Talk:Essjay controversy/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

The photo needs to return

The photo uploaded by Essjay supposedly of Essjay needs to return. Reliable sources have published the picture. It's absence here is a disservice to the comprehensiveness of this article. Johntex\talk 04:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we know what its copyright status is? WjBscribe 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The media have also published hundreds of thousands of words about this situation, and included dozens of unrelated screenshots, quotes out of context, and plenty of photos of Jimbo too. Should we include all of that? For that matter, given the circumstances, one might wonder if this really is a photo of Essjay. I have yet to see anyone actually confirm that. Risker 04:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If Essjay uploaded the original to Wikipedia then it's pretty safe to say that copy is still under the GFDL. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Only if it was one of his personal pictures. I'm dubious about using an image when the uploader is no longer around to be asked questions about that image. WjBscribe 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The image was released under GFDL. Even with a user that has made a demonstratable mistake, we must assume good faith. Unless you want to go delete every image Essjay has contributed and every word Essjay has contributed, we are left with his contributions.
There is absolutely no evidence that the picture is not valid GFDL. The picture has been published by reliable sources. No published source has claimed it is not him.
Furthermore, we do not need to certify that the picture is of Essjay. We can include the picture just as it was formerly found here, with a caption like "Photo uploaded by Essay as a claimed self portrait". Johntex\talk 05:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
We can only use an image if it meets the GFDL. Given that Essjay took a number of steps to protect his identity, it is entirely plausible that the photo was not of him. In which case, as we have no idea where he obtained it, we cannot use it in an article on Wikipedia because we do not know if it is copyright free. Let us remember that he wouldn't have forseen someone might have wanted to use it in a mainspace article when he uploaded it. Were Essjay still here we could ask him, but he isn't so we can't. WjBscribe 05:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Lots of things are plausible. Our policy is to assume good faith. We don't go around deleting a contributors content simply becuase they have temporarily or permenantly left the project. Leaving the project does not revoke the GFDL. Johntex\talk 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Not that I'm doubting you, Johntex, about sources using the photo, but I haven't run into one in my reading; any chance you could provide a link to an article with the picture? (Idle curiosity on my part as much as anything, I would just hate to have missed a useful report.) I understand it was used on ABC News. I'm sure Essjay uploaded it and covered it under GDFL. What I am less sure about is who the photographer is and whether the photographer agreed to its use, since it doesn't really look like a self portrait to me. Risker 05:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was definitely used by ABC news. I'm not sure if it was used by other sources also. I will check. As I say above, we assume good faith with an editors GFDL images. Essjay has not be shown or even accused of violating copyright policy. Therefore, all images he uploaded are still valid to use on the project. As to how the image looks, most modern digital cameras have a timer feature and a remote shutter relase only costs about $20. We must suppose that he either took the picture himself or otherwise owns the copyright. Johntex\talk 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
and to be honest, you can get an image like that on a $50 cell phone nowadays, let alone a "camera" camera. - Denny 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo IS free under GFDL

