel free to make the reference less so. Further (again bracketing my own feelings about Sloan), bear in mind that innocent people get convicted of felonies more frequently than the judicial system cares to admit. Billbrock 07:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not very relevant. (You're just looking for a reason to sneak it in, Billbrock.) What's interesting is that in modern times, a non-lawyer (Sam Sloan) argued and won. It's much less interesting that this person (lawyer or not) has had prior legal trouble. Lawyers get in legal trouble just as much as others, as far as I know. We don't know that it's rare for a felon to win an argument before the court, unless a felon is permanently disbarred in which case the felon could only be a non-lawyer -- but even in that case he would have legal training and experience. I would be shocked if the Justices take the background (which law school did they attend, misdemeanor or felony convictions, DUI history, etc.) of the people in the chamber into account, because they must write opinions that are applied generally.

The remarkable thing is that someone without formal legal training or experience did it, because it requires remarkable skill in an area of the legal profession.

As noted elsewhere on this page, I'd gotten the chronology (felony conviction / Supreme Court win) wrong earlier. Billbrock 21:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Who got Sam Sloan involved with Wikipedia

This is A.W. Morrow. I got Sam Sloan involved with Wikipedia. Sam has been a quiet and contributing member to Wikipedia in the area of languages of Pakistan and chess biographies of players he has known first hand.

See Special:Contributions/Sam_Sloan

I also created this article. Sloan argued a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Not one of you, nor I, nor Bill Brock, have done anything so historically important. This page has already been throught a VfD process and survived.

Thanks to a admin log incident that was started by User:Nunh-huh being distrubed about my "pattern of edits" (I could not find any official Wikiepdia policy about "pattern of edits"), rather than the final product in the articles I created, and my display of anger at watching him undo a month's worth of my work, the User:Amorrow account et. al. has been summarily banned from Wikipedia I felt I had been contributing and this whole thing was a misunderstanding: Special:Contributions/Amorrow

(taunting paragraph removed)

172.196.184.32 02:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable edit. One's personal life is, generally speaking, one's personal life. However, Sloan's case is unusual in that he's put it all out there, and his account of his life is inconsistent with his Web presence. Would like to see issues raised by pages such as

. Billbrock 05:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Bill and Andrew are discussion the points via traditional (i.e. Non-Wikipedia) email now.

Possible changes from "career as a broker was ruined." to "reputation and career as a broker was ruined.". Seems redundant.

The cite offensive pages certainly are objectionable, but a small fraction of Sam's entire site. Unless he can be shown to be breaking USA law, they may just have to be overlooked as an example of Sam's first amendment rights. Perhaps an additional well-placed adjective or two in the text would help to warn the reader of their existance. 172.197.201.166 14:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If Sam Sloan can't be included in the Wikipedia then about 90% of the people already in it can't. So Sam is not a paragon of excellence. He seems to be someone of poor taste and habits to some. So what. His life story and experiences from what I gather are worthy of Hollywood movie. So Sam self promotes. So what. This is Sam Sloan we are talking about. What else do you expect? The way I see it, anyone who has the balls to drive a Volkswagen from Europe to Afganistan for the purpose of seeking sex with exotic women is worthy of some attention.

Brokerage Career

From reading the facts of the USSC case, it's clear that Sloan was abused by the SEC, and deserved to win the case. But why was his license not restored? Billbrock 05:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the extended revocation of the brokerage license, and the ensuing and complete destruction of his business and reputation had something to do with his choosing not to incur the additional expense and effort to restore his license to its former luster. If he indeed did have the time and money, I suppose it was sloppy of him not to do so, but it does seem like a Pyrrhic victory in the business arena, paling in comparison to the court win. I will have to ask him about it the next time I talk to him. AWM. 172.197.201.166 14:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Sloan himself will share the story here. Billbrock 01:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Continued Failure to Achieve NPOV

Much as I dislike Sloan, I have sought NPOV in my own edits. Howwever, the most recent editorial changes are again veering towards a Sloan-centric worldview, one not shared by most of humanity. It may be that humanity is wrong and Sloan is right. Billbrock 01:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I am suspicious of a lot of your edits here. I don't mean to be confrontational, but it does seem as if you are trying to smear him. Maybe it's not deliberate, but it does seem that way. ausa کui × 01:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
You are correct that I really do not like the fellow. I am able to bracket this dislike. A "just-the-facts" article is fine; a celebration of his life is inappropriate. An encyclopedia article has conventions; kindly consider using them. Billbrock 01:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I would like you to consider the possibility that your strong dislike for him might make an otherwise normal article appear excessively adulatory to you. ausa کui × 02:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Point conceded. However, the second VfD was instituted by other readers who agree with me that this article reads more like a vanity than a standard article. I believe that deletion is unnecessary; the way to remedy the problems with this article is to seek NPOV. (If we wanted to read an entry approved by Sloan, we could go to his website. If we wanted to read an entry approved by me, I could post it on mine. A good entry might satisfy the mythical neutral reader.) In comments above, I have hyperlinked to issues not addressed. Billbrock 01:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
What would Charles and Shelby Roberts think of this article? Billbrock 03:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
They would probably ignore it since it no longer mentions Shemema or them. 69.181.82.221 02:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I know this is coming in late, but I just wanted to re-affirm the opinions of others in stating that you, Billbrock, seem to have an agenda against Sam. There are two sides to every story, but you seem to be the most vocal and controversial. The great thing about Wikipedia is that over time and numerous edits a kind of general consensus can be made. Perhaps you should consider sitting this article out. There are others who may take your side that are better able to work with others in forming this consensus. --Sean WI 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I admit that I do have an axe to grind. Note, however, that my POV has not been reflected in the article itself, as I freely admit that I am incapable of acheiving NPOV. If you haven't already had the pleasure, Sean WI, meet Mr. Sam Sloan. I would argue that none of this is reflected in the article. Might as well write that David Duke loves his nieces & nephews. But I shall leave future editing of the article itself to others. Billbrock 08:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There have been allegations that someone masquerading as Sam Sloan sent more than a thousand emails. Is it possible that the post referenced above"Meet Mr. Sam Sloan" was also phony, in order to defame Sloan? If it were phony, then Sloan might not be the sort of person you think he is.-Richard Peterson(NOT the chess tournament director Richard Peterson)24.7.28.186 (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I refrained from editing the article for more than one year; the current edits (unpleasant as they may be) are done to restore some semblance of NPOV. Billbrock 21:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

recent vfd discussion complained about trivia

The recent VfD discussion felt that the article was too long. The page did start out fairly short, but it got loaded up with details that then needed a re-edit to make those details NPOV. It is probably time to cut out some details. 69.181.82.221 19:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

One other thing about Sam Sloan that makes him unique: He is probably one of the few persons except for Wikimedia#Board_of_Trustees, who both rates a biographical page in W and also current makes regular W contributions. It would also seem that none of the Board members have non-W accomplishments that would cause them to rank a W page otherwise. It would be nice to know if there are any other people who have a W page about non-W activities and actively contribute to W. 69.181.82.221 22:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

One would hope so. The bar really isn't that high. For instance, being an Assistant Professor at any college anywhere seems to be good enough. I don't consider myself wildly notable, but I could probably write a biography of myself that would survive a deletion vote. Krakatoa 23:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I guess User:William M. Connolley / William Connolley is one such pair of pages. 69.181.82.221 19:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
In general being an more notable than the "average professor" is what is needed to be encyclopedically notable ("the average college professor test"), although I have a feeling that notability standards have declined slightly over the past months. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sloan's felony convictions

Billbrock re-added information about Sloan's felony convictions on the asserted rationale that they make Sloan's 9-0 win as a pro se litigant before the Supreme Court all the more notable. This seems dubious: having felony convictions doesn't in and of itself make one stupid. Some people with far more serious felony convictions than Sloan's have become capable "jailhouse lawyers." (Of course, the odds of the Supreme Court letting an incarcerated felon argue a case are probably "slim and none, and slim just left town.") Krakatoa 23:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Have other convicted felons won as counsel before the USSC? (Conviction predating win, of course; John Mitchell-heh.) Generally, these folks won't be admitted to the bar; perhaps extenuating circumstances allowed them to successfully petition for admittance. There may be others, but I don't know of any. Billbrock 01:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know whether other convicted felons have successfully argued cases before the Court. One would expect that at least one other such person had done so. More relevant, I think, is that Sloan won as a pro se non-lawyer. It's very unusual for such a person to argue, let alone win, a case before the Supreme Court. Krakatoa 18:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The felony conviction was in 1993 well AFTER the USSC case, which was 1978. All the vfd talk was about the article being too long. We dropped the Shemama stuff, which includes the felony stuff. While painful for Sloan, it was the least historical part of the page. You should not just drop the felony thing in wihtout the context and the context just takes up too large a percentage of the whole page. 69.181.82.221 20:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Oops! Agree. Billbrock 00:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence is not a complete sentence. It should say what Sam Sloan is. What is this guys notability? Is it chess playing, Internet presence or winning in the Supreme Court? /skagedal[talk] 12:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A Wikipedia entry on a Taxi Cab Driver?? This is absolutely hilarious. Perhaps we can all scour the streets looking for other ordinary people so we can fill up Wikipedia with inane rubbish. Laughable.

Mr. Anonymous Laugher, people are not totally and wholly defined by their employment. Michael Faraday was a clerk in a bookstore. Albert Einstein was a patent clerk. Ed Witten was a newspaper writer. Joseph Conrad was a sailor. Eric Hoffer was a longshoreman. What were William Faulkner and Jack Kerouac? The list could go one for a long time.Lestrade 18:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Deleted material

I cut out a lot of information out of this article as uncited and unverifiable. If you want to re-insert it, be my guest, but please cite, cite, cite. See WP:CITE and WP:RS. I'll continue to delete all uncited information in this article.

Note: per WP:RS, Sloan's website is not an acceptable source for information about himself. The ONLY statements that Sloan's site can be used as a source for are statements of the type "Sloan claims...." All facts must appear in third-party reputable sources. --Pierremenard 17:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sloan has a good reputation for, once posted, not altering his documents. Cetainly many other people on Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles gain their notability based on their own web site, such as the web comic authors. I am reverting your deletes for the moment. -- Pinktulip 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS states that "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source." I'm afraid a personal website cannot be used as a sole source, even if the maintainer of that website is notable. --Pierremenard 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, but the custody story is brief and "just the facts" and it clearly leads to his status as felon. The custody struggle documentation is hard to find elsewhere, but the felon story is unfair if presented without it. Also, you ripped out all references to his participation in Asian chess despite the book that he published. Well, perhaps it is a better article for this iteration. -- Pinktulip 21:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that I took out some material that could potentially be re-inserted. I have no objection at all for its reinsertion, if its accompanied by citations to realiable sources. For example, I don't object to the custody story since its accompanied by a citation to the relevant court case (which was not so in the original version). --Pierremenard 02:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As for the book, I have no problem with inserting the fact that he wrote a book about asian chess, which is a fact easily verifiable by a visit to amazon.com. However, the book appears to be self-published (the website for ishi press is also sam sloan's webpage) so none of the claims in the book can be presented as facts. Unless there is anothe reliable source documenting the facts that: (i) Sloan has visited 80 countries (ii) Sloan has competed in Thai, Chinese, and Japanese chess tournaments, these statements ought to be either removed or rephrased as "Sloan claims to have visited..." or "Sloan claims to have competed..." --Pierremenard 02:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Pinktulip 16:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not fair at all. User:Pierremenard is a menace and should be blocked.

I had nothing to do with writing my biography and I do not know the people who did. User:Pierremenard states repeatedly that my book "Chinese Chess for Beginners" is self published. Not true at all. The book was published in 1989 by Ishi Press. Ishi Press is a very well known and highly reputable book publishing company. At that time, I had nothing to do with the management of Ishi Press. The book was commissioned by James Connelley with whom I was not even on good terms. I was selected to be the author because I had just won the World Championship of Chinese Chess for Non-Chinese. Ishi Press is the world's leading publisher of books on Oriental games, especially go. Ishi Press has published one hundred books. I wrote only one of those books. My book has sold more than 6,000 copies which by itself qualifies me as notable. User:Pierremenard would know this if he spent just five minutes researching this subject before making his absurd statements.

If you doubt this, go to http://wxf.hypermart.net/eg/wxf-masters.pdf and scroll down to page 8 of the PDF file and you will see that I finished second in the World Championship of Chinese chess in 1990. (Of course, it is written in Chinese and User:Pierremenard probably cannot read Chinese very well, but User:Pierremenard should learn Chinese before he makes his abysmally stupid statements about Chinese chess.)

The fact that I have represented the United States in international shogi competitions has been published in Shogi World magazine and in newspapers in Japan. My games which I played in the national championship of Thai Chess in Bangkok were published in Thairath Newspaper and in several other newspapers in Thailand. The fact that I wrote a computer chess program which competed in the 1986 World Computer Chess Championship was reported in the magazine of the International Computer Chess Magazine. The fact that I am the only non-lawyer to argue orally before the Supreme Court of the United States was the subject of an article in the October 2002 issue of American Lawyer Magazine. The article is entitled "Building A Better Advocate" by Tony Mauro.

And so on. As far as I can tell, not one word in the biography of me is based upon my website. I challenge User:Pierremenard to cite anything, anything at all in this biography which is based on my website. In fact, I do not agree with some of the biography and if I were going to write it I would write it completely differently.