We can use it however concensus decides and have no legal worries... - Denny 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Well I think this about settles it. There's no reason now to block the image's usage... it is a primary source and can be used accordingly. (→Netscott) 05:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
after the previous licensing confusion I wanted to make sure all our i's were dotted and t's crossed this time. :) - Denny 05:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay then...what would be the purpose of adding the photo? What does it illustrate? This isn't a biographical article about Essjay, it is an article about the controversy surrounding his actions. How does his photograph illustrate that? Risker 05:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point, image supporters? (→Netscott) 05:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
this is the Essjay the media storm centers around, so it illustrates the subject persona that all this is about. so, it's valid and fit to include. label it as "Essjay" in the thumbnail and done. - Denny 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words: The hard fact that Essjay claimed the false bio was to protect privacy and yet posted a free image of himself is further evidence that enlightens the picture. This is highy relevant and connected to the topic about this controversy, use of false credentials, and behavior of a so-called online persona. :) Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 06:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Quack, we agree! Something must be up... :) - Denny 06:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
So I have just strolled through most of the other articles in the "Scandal" category. Several of them have photos - but they are photos of public figures (Mel Gibson, Tim Hardaway) or people convicted or charged with crimes. I'm hard pressed to suggest Essjay is a public figure. As far as I know, he hasn't been charged with a crime. So what would be the logic of including the photo? Just because one is able to do something doesn't mean one ought to do it. Risker 06:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Painting of the Mayflower is to the United States article as the Essjay photo is to this article
Pictures make articles better. The human being is a visual being. We remember things better with photos.
Check the water article. We all know what water looks like, so why bother with pictures?
An article does not need to be about the person specifically to have a photo of the person.
Our article on United States is not about the Flag of the United States or the Great Seal of the United States or the Map of the United States. It is certainly not about a painting of The Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor. Yet, all these images are at home in the article.
Just as the Mayflower is part of the history of the United States, the photo of Essjay is part of the history of this event. We should include it and caption it appropriately. Johntex\talk 06:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you support the inclusion of a grainy, barely in focus photograph of one individual in the Alder Hey organs scandal article or the Apollo 15 postage stamp scandal? Let's compare like with like when it comes to the articles. The presence of the timeline is visually appealing. Where would one put the photo? Back at the bottom of the page? Then how is this illustrating anything but an enormous reference list that 99% of readers won't bother with? Risker 06:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither of your examples are good analogies. In the Alder Hey case - there were many people involved, so singling one person out would perhaps be problematic. In the second case, we wikilink to articles about the astronauts, so no picture is needed for them right on that article. But even with those issues, a picture of the astronauts would not at all be remiss on the astronaut story. A photo of the adminstrator who confiscated the stamps would be perfectly fine also.
As for placement, I am flexible on that. Most of our articles lead with an image so that would be my first choice. Johntex\talk 07:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(As an aside) I hope you are wrong about 99% of the readers not bothering with our references. They should clearly be checking our references!!! Especially on this type of topic. Johntex\talk 07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was looking for "scandals" that were as much about a system as a person. Even though the media used Essjay's name as the focal point, far more of the commentary and reporting was about the systemic and institutional issues involved, and the article should appropriately reflect that. Are you really saying that including this photo is more important than keeping the timeline? The United States article is about 10 times the size of this one, so photos make more sense. But really now...comparing Essjay to the Mayflower...Risker 07:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I never said the timeline should be taken out. The photo can go right above the timeline. Or, the photo can be incorporated into the timeline like we put photos in infoboxes. Or the photo can go below the infobox. This article is plenty long to host one or a few photographs. Space is not a concern. Johntex\talk 14:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The photo is indeed free under GFDL. I don't care if it's in the article or not but a reader might find it helpful. Gwen Gale 14:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus yet on return of photo