User:Pierremenard has also deleted content written by me. I qualify as an expert on chess because articles by me have been published at one time or another in virtually every major chess publication in the world. Experts are allowed and indeed encouraged to post to Wikipedia.

User:Pierremenard is a menace to Wikipedia. In the few days since he became a registered user, he has been going about deleting content all over the place. Yesterday, he deleted most of the biography of a Japanese TV Star. (How much does he really know about Japanese TV stars?) At least I have to say that he is a non-discriminating vandal. He deletes content randomly everywhere, not just here. If allowed to continue, soon there will be nothing left in Wikipedia. Sam Sloan 11:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam: The process is not fair in that Pierremenard chose to come after your article rather than the 900,000 other articles at Wikipedia, but this kind of bullying that happens in this anarchic/communist environment. I realize that biographies are more full in that people get to talk about their parents and family and stuff, but in the game of negotiating points, those details are low on the "notablity" ranking. You have gotten a taste these admins and their mindset now. You know that this is their viewpoint if you invoke their authority. Is it not a reasonable viewpoint that they want the information to be independently corraborated? It is harder to get on-line access to highly-reliable geneology information. Remeber the legwork I had to do for Claire? The information was on a public computer, but it was not on the Internet. I think that your involvement with Ishi Press does not reduce your works down to the status of "self-published", but there is some small credibility penalty involved. It would seem that Pierremenard's style is certainly more sophisticated than Billbrock's style. Pierremenard does seem to be changing his ways: rather than just delete the info, he is now simply preprending it with "Sloan writes..." or some such clause. I will look at his other "contributions". -- Pinktulip 13:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's another [this link was blacklisted Voorlandt 07:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)] link (from The Anglo-American Cyclopaedia?) for Pinktulip: compare to this page and this page. then get back to me on your findings. Billbrock 09:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, this comment is pure vandalism. I've notified the admin who reprimended billbrock on his talk page. --Pierremenard 10:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Your evenhandedness is admirable. However, kindly look at the links provided. One of the images in the first link provided is relevant to the second and third links. There is a characterization of the photo subject's age in the second link. (I have known this for some time, but someone else also discovered this and posted to Usenet.) We are all imperfect beings; not all of us advertise our imperfections as virtues. WRT Billbrock, please note that I have agreed not to further edit the article itself. Billbrock 03:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see the connection between the facts you allude to and the matter discussed in this thread. Whether Sam Sloan is a good or bad person is completely irrelevant to his wikipedia article, which is supposed to be made up of verifiable facts about Sloan. -- Pierremenard 03:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Simply that Sloan is using a meatpuppet to refashion his biography in a manner pleasing to his eyes. Are his websites allowed to be introduced as sources for certain types of material, and not for other types of material? The NPOV version of this article would doubtless leave both Sloan and myself dissatisfied; I think you were very near that point at the end of your first round of revisions. Billbrock 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
On the basis of the links provided immediately above, could one fairly state, "Sloan claims that X"? I will not make such an edit, but I think this could be fairly made given the standards you suggest. No value judgment need be attached. Billbrock 04:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Some might consider the act (or the claim to have performed the act) a mitzvah. Billbrock 04:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If the point you were making was that the webpages you cite are OK as a justification for inclusion of a sentence that says "Sloan claimed to have sex with an underage woman," then I apologize for calling your comment vandalism. However, you should have made this point clear, rather than just posting a link to the list of women Sloan has had sex with in the middle of a discussion of citation policy, which I interpreted to be a personal attack on Sloan. --Pierremenard 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I disagree that a sentence along the lines you propose belongs in the article. My view is that its unencyclopedic. We already know that Sloan holds liberal views on sex because he was a member of the sexual freedom league. The definition of "underage" varies from country to country and views of sex at a young age differ from culture to culture. Whats the point of inserting this detail? To let people know in more detail what the precise age is, in Sloan's view, for sexual activity? Will we insert mentions of every other view Sloan says he has on his webpage? --Pierremenard 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
First things first: Pierremenard registered in December 2004 (or earlier) and was dormant for almost a year, becoming active again last October. Now, the japanese TV star: Are we talking about Nanako Matsushima? He created that short article. He created this short article: Victor Bologan. So, he is some mix of adding and removing information at Wikipedia. The sentance he removed was:
She is mainly known outside Japan for her role in the horror film Ringu and most famous in Japan for her role in Great Teacher Onizuka Live Action.
Now Sam, I hardly need to lecture you about such subleties of the English language, but the whole problem is the words "mainly" and "most famous". Remove those intensifiers and you have a much more defensible statement (one where statistics are not necessary to "prove" the statement about "mostly" being more than 50%, etc.). I will go put that un-intensified statement back into the article. I think that we should point out when Pierremenard deletes whole sentences rather than just removing the intensifiers. At times, what he does represents a loss of relevant information. I would prefer that he make more minor edits to craft sentances that we can mostly agree on rather than just be a wanton deletionist, which at times, he clearly is. -- Pinktulip 13:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Another relevant fact is that I was the one who originally inserted that sentence into the article ( of course, it was modified by other editors down the line). --Pierremenard 22:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Sloan,
I see that you've given some citations in your comment. I'll incorporate these citations and the information based on them tomorrow into the article( unless someone beats me to it). Note though that the citations have to be exact. So I expect to have no problems finding the American Lawyer article you mentioned - however, saying that something was published in Thairath newspaper does not give enough information to insert a citation.
What language do you expect an article on Thai Chess to be in? Do you expect the article to be in the English language or do you expect the article to be in the Thai Language? Sam Sloan 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Language is not the issue. One needs: Newspaper, issue date, page numbers. You have only given the newspaper. --Pierremenard 01:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You have not addressed the question of who appointed YOU as a Wikipedia policeman? Who gtanted YOU the right to delete content provided by others?
I have already answered this question many times by quoting points 2 and 3 of the policy from WP:Verifiability. --Pierremenard 01:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I did not write the reference to Thai chess. I do not know who did. I can see that it was added back in September. Since then, there have been one hundred edits by other users. Several other users have added links to books about Thai chess, one of which mentions my name. Nobody saw fit to delete it until you came along recently. If you have a complaint, you should contact the person who wrote that and ask him why he put it up. You do not have a right to erase what he wrote without an inquiry.
It could have been anybody because I am very well known in Thailand as a top level player of Thai chess. Any visitor to Thailand might have learned about that. You are nothing more than a vandalizer who goes about deleting content on subjects you know nothing about. The only way that I personally got involved in this is that you started personally attacking me such as by saying that my book "Chinese Chess for Beginners" is self-published and cannot be used as a source when that is demonstrably not true. Sam Sloan 01:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It would helpful if you took a look at WP:Verifiability, since it seems to me that you do not, at this point, understand wikipedia's policy on citations, which is "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor" and "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

"