Disappointed to see that the image of Essjay was inserted back in with a notation that it was "with consensus" - nonsense. There is no consensus on this issue yet, as I noted less than two hours ago. Please discuss reasons that this photo of a private individual should and should not be included in the article. Risker 19:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence for a conclusive consensus but I would say that people are tending to support its inclusion. Now with the image properly sourced I am rather indifferent. Does it help the article enough to warrant its inclusion? Maybe but I view it as a primary source and I tend to be hesitant about including primary source content in an article. (→Netscott) 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I lean against including it, since this article is supposed to not be about Essjay the person and it's pretty much useless. If it is added though, it should not be in a gallery section but rather as an illustration of the article itself. In the gallery positioning it makes about as much sense as it would to randomly put an image of Bill Gates smiling at the end of Criticism of Microsoft. --tjstrf talk 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I also sway towards not using it. Gwen Gale 19:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree with Tjstrf... and the particularly funny Bill Gates comparison. This article isn't about Essjay, it's about the controversy. The image being included makes the article more about Essjay and less about the controversy. (→Netscott) 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
A recent photo-related edit deleted the screenshots which illustrate aspects of the controversy.[1] Was that intentional? If so, why? -Will Beback · † · 19:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't speak to that, as far as I can tell they were gone already when I deleted the photograph. The screen shots aren't appropriate either. The Wikia one doesn't show the credentials section that is the subject here; the Wikipedia one is from March/07, not the one in July/06 that Stacy Schiff would have seen, and doesn't have the credentials except the professorship on it. Risker 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Will Beback: Yes, it was. They were inserted in the same edit as the photo was[2], and I originally intended simply to remove the gallery entirely. I realized, however, that there might be a better location for the photo which would pacify all sides so I changed tacts* and moved the photo instead.
*(Grammar question: is the tacts in that phrase the word tact, or is it tack (sailing), a nautical reference?). --tjstrf talk 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You changed tacks (as in sailing). Tact refers to sensitivity about a subject and is etymologically related to the word "tactile" (from the latin tactus, sense of feeling) Risker 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A photo of Bill Gates would be perfectly appropriate on an article about Microsoft. It would go very well in the "History" section, with a caption that says "Bill Gates founded Microsoft". Similarly, we should have a picture of Essjay here. Johntex\talk 20:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Why? Newyorkbrad 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I wasn't directly referring to your example. Besides, your analogy is not a good one one. This is not Criticism of Wikipedia. It is about an incident that revolved squarely around Essjay. If we had an article on Bill Gates controvery then a picture of Bill Gates would be appropriate there. Johntex\talk 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Moot point. Bill Gates is a public figure. Risker 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It is your point that is moot. Being a "public figure" is not a requirement to have your photo in Wikipedia. Johntex\talk 20:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)It is clear we still do not have consensus about this photo. I am very hesitant to include it. As a general practice, photos of individuals are not included in articles such as this, unless they are criminally convicted or charged, or are public figures in their own right or of their own volition. Yes, the Siegenthaler entry has a picture of Siegenthaler; however, that is a screenshot from when he voluntarily became a public figure by speaking on CNN. Nobody has identified another source that used this photo except for ABC - and even then it appeared, distorted, for a total of three seconds; one cannot argue that it was used widely. Using a photo of Essjay - Ryan - changes the focus of the article from the controversy to the individual. As we well know, an article about Essjay the editor will not survive. Risker 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Johntex, I think it was disruptive of you to reinsert the photo into the article when we were discussing it on the talk page and there was no clear consensus to insert it. The photo was reinserted without consensus by QuackGuru too, sneaking it in with another agreed-upon edit. Will you please revert yourself so that this can be hashed out here? Risker 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There are many problems with your statements. I will illuminate a few:
  1. There was no consensus for you to remove the picture. Hence, removing it is not disruptive. At best, there is no consensus either way, so no version is presumed to be right.
  2. You keep bring up "criminally convicted or charged". That is a red herring. Essjay does not need to be criminally convicted or charged for us to have a picture of him. A photo of Eli Whitney would be perfectly appropriate at Cotton gin if someone were to want to include it there.
  3. So what if only ABC used it? They did use it. It can be reliably sourced.
  4. I think it is misleading to say ABC used a "distorted" version of the image. They showed a computer screen from an angle - that is not a distorted version.
  5. Including an image of Essjay does not suddenly make this into an article "about" Essjay. That is a giant stretch and a giant leap of the imagination.
We are hiding sourced information from our readers by excluding the photo. Keeping it out for political/philosophical reasons is a diservice to our mission. Johntex\talk 20:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Apparently there's an edit war over whether or not to mention Essjay's use of Catholicism for Dummies. Why should we mention it? Why shouldn't we? —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion started here [3]...but shall we continue in this new section created by the very friendly MessedRocker?Risker 05:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Fine, I'll just copy my comment from above:

It would be wrong to delete this fact from the article. The mainstream media thought it was important enough to report. The very fact that some people think it speaks well of Essjay (Great, he used a book as a source!) and that some people think it comes across as negative (Ewee he used that book?) means that we should include the fact and let the reader weigh the facts. Johntex\talk 05:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

    • seems the discussion is continuing up above anyway...whatever...at least it is being discussed. Risker 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if you discuss in the above sections; just... discuss! Better than edit warring. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New article from a class blog for a Princeton U. course