It would be helpful if you would learn the rules around here. One is that you are not supposed to delete the content of other users. You may modify or rewrite the content, but you may not delete it.
Where is this rule? Please give me a link. --Pierremenard 01:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You have repeatedly deleted not only my content but the content of many other users. That is what you mainly go around doing, deleting the content of others while providing nothing yourself. Sam Sloan 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Finally, this talk page is for discussions on how to improve the article, not for discussions of the editors. If you feel that I am a "non-discriminating vandal" the proper place to leave this information is WP:VIP. --Pierremenard 22:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
There are apparently a few administrators already looking at your posting pattern, not because of me, but because of complaints by other users. Sam Sloan 00:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I really hate to put myself back in the middle of this conflict, but Mr Sloan, please note that there is no policy against deleting unsourced material from an article. Pierremenard is correct in that the burden of proof is on those who are adding new text. As I stated to you some time ago, be sure to cite your sources and all will be well. howcheng {chat} 16:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. I did not write the article. This is an article other people have written about me. There have been more than 100 edits involving some dozens of people. I do not know any of them, expect I do know Bill Brock and Neil Brennen (Spamscone) who are always trying to vandalize the article. I got involved when Pierremenard repeatedly deleted content from another article I wrote and then started attacking me personally by saying that my book "Chinese Chess for Beginners" was self published. The article which Pierremenard basically blanked had numerous sources. Obviously Pierremenard never bothered to check them. Telling me to cite sources in the future is meaningless when many sources were cited and I did not write the article anyway. Sam Sloan 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Even if I did get a fact about you wrong - whether you self-published your book - its hardly a personal attack. As for sources, on the Charles Weldon page you have repeatedly tried to insert unsourced material in these edits: [1] [2] (FYI to others, looking at the talk page history of this ip, user identifies as Sam Sloan). As I have pointed out to you on many occasions, if you would cite the source for these statements, I would be perfectly okay with including them in the article. No, its not good enough to say it was published in chess life in 1994. A citation looks something like: title, author, journal name, date, page numbers. Ideally, you would insert it as a footnote to the text. --Pierremenard 02:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That is what you think it should be like, but that is not the way it is. Can you point to any example where a Wikipedia entry provides "title, author, journal name, date, page numbers. Ideally, inserted as a footnote to the text"? If this were a requirement, nobody would have time to write anything for Wikipedia. The method of Wikipedia to try to prevent false statements from coming in is that any user plus a thousand or so administrators can come in and correct it or re-write it. However, nowhere is there a requirement that exact page numbers and issue numbers of publications be cited. You have deleted a substantial part of the biography of a deceased chess player and you claim that you have a right to do so because it is not enough to say that this was in his obituary published in Chess Life magazine. One must produce the actual obituary, you claim. But I claim that if you want to set that as a rule, you should go off and form your own Wikipedia somewhere else, because that is not the rule here. Sam Sloan 09:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
(i) Citing sources in the manner I described is a rule on wikipedia. Take a look at Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style and scroll down to "Newspaper/magazine articles (or online periodicals)."
(ii) You are correct that there are many pages that fall short of this. Rest assured, however, that I am doing my best to correct this.
(iii) Its probably OK not to conform to the style perfectly - for example, to leave off the page numbers. But, I'm sorry, you cant have a citation without a title and author.
(iv) If youre asking for a wikipedia page that is good at citing sources, I think John Lott is pretty good. --Pierremenard 22:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there is nothing, not one word, of this biography, that is based on my website. When you write "Sam claims" or "Sam writes", that is not true because I did not claim nor write that. The person who wrote the original Wikipedia biography of me did not even know that I was a chess player and included nothing about chess. He was interested in the child custody case, where an unrelated family kidnapped my daughter for religious purposes, took her to Virginia and nevertheless were never prosecuted for kidnapping and were even allowed to keep the child. This has never happened before in the entire human history and is therefore noteworthy.

If you want to rely solely on published sources, you might consider the Washington Post for November 14, 1992, Page B07, which states that I have an IQ of 200. If you do not believe that the Washinton Post really said that, please go to your local library and look it up. Please understand that I am not claiming that I have an IQ of 200 and I do not believe that I do, but if the Washington Post said it, then it must be true. Sam Sloan 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(i) I inserted "claims" and "writes" in response to Pinktulip who said the sources were your books.
(ii) You can be sure I will take a look at the Washington Post issue you cite and insert material from it into the article.
(iii) I apologize for the delay - I said I'd incorporate material from the sources you previously cited into this article, but have not yet done so. I've been overwhelmed with non-wikipedia related work: will get around to doing this soon. --Pierremenard 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Additions to article

Sam Sloan mentioned the following two references in the above discussion: http://wxf.hypermart.net/eg/wxf-masters.pdf and http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1032128704472. I have added facts from these two places to the article. Will look up the the Washington Post article mentioned above soon and do the same. --Pierremenard 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

New Link

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=476897

USCF Election Results

The quote that User:Phr has attributed to Susan Polgar was not written by her. It was written by Beatriz Marinello. You can find it at http://www.uschess.org/forums under "Executive board election results".

Here is her complete quote:

Beatriz Marinello PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:17 pm

Dear All:

The United States Chess Federation is reaching the lowest point in it political history.

For many years Sam Sloan has been used to attack board members and his credibility has been enhanced by "chess people' who linked information to him for their own purpose.

The results of this election it makes us wonder about the wisdom of the one member/one vote, as well as our effectiveness to attract good people to run for the EB.

I for one, although I will not be attending the US Open due to Doctor's orders, I am planning to complete my term in the board until August of 2007.

I am in the process of starting dialysis, as some people know in 2003 I was diagnosed with IgA nephropathy. This is an complicated year for me because I need to find a suitable donor for a kidney transplant. So far, I have been unsuccessful trying to find a donor. This is my top priority in my life. I am observing with sadness the collapse of my loved federation.

The USCF "Rome" is burning!

On a positive note, chess will continue there are many wonderful volunteers and chess professionals whom will keep chess activities going.

All the best.

Beatriz Marinello

Needless to say, the candidates backed by Beatriz Marinello lost the election. Here are the complete election results USCF Election Results . Sam Sloan 23:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I'll fix the attribution. Phr (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
(update) I removed the part of the quote that was misattributed to Polgar but that was actually from Marinello (I had misread the part in Polgar's blog where Polgar said the remarks were from "one of the current board members"). I also slightly expanded the other part of the Polgar quote, for clarity. Sorry about the error. Phr (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
(update2) I updated the Polgar quote again to use an excerpt more related to USCF politics instead of Polgar's personal differences with Sloan. I mentioned and linked to another Polgar post where she gives her view of how Sloan got elected. If there's another side to it (e.g. a verifiable quote from some prominent supporter of Sloan, assuming that any exist), someone should add that to the article. Also, I used "having been Polgar's business manager" as the tense in Polgar's post made the time frame ambiguous. I'm assuming that the claim referred to Sloan's relationship with the Polgars several decades ago. Even Sloan wouldn't (I hope) claim to be managing the Polgars today. Phr (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit war involving banned user

I'm not sure what's been happening. I reverted to before that started. Feel free to discuss here. Susan Polgar is one of the most famous chess people in the US, so it's appropriate to report her views on the matter; Wikipedia is not a link farm and simply externally linking is non-encyclopedic. However, I did trim back a previous longer excerpt, so as not to not go overboard.

If you look at the comments sections of the two linked articles on Polgar's blog, a lot of people are wondering what the hell happened in the election, and some of them are going to end up coming here for info, so it's important that this article be accurate and NPOV. Phr (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Phr, I was not 100% sure that IP 67.119.193.90 was Amorrow so I did not revert back that far. You are a better judge than I am about content, so do whatever you think is correct. FloNight talk 21:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV assistance needed

Amorrow emailed me asking me to back off the USCF election stuff in the article, so I think FloNight's ID of that IP address is accurate. I also had discussed the issue with User:Sjakkalle, a thoughtful Wikipedia editor and admin who's knowledgeable about chess stuff and he also suggested trimming it. I agree that the section is not well-balanced right now but I think it might be better to expand it for balance, since I've confirmed that people from the chess world are coming to this article to learn about their new board member. I've been distracted and haven't done anything here lately, but I think it shouldn't be allowed to slide too long. I also still wanted a positive quote, and Sam claimed an endorsement from former USCF president Leroy Dubeck. However, I haven't been able to confirm the endorsement with Dr. Dubeck so far (he hasn't answered my most recent emails). Former Chess Life editor Larry Parr has said some things on Usenet in support of Sloan, but I'm hoping for something better (Parr is always involved in controversy). As I explained in my note to Sjakkalle (cited above),

There's something of an uproar in the USCF right now, sort of as if Willy on Wheels had been elected to the Wikipedia Arbcom based on an uncontested candidates' statement, and then users who had previously never heard of Willy's history started finding out about it afterwards and demanding to know what the heck happened. My own attitude is that USCF has traditionally been run by a useless bureaucracy and Sloan will at least stir things up, so I'm less upset than some other people are. I'm trying to find some verifiable statement from a Sloan supporter to add, but those are hard to come by.[3]

If anyone (including Sam Sloan) has any thoughts on this matter, please speak up. Phr (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I called Dubeck on 7/23/06. He personally confirmed his endorsement of Sloan, but declined to provide an explanation. (Note: I cannot aspire to NPOV w/r/t Dubeck or Sloan.) Billbrock 07:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Kidnapped"

I removed the following from the article:

"...kidnapped by Christian fundamentalists from Virginia, where Sloan had been raised. These abductors had also been involved with corrupt attorneys and judges in wrongfully imprisoning Sloan's mother in a nursing home (where she languished and finally died around 2005, still trapped). ... Shamema was sent by the Christians to a high school affiliated with Jerry Falwell's church and Liberty University. Eventually she enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in order to escape. She served a tour of duty in Kuwait as a munitions specialist during Operation Iraqi Freedom, loading ordinance into fighter-bombers. Upon her return from the war, she settled in the state of Washington and married a fellow Marine."

Statements of such magnitude and precision need citations to references that directly support the statements. This is particularly important in this case because it involves statements that, if unsubstantiated, are libellous and expose Wikipedia to legal action. — Saxifrage 21:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Such statements are libelous even if substantiated. Fortunately, in the United States, truth is a complete defense, so substantiation is good. Maybe not good enough in Singapore, though. DavidForthoffer 02:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of the paragraphs about Shamema should be removed. She is not notable and is not linked to anything notable about Sam Sloan. This is not encyclopedic information. Smtomak 13:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion

I see this article is very controversial, and deservedly so. I just dumped four templates onto it, and I was tempted to do more, because virtually all of it is junk, and what isn't junk should probably be deleted anyway. The only semi-notable stuff is arguing pro se to the Supreme Court, and the 2006 USCF election controversy. Most everything else is just not relevant, and in most cases is POV in favor of Sloan as written by Sloan, a sock puppet (not that I know if he has a sock puppet or not), or a fan. I would delete it myself, but I don't want to get into endless revert wars. -YechielMan 129.98.214.99 21:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Judicial aspects of felony conviction

The article does not make it clear that the termination of Sloan's custody rights did not just toss Shamema into some arbitrarily-chosen foster home as if Sloan was some sort of unfit parent. Sloan was never found to be an unfit parent or a danger to his daughter. The essential ingredient in the termination of Sloan's parental righs was U.S. dollars, spent by private U.S. citizens.

Shemema was returned to the USA because the couple (who were private US citizens) had the money to pay and agent to get Shemema back. That US couple wanted to raise Shamema as a Christian, which Sloan did not want. No gov't agencies of any sort were involved in that action. Sloan's wife as the time had been coerced by the paid agents. The coersion by their agent included implied threats against the health and safety of that woman's own children, but those threats occurred outside of US territory.

During Sloan's time as a fugitive, the gov't of the USA had custody of him multiple times and chose not to extradict him back to Virginia simply because of the expense involved. Sloan was a fugitive in name only and only because one Viriginia judge was annoyed at him and he the authority to make him a fugitive rather than just let Shemama's natural parent raise her as he saw fit.

I am asking for balance in the presentation of this story. It is not as simple as the text currently suggests and the implications, as the the text currently stands, that Sloan was simply just another irresponsible, unfit parent. Please review the facts and ensure that the text reflects the real ambiguities of the situation. We are not here to re-determine the best interests of Shamema: we are here to report the Truth w/o any implied defamation of Sloan's character. He is a convicted felon and we make that clear enough, but was fail to present the proper context of the termination of his parental rights. -- 71.156.102.142 03:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

71.156.102.142 is a suspected sockpuppet of Andrew Morrow. In 8/24/2005 email correspondence with me, Morrow wrote that "we all know that Sam Sloan is willing to put his money where his mouth is when it comes to being a client to a child prostitute in a foreign country, or whatever else he can get away with legally, but somehow he has never been accused of harming Shamema or any of his other children, or any other U.S. Citizens (let us restrict this to criminal law, please) [...] Honestly, there are a few things I would like to change about Sam Sloan also, but I am not his mother. The two conversations I had with him lasted hours each, because we talked about a wide range of common interests (not the prurient stuff, or if he brought it up, I deliberately did not react). I play a little chess in high school, so that was not much of what we talked about."