- Relevant to the 'Dummies' discussion

- Relevant to the academic section, possibly

Okay, this was a bit of a 'wow' moment for me, and it's an article that I think we should all take a look at. I honestly wasn't on a 'fishing' trip for the Dummies article. I thought I'd meander over and see if I could find any solid academic mentions to flesh out that section a bit more, when I ran across this article:

InfoTech & Public Policy - WWS 528F Course Blog, Spring 2007 http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring07/wws528f/?p=57

I did take the time to verify it really was from Princeton U. (It's actually offered there, and from and from one of their schools, the 'Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs'). Here is a link listing the course and its description:

If you scroll down the article, they have a number of quotes showing how Essjay used his credentials and the book, as weight in his remarks:

Examples:
  • If you’d like to start an RfC on the matter, I’d be happy to offer the community my evidence; I am, after all, one of Wikipedia’s foremost experts on Catholicism.– Essjay (Jun 23, 2005)5
  • I’ve been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn’t tell you know how many times I’ve heard this myth, in and outside class. — Essjay (Jun 19, 2005)6
  • I cannot speak to the popularity of the notion in the Church; I’m not Catholic, I just study Catholicism. (I know, all this Catholicism stuffed in my head, and I’m not even one of ‘em!) Essjay (Jun 11, 2005)7
  • I believe the entry to be correct as it reads, and I offer as my reference the text “Catholicism for Dummies” by Trigilio (Ph.D./Th.D.) and Brighenti (Ph.D.). The text offers a Nihil Obstat from the Rev. Daniel J. Mahan, STB, STL, Censor Librorum, and an Imprimatur from the Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Schaedel, Vicar General. This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it’s credibility. –Essjay (April 11, 2005)8
  • It also mentions the letter to the prof,
"Even more troubling is Essjay’s letter he “sent to a professor on behalf of a Wikipedian"

I tried to find out more about Bill Zellers the student that wrote the blog, he may or may not be the same Bill Zellers that created myTunes (Bill Zellers that is a first year grad student, and the article is in the Princetonian, more importantly, the professor that runs the class that has the blog, figure prominantly in the article [Computer science professor Ed Felten]). http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/03/14/news/17721.shtml

I figured that this being mentioned in a course blog for a class in Information Technology and Public Policy at Princeton, by student who might be the the creator of myTunes, was probably worth mentioning. -- Kavri 07:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay in his own words:

** I do not believe this to be correct. An individual bishop has no power outside his diocese to forbid anything to be printed, thus he cannot offer a nihil obstat, only an imprimatur, which certifies that the text is free from moral error....Unless of course he is the Bishop of Rome. However, the censor, who is an agent of the Roman Curia/Holy See may certainly place a text on the "blacklist" of heretical publications. I believe the entry to be correct as it reads, and I offer as my reference the text "Catholicism for Dummies" by Trigilio (Ph.D./Th.D.) and Brighenti (Ph.D.). The text offers a Nihil Obstat from the Rev. Daniel J. Mahan, STB, STL, Censor Librorum, and an Imprimatur from the Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Schaedel, Vicar General. This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it's credibility.

Take a quick look at this link. It seems someone was flashing their false credentials. This is relevant, notable, and part of the whole story. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 08:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, Kavri, that is either a student's personal class notes or his homework assignment. I don't think it will meet the requirements of WP:ATT. And QG, the issue of the use of the book is being discussed above, let's try to keep it in one place. There is no way we will be able to win an argument on the use of diffs in this article. Risker 13:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, Risker okay, I see what you mean now about the blog being similar to using 'homework'. And, I was trying to make things more wieldly, but I hate when conversations fork out, and here I am doing it myself, my bad. -- Kavri 14:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Substantiation of Essjay quotes, if needed

  • If you’d like to start an RfC on the matter, I’d be happy to offer the community my evidence; I am, after all, one of Wikipedia’s foremost experts on Catholicism.– Essjay (Jun 23, 2005)5

-- Link.

  • I’ve been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn’t tell you know how many times I’ve heard this myth, in and outside class. — Essjay (Jun 19, 2005)6

-- Link.