Headers available upon request. Billbrock 05:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

So...let's rate the level of discussion. Mr. Morrow is attempting to determine if the article disparages Mr. Sloan (approximately a 40-something level, typical of a young American judge). Mr. Brock seems to focus exclusively on Mr. Morrow (20-something or younger level of discussion, more appropriate for Oprah Winfrey or other commercial TV talk shows). I leave it the others to ask which maturity level we wish to aim for. -- AST3 05:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides, as MorrowSock fails again to grasp, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. — Saxifrage 06:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It is my impression that Judge Go did her homework before writing her opinion. She is a professional and is also aware of the distinction between verifiability and truth. I accept her opinion as based on verifiable fact. It is clear that the money and chinchanery of the Shelbys is what destroyed Sam Sloan's natural parenthood. The local law enforcement officials could not be bothered, but the childless Shelbys were greedy for that child and to impose their religion on her. Judge Go's hands are tied because Sloan weakened his case by, among other things, naming far too many defendants. All he wanted was his natural child. These people had their paid agents force their will upon the child in the UAE while Sloan was out of town. One of the few bright rays of hope for the future of fatherhood in the USA that I have seen in the past ten years is the Elián González case.
Plaintiff's removal of Shamema from the Commonwealth of Virginia in violation of the April 2 order resulted in his arrest twice on the basis of a federal kidnapping warrant, once in Guam, and once in Hawaii, but the charge was dropped after Lynchburg officials refused to pay the cost of extradition from these locations. -- AST3 07:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Sloan advertises (and has --remove xxx from domain name--previously advertised) the fact that he has sex with children. Morrow (who has been banned from WP for threatening others, and who made a veiled threat against Susan Polgar's children--identifying their school--on Polgar's blog) admits that Sloan has sex with children. The article does not reflect this. And yet Morrow & sockpuppets claim that Sloan is being defamed, and use WP to defame the Shelbys. Billbrock 14:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Brock: I find that the evidence supporting your assertion that Mr. Sloan has copulated with human minors on this Earth to be rather flimsy. Would you care to bolster your claim with additional evidence or otherwise enhance the verifiability of this notion? -- AST3 11:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
How many sockpuppets of banned user Morrow do I need to satisfy? The "girlsgot" link (remove xxx) at the ishipress site references women with whom Sloan claims to have had sex. The two "burmese" links show that one of these girls was of junior-high school age, by Sloan's own account. Sloan's ally Andrew Morrow (of whom you are the sockpuppet) was satisfied that "Sloan had been a client to a child prostitute." BTW, the article does not reflect S. Polgar's claim that Sloan sexually propositioned her when she was 16, nor Sloan's subsequent claim to have had a non-platonic relationship with S. Polgar--see USCF BINFO 200603590 (a claim vigorously denied by the latter). Billbrock 20:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC) link added Billbrock 06:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reposted comment that couldn't be made due to "spam filter", very odd...

Deleted material

I cut out a lot of information out of this article as uncited and unverifiable. If you want to re-insert it, be my guest, but please cite, cite, cite. See WP:CITE and WP:RS. I'll continue to delete all uncited information in this article.

Note: per WP:RS, Sloan's website is not an acceptable source for information about himself. The ONLY statements that Sloan's site can be used as a source for are statements of the type "Sloan claims...." All facts must appear in third-party reputable sources. --Pierremenard 17:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sloan has a good reputation for, once posted, not altering his documents. Cetainly many other people on Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles gain their notability based on their own web site, such as the web comic authors. I am reverting your deletes for the moment. -- Pinktulip 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS states that "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source." I'm afraid a personal website cannot be used as a sole source, even if the maintainer of that website is notable. --Pierremenard 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that "we should proceed with great caution" etc... i.e what is being said is that while preferably you shouldn't use this as a source it can still be used as a source if you are careful about it. As others have pointed out in this case it is suitable and acceptable to use at times his website as a reference. So I see no problem whatsoever. Mathmo Talk 06:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


1) I deleted the paragraph in which someone, presumably Sloan, claimed that Sloan had "killed" a raise for USCF employees at the May 2007 EB meeting. This may well be true, but it is not verifiable. There is no mention of it in the minutes of the meeting. If it occurred at all, it would have been in closed session, which means no other EB member can or will comment. (It's also of no real long-term interest.)

2) I am slightly bothered by "He has claimed that when he was playing for U.C. Berkeley in the late 1960s, he was for a time, playing at master strength, but he was never officially rated as such." This is probably true, but the only way to verify it would be to go through all the hard-copy rating lists back to the early sixties. This is theoretically possible, but it would be a) very tedious and b) original research. I would suggest reframing it to something like "... no evidence has been presented to support this claim." Eddore 10:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP

I've removed some contentious, unsourced material per WP:BLP. Could the editors who want to add this please cite some reliable sources here on talk? I've also semi-protected because the material was restored by an anon IP. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nleobold restored the same unsourced material [4] after being asked not to on his talk page, [5] so I've changed to full protection until we get it sorted out. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I'm wondering whether this person is notable enough for an article. I found this New York Sun article about him, [6] which suggests he's done some crazy things (and Sloan would likely have been the sole source for the article), but there doesn't seem to be notability in the WP sense of multiple third-party reliable sources. I'm thinking it should either be nominated for AfD again (it's nearly two years since the last one), or else pared down to what can be found in third-party sources, assuming there's enough. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I am very troubled by the tone of both the article and the Talk page, they both look more like a tribune than an encyclopedic article. Especially the notability is doubtful, or at least should be demonstrated. I would think your idea of an AfD seems a good one, but before going that far maybe you could consider just tagging it "notability doubtful" for a couple of days ? SyG 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against a notability flag or even an AfD discussion, though I personally lean toward keeping the article. His name is pretty well-known. Now that most of the unprofessional junk has been weeded out, we can focus on enriching what's left. For example, his turbulent and notorious reign on the USCF board can stand to be better cited with the aid of the major US chess publications. ---Smtomak 03:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(removed comment of sock of banned user Amorrow)

Repeated reverts

User:Nleobold restored a large amount of material on the legal disputes involving Sloan's mother, daughter, etc. I reverted it. This material had been taken out before by general consensus. The language used was heavily biased ("Christian fundamentalists," "corrupt local attorneys and judges"), the facts do not support Sloan's version (cf. Judge Go's extensive analysis in footnote 1), and, in any case, none of this is notable outside his immediate family. I see from Nleobold's talk page that he has been warned about this before. I don't want an edit war, so I would suggest that an admin consider protecting the page. Eddore 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Change requested

I would like to request a change in my biography. It is not really true that I have been married five times. I do have children by five different women. I sometimes refer to them as my "wives" out of respect for the fact that we have children together, but I was never legally married to the two Sri Lankan with whom I have children.

The reason I am requesting this change is that I have found that I cannot get a date because of my Wikipedia biography. Every time there is a possibility to go out with a woman, she looks me up on Wikipedia, and when she reads that I have been married five times, she does not want to go out with me any more. I have lost a lot of good opportunities because of this. Sam Sloan 08:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done.--76.221.186.215 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Settling down?

(removed comment of sock of banned user Amorrow)

This page will never be stable as long as Bill Brock and a few others who dislike me are allowed to continue to post here. Bill Brock has been attacking me every day for the last three years since 2004. He has been banned from the USCF Forums and several other forums for attacking me. He is obsessive compulsive and will not stop. Somebody even donated one thousand dollars to hold a grudge match between us. I won the match and won the one thousand dollars in cash. He was so upset that he sold the table that the match was played on in his office. He has been warned by several Wikipedia administrators not to post here any more, yet he keeps coming back. Sam Sloan 00:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a hobby. Billbrock 05:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(removed comment of sock of banned user Amorrow)

Fidelity to reality has become an agenda item these days. This mean little prick recommends this ideology to all prospective WP editors. We concur over the spilled electrons. Billbrock 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC) I would note that Sloan is quoted as never having been a rated master in the article ("[Sloan] has claimed that [...] he was for a time, playing at master strength, but he was never officially rated as such."], but makes a rather different claim above. Sloan repeats this claim in the NY Libertarian Party "Sam Sloan for Governor" video: see first link in body of Sloan's home page http://www.samsloan.com/ Billbrock 15:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently not. User:Datawants restored all the Shamema stuff. I reverted to the last consensus version. Eddore 21:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

USCF ratings

The additions by User:Wlod about Sloan's USCF rating are misleading, as the on-line records he is relying on only go back to 1990. Explaining this would take more space than the subject deserves, so it would probably be better to revert. Eddore 10:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New lawsuit, BLP

I removed a paragraph about a new lawsuit Sloan filed a few days ago. This is not the place to discuss the merits of the action, but until it has been adjudicated, some of the assertions made are potentially libelous. I would appreciate comments by others with more experience in this area. Eddore 12:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Contentious issues involving 3rd-parties should have reliable, 3rd-party sources. If the suit is notable it will be covered in the media. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Are you aware:
  1. that the subject of the bio, and plaintiff in the lawsuit mentioned, is also an active editor?
  2. One of the defendants is another active editor, Billbrock, and he was sued in part because of activities on Wikipedia, which is pointed out several times in the suit?
  3. The plaintiff has also edited the WP bios of Truong and Polgar, who are listed defendants in the suit?
A copy of the suit Sloan vs. Truong, Polgar, USCF et al, 07 CIV 8537 can be found on rec.games.chess.misc here [7].217.162.236.20 02:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


As a defendant in the lawsuit, I would appreciate it if Wikipedia admins would semi-protect articles related to the lawsuit, so that anon editors cannot spin the coverage. Incidentally, the lawsuit (meritless--obviously IMO --with respect to allegations made against me) has been covered in the NY Times & the Times's chess blog. Billbrock 19:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Go, Chinese Chess

Sloan seems to be a well known person among those who play go and Chinese chess. Could the article be expanded to reflect his activities in these areas? I seem to remember several years ago, he posted in Usenet groups that he took over Ishi Press.SlowJog 13:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

His activities in these areas are somewhat dubious. It is strange that he falsely claimed to have been World Chinese Chess Champion, he is nowhere near the level of World Champion. Perhaps this is due to the fact that he was trying to impress people during an election speech. Then there is the matter of legality surrounding the publishings of many of the Ishi press works. The original authors of the books where quite astonished to see them on sale in the USA, they were unaware their material had been translated. I think it would be difficult to add material in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HogweedRapture (talkcontribs) 15:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

On what basis is the following statement made: "The original authors of the books where quite astonished to see them on sale in the USA, they were unaware their material had been translated." None of the Ishi Press books are translations so this statement cannot be true. The authors of most of the recently reprinted Ishi Press books are dead and those still alive have all given Ishi Press written authorization to publish or reprint their works. Can you provide an example to support the statement by "HogweedRapture"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.61.77.18 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

RidinHood25, Mightyms, SallyForth123, Datawants, MoneyHabit et al...

are socks of banned user Amorrow (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Our policy is ban on sight, revert on sight. Deleting their commentary outright (which I am about to do) will leave holes. Therefore, other editors are encouraged to decide to remove their replies if desired. Note, there is a Pinktulip comment here, but that was made, I believe, before the out and out ban. If you see further comments from socks of Amorrow please revert on sight, once you find a tag on their ID as a sock of Amorrow, Pinktulip, or SallyForth123 placed there by a reputable editor. ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Datawants and an IP also known to be used by Morrow edited this article on the 13th and I rolled all their changes back, unfortunately losing some changes by others, for which I am sorry. Please feel free to add these back if appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Anon IP 69.120.149.154, who made several recent changes to the Sam Sloan page, traces to the Bronx, New York, which is (coincidentally?) Sloan's place of residence. Has anyone looked into this? Eddore 04:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's most likely Sam, if you check the headers of this usenet posting[8]. It seems if you have the money and inclination to follow through, "no legal threats" and "conflict of interest" do not apply. This is confirmed by Fred on another problematic bio talk page[9]:
"Nothing vague about the legal threats or the financial and legal ability to carry them out. Fred Bauder 13:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)"
85.140.204.245 02:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone able to explain to me why adding the site "ishi12345press.com" (remove numbers) in a sam sloan wiki edit crashes the submission? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-ny-2007 (talkcontribs) 02:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this about“no legal threats”Has Sloan made any legal threats? I cannot find any。 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.61.77.18 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert 6/10/08

I reverted an edit by anon 66.191.71.115. The reports he mentions came out long after the filing of Sloan's lawsuit, and implying that Sloan had independent support for his claims in advance is clearly a distortion. Also, the fact that some EB members have called for Truong's resignation is not relevant to the Sloan article (belongs under Truong). In this context, it's just a gratuitous attack. Eddore (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Anon 66.191.71.115 has now made the same edits three or four times. They have been reverted by multiple editors, and he has ignored suggestions that he take it to the talk page. Perhaps an admin should semiprotect the the page. Eddore (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does Eddore keep making these statements? The Mottershead Report was issued on September 25, 2007. Sloan filed his lawshit on October 2, 2007, one week later. Thus, the statements by Eddore, that he has repeated dozens of times, are all false. See http://www.anusha.com/mottershead.pdf


Nonsense. The "reports" referred to are _reviews_ of the "Mottershead Report." What Mottershead produced was a long and mind-numbing catalog of IP addresses. A couple of presumably independent analysts looked at it and concluded that the report was probably valid. The point, however, is that this happened _months after_ the report came out and Sloan started raving and filing lawsuits. Sloan's penchant for revising history should not be encouraged. Eddore (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not true. The Mottershead Report was complete on September 25, 2007. There have been no changes, additions or revisions since that time. Ask Mottershead. What we have here is [[User:Eddore|Eddore] who is revising history and is a one-man censorship board.