  • I cannot speak to the popularity of the notion in the Church; I’m not Catholic, I just study Catholicism. (I know, all this Catholicism stuffed in my head, and I’m not even one of ‘em!) Essjay (Jun 11, 2005)7

-- Link.

  • I believe the entry to be correct as it reads, and I offer as my reference the text “Catholicism for Dummies” by Trigilio (Ph.D./Th.D.) and Brighenti (Ph.D.). The text offers a Nihil Obstat from the Rev. Daniel J. Mahan, STB, STL, Censor Librorum, and an Imprimatur from the Rev. Msgr. Joseph F. Schaedel, Vicar General. This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it’s credibility. –Essjay (April 11, 2005)8

-- Link.

Now... I don't like self-referencing... but as this is Essjay at the same time speaking as a primary source, with his faked credentials... how does that work with policy in that case? I.e., if Jimmy says something official as a primary source of the WMF on his Wikipedia talk page, or an article talk page... is that OK? If so, that would mean these Essjay quotes are OK to flesh out and illustrate in the article how he gamed us all/the system. unless I'm misunderstanding. - Denny 13:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, to this point we have managed to find a RS quoting Jimmy for all of the inclusions of his words in this article. The fact that Wikipedians may think this is notable doesn't make it so. Using sources that are questionable under WP:ATT is just not on in an article with this level of controversy. That sort of stuff is what got this article on AfD the first time. Risker 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, it's too granular, with not enough (if any) citations available from independent, reliable sources to support its notability. Meanwhile, Wales implied that Essjay's use of credentials in edits was the reason he asked Jordan to resign but truth be told, Wales has not specifically confirmed this as the reason so I'd have to say that the conclusion drawn by the article on this is WP:OR. Gwen Gale 13:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Just so we're on the same page... we'd be OR, or the article about Essjay is OR you're saying...? Because wouldn't any article from outside inherently be? :) - Denny 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that the article's assertion that Wales fired Essjay because Essjay asserted his MUD credentials in edits is WP:OR. Wales didn't cite that specifically as the reason. Erm, my own OR take on as to why, is that Essjay was fired only for PR reasons, which would handily explain why JW didn't go into more detail about it. Gwen Gale 13:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kavri here. Okay, I just want to see if I have my head wrapped around this correctly. Obviously the first three quotes don't work as they were changed. (Thanks Denny for the links). However, we have a quote by Essjay showing he used Dummies in a fraudlent manner (not as the source, but as his referring to it in the capacity of his false credentials). So...We CAN say that he used false credentials because we have independent outside sources, but we CAN'T actually use

This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it’s credibility. –Essjay (April 11, 2005)

Because while true/existing, we have no verifiable outside source referring to it? Correct? -- (hoping maybe I got it right this time) Kavri 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are getting there. The FAQ associated with WP:ATT identifies self-published works as likely unreliable; that would include sources such as blogs and personal posts to websites. Risker 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a fact:

"However, upon realizing that Essjay had relied upon them in the context of discussing article content, Wales asked for Essjay's resignation"

Nor is it written in a proper manner. Who knows what Wales was thinking? All we can say is that Wales later changed his mind, or quote Wales if he said some such thing. e.g.:

"Wales later reversed his decision and asked for Essjay's resignation."

or

"Wales later reversed his decision, and in a statement he said "blah blah" [1], and asked for Essjay's resignation."

Similarly one cannot say, "Facing a whirlwind of anxiety over problems with Eva Braun, Hitler decided to invade Poland." One can only say, "Hitler invaded Poland." It is still possible to draw a causal connection between two statements (if appropriate), e.g. "Eva Braun broke off the relationship with Hitler. Hitler then invaded Poland." (silly example but makes my point). - Abscissa 10:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Jimmy Wales reversing his decision as him changing his mind, but rather getting the story straight. When news broke, he was in rural India and so he only got half the story. That's why he endorsed Essjay to begin with, albeit ignorantly. It makes sense that once he got back to a stable internet connection, he was able to find out the whole story. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 11:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
How we "see" anything is entirely beside the point. To what do the sources attribute Jimbo's change of heart? I think Abscissa's construction is a better way to go, unless there is a published article that specifically says something different. A Train take the 12:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Related to this, do any of the RS specifically say when Wikia/the WMF/Jimbo knew the truth about Essjay not being a scholar/professor? - Denny 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Abscissa's proposed changes... better to be conservative with the details than get it wrong. Still I think such a change should correlate with what the sources are saying. (→Netscott) 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I also support Abscissa's proposed changes and I have edited the sentence in question. 100DashSix 08:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Concensus part 1: Sandbox page/image/timeline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy/sandbox