Let's try this again in small words. The so-called "Mottershead Report" was indeed "complete" in September 2007. Its validity was not universally accepted. (It still isn't, thought the weight of evidence favors it.) The revert under discussion concerned references to a couple of /analyses/ of Motterehead's production. Whoever made the reverted edits asserted that Sloan's crazy lawsuit (not just my opinion, the judge thought so too), filed in October 2007, was justified by reports written in January 2008. This is nuts.
BTW, the writer who is disputing this obvious point is almost certainly Sam Sloan, writing as an anon. Consider the source. Eddore (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you wish to speculate, let us speculate as to who Eddore is:

Looking at "User Contributions" it becomes evident that almost every posting by Eddore is about Susan Polgar, Paul Truong or Sam Sloan. Eddore consistently defends Susan Polgar and Paul Truong but is against Sam Sloan. How many people are like that? Remember that Paul Truong is accused of posting under Fake Names.

Who are you really, Eddore ?

Thanks for confirming that you're the anonymous troll, Sam. Who else has a pathological obsession with Susan Polgar? Eddore (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

More bloat

This article seems to be getting out of hand again with trivialities. In particular, is the filing of nutcase lawsuits "notable"? One of those added in a new section by User:BetterBLP was Sloan vs. Nixon, 60 FRD 228 (1973), of which the judge wrote:

"Plaintiff Samuel H. Sloan, pro se, commenced this action to enjoin the President and Vice-President of the United States from continuing in their offices and, further, to annul the appointments of the Chief Justice of the United States and three Associate Justices of the Supreme Court. The United States moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
"This I was sorely tempted to do at the oral argument and, upon considerable reflection, I conclude I should have yielded to the temptation. The complaint is utterly without legal basis and, while over a lifetime I have seen many misguided lawsuits, this must be the nadir."

The article should be pared back to what's notable, not what some Sloan admirer wants to gush over. I'm tempted simply to revert it all, but I'd like to hear some other viewpoints. Eddore (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The biggest question is

Why does this man deserve a wiki article? Had he done something spacial or extaordinary? Maybe there should be an article about me? what is happening here is an infection of the encyclopedia. In my opinion, this article could be summarized to a single line: "A chess journalist." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.169.193 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court case is notable. His election to the USCF Executive Board is borderline. The rest is bloat. (He's filed a bunch of frivolous lawsuits. So what? So have a lot of other people.) Eddore (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

////Anyone who does not see Sloan as a Great American Folk Hero is full of crap! Sloan's presence gives meaning to the purpose of having a universe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.214.229.50 (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I *hope* the above is a joke. Anyone who considers Sam Sloan a folk hero really needs to get a life. Can't something be done about this troll re-inserting the "folk hero" nonsense every few weeks? (Of course, if he can source it by showing that Sloan is included in a published work on folklore -- between the Sandman and the Tooth Fairy? -- that would be another matter.) Eddore (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted references to the Sam Sloan civil litigation w/ USCF, Susan Polgar et al as the cases were dismissed and/or settled and the court asked Sam Sloan to stop filing stuff. Can supply the court order (public record) but can't imagine anyone here cares. Also removed the allegations of criminal activity by Susan Polgar as they are unsubstantiated, she is not actually named in any criminal charges and it is irrelevant flame war stuff. Neither Sam Sloan nor Susan Polgar are party to the criminal case, the felony charges were thrown out, and it doesn't need to be litigated on Wiki. Btw - glad I am new here because it looks like this Sam Sloan USCF stuff was an editing NIGHTMARE for a long time here! Ellie Dahl (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Computer programmer?

I am extremely skeptical of the claim made in an edit dated April 15 that Sloan is a "computer chess programmer." He's a mathematical ignoramus who has never shown the slightest evidence on knowing how to program. There is a reference given to a 20-year-old program called "Rex," but I'm pretty sure this just means he gave some chess advice to the programmers. Also, the editor who made this change is named "Kayokimura," the name of Sloan's current wife. This probably means it's a sockpuppet for Sloan himself. Eddore (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the citation, its from wikisources, which is another user generated content site, just like wikipedia. Definately not a reliable source. However, a quick check elsewhere shows that he did work on the program Rex. However, no idea at all what he did with that program. Also looks like that program has completely disappeared since being in a computer chess competition. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
From his home page: "In high school, I was a winner in the Virginia Science Talent Search and scored 800 on my Math College Boards. I majored in math at the University of California at Berkeley." While he does play word-games with half-truths, these are clear assertions.--Contributions/76.200.191.185 (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The above comment is from the same banned user I refer to below. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up the posts making criminal allegations against Paul Truong and Susan Polgar. My clean up was reverted by user Kayokimura. Definitely a Sloan sock puppet. There are no criminal charges against Paul Truong or Susan Polgar. Stating the Secret Service established this is incorrect and potentially libellous. Ellie Dahl (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Persistent troll

Anon 75.111.111.22 has made the same garbage edit (the "folk hero" nonsense) three times in the last couple of weeks. Shouldn't he be blocked? Eddore (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

banned user

Hi, 76.199.103.224 (talk · contribs) is a banned user, and has been in a protracted dispute with ZincBelief (talk · contribs) as can be seen here. I have reverted back to before the dispute, and replayed edits after the dispute. I recommend that editors review the article carefully for WP:BLP problems. Sorry that this was not identified sooner, and for the interruption as a result. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sloan's favorite game -- include or not?

I don't think it enhances the article at all to include Sloan's favorite game. Experts beat IM's rarely, but often enough so that it's hardly news. A queen sacrifice doesn't help. A GM's favorite game -- maybe, but even then that's probably not "encyclopedic", meaning that it doesn't enhance the understanding of the subject. A game by Sloan, an expert, without commentary doesn't tell us anything about him. Additionally, he isn't primarily known as a chess player -- his claim to notability rests with the Supreme Court case, his involvement in USCF politics and related lawsuits, and various allegations against him. I think the game should be removed. I'm not going to take any more action on the article itself, but I encourage the regular watchers of this article and other interested parties to weigh in here so that a consensus can form either way. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

/* Activities since 2005 */ removed name/link to BLP for violation of WP: HARM#TEST

Allegations by Sloan against Truong are not proven in civil or criminal court. Substantive content on this page is the same, but Truong's name and link to Truong's page are removed for WP:HARM#TEST BLP Ellie Dahl (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed another sentence with allegations claiming Secret Service investigation proved Polgar and Truong impersonated Sloan online. This is not factual. While it was reported in the NY Times Gambit blog and is thus a cited source, the case and evidence of that investigation led to neither civil nor criminal action against either Polgar or Truong. WP:HARM#TEST BLP guides us to err on the side of caution with living persons and harmful, negative allegations. Ellie Dahl (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)