I put this up with the picture, and with the Timeline (which begins with the New Yorker article) down in the... well, New Yorker section. I think it works much, much better, from physical layouts, is better looking, and adds much. Lets see if we can get concensus on this. This is what I support, for layout/timeline/image. Take a look. - Denny 13:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus whatsoever about the use of the photograph. Please do not assume that this issue is in any way resolved. I have yet to hear a good argument about why we should have this photograph in the article. Risker 13:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
no, no, sorry--I know that, I wanted to make seperate section to settle the in/out debate is all... I am neutral on the image largely, leaning towards 'in', but won't object if it ends up 'out' in the end. I'd prefer it in for completeness but if concensus is otherwise, I'll live with it. :) - Denny 15:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't weigh in on the photo, I was waiting for the dust to settle, as I know little about GFDL and fair use and such. Now that it has been settled that the phote can be used, I'll offer my opinion:

Mostly neutral, lean towards it being kept out (can't verify its him, 'he' isn't so much the subject as the controversy itself). However, no objections if its kept (I do like the implication that someone who wanted anonymity uploaded it). If it is included, my preference would be to see it in the lead. So, there you have it a very weak keep out/neutral. -- Kavri 16:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Concensus part 2: Sandbox page/Catholics for dummies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy/sandbox#The_New_Yorker_interview

Dropped down to this section. Keep it there, one line, triple sourced, good spot after it tooks about his degrees. Yay/nay? - Denny 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence after the Catholics for Dummies sentence belongs back in the lead. Otherwise I am fine with this placement of the sentence. Risker 13:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's important to note that it wasn't just reported, but Essjay admitted it. --Dookama 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This may be a good example of truth versus verifiability. Do any of the sources that mention this use that kind of terminology? Risker 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I've misunderstood this thread but his citation (use) of CfD was widely reported and is wholly supported for mention in the article. Gwen Gale 14:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(ec)The use, yes. The "Essjay admitted" wording doesn't go along with the sources that have been unearthed to this part. I think what Denny was doing here was suggesting alternate placement of the current sentence, which pretty well matches the wording of the various RS's. Risker 14:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops I get it. Yes, I'm sorry, I think he's spot on, the word "admitted" is not supported at all by the sources. Gwen Gale 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The link above is taking me to a sandbox page that doesn't contain anything. Was it deleted? I went there once and it was there...but later when I went back, couldn't see it. (Hopes I didn't some how delete the content...eep) -- Kavri 14:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been redirected to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Essjay_controversy/sandbox Risker 14:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox changes

Feel free to edit the sandbox as well--thats what it's for, to hash this out. don't take it as "Denny's Version" or anything like that... - Denny 15:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the sandbox by putting in a section stripped of references for readability, to get opinions. I've made an alternate beginning that puts the Kentucky info back up into the lede, where it originally was, and changed the 'has claimed to hold' to 'claimed to have held'. I've also added the name of the New Yorker for the phone interview, and dropped the bit about Kentucy as it is replaced by the entire Kentucky section going back up there.-- Kavri 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Opinions ??? I would like to know what people think of the alternte beginning, with the article semi-protected, I don't want to put the whole thing in, though I did put the Kentucky courier stuff back up to the lede, it makes no sense in the New Yorker section. However, I think the alternate 'is' a better beginning. Anyone want to comment??? -- Kavri 02:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essjay_controversy/Archive_11&oldid=1061976692"