Talk:Daniel Brandt/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Note The subject of this article has requested that they not be included in Wikipedia. While Wikipedia does not honor these requests, this article should be monitored for controversial or unsourced material.
Daniel Brandt/Archive 8 was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-01-06
Wikipedian This article contains biographical material about a person who is or has been a Wikipedia contributor. Wikipedia policies are in place to ensure that the subject of such material does not exert undue influence over its content. However, the nature of Wikipedia is such that, as with all its articles, misleading material may be present.


Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
Wikipedian The subject of this article, Daniel Brandt/Archive 8, has edited Wikipedia as Daniel Brandt (talk • contribs). In addition, the following users have appeared or claimed to be Brandt, but may actually be impostors:
DanieI Brandt (talk • contribs)*
Harry 3 (talk • contribs)
Houston R. (talk • contribs)
Jango 7 (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia Watch (talk • contribs)
Fetchin' (talk • contribs)
Braniel Dandt (talk • contribs)
Danny Brandt (talk • contribs)
Gorsh (talk • contribs)		 69.180.213.189 (talk • contribs)
66.142.89.246 (talk • contribs)
68.91.252.16 (talk • contribs)
68.214.59.77 (talk • contribs)
68.89.136.118 (talk • contribs)
68.91.89.75 (talk • contribs)
68.89.128.29 (talk • contribs)
68.91.255.70 (talk • contribs)
69.150.213.121 (talk • contribs)
68.91.89.163 (talk • contribs)
68.90.179.78 (talk • contribs)
69.149.104.45 (talk • contribs)
69.149.104.17 (talk • contribs)
68.89.136.174 (talk • contribs)
66.142.91.215 (talk • contribs)
68.90.165.175 (talk • contribs)
68.91.89.150 (talk • contribs)
68.92.158.3 (talk • contribs)
*note that the last letter of the first word is an uppercase i


Contents

[edit] Comments

What happened to the page history? Why have my comments been deleted? SqueakBox 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The notice falsely states we are welcome to edit the article but the page is blocked so how can we. I am setting up Daniel Brandt/temp to edit it, SqueakBox 18:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Isee we cant even follow the delete instructions. What is going on here? SqueakBox 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really following Doc glasgow's reasoning, when the DRV tag expressly allows editing. Temp page has been restored. --Merovingian ※ Talk 02:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The so called temp page is 1) unnecessary as the history is currently not deleted - so the original article can be read 2) technically a copy/GFDLvio since it is a cut-and-paste. 3) If you don't follow my reasoning, surely better to discuss it with me, or at least inform me, than than to wheel war and reverse me without discussion. --Docg 03:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
1). The template allows editing, not just viewing; Daniel Brandt is currently protected. 2). I'm not really sure what you mean here; if I'm following you correctly, you say a cut-and-paste move from one place on Wikipedia to another is a copyvio? 3). Sorry, I thought the undelete "edit" summary and leaving a note here was enough to pass for discussion; apparently it's not? --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
We're supposed to discuss before we revert admin actions not afterwards (at least what's what I'm in trouble for already). Yes, a cut and paste is a copyvio. As the users who have contributed to the article are not aknowledged in the edit history, as required by the gFDL. At the moment the history says that SqueakBox is the author of the whole article. That's a GFDL breach. --Docg 03:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Doc is correct. Were it not for the cloud of drama hanging over this right now I'd tell him he's silly for not simply speedying this again. If there needs to be a page here for discussion or whatever, please move the history over. --Gmaxwell 03:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well thanks for clearing this up. I'll delete the temp page now, and I suppose we can use this here talk page for discussing possible changes to the actual article. --Merovingian ※ Talk 03:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

On 8 December 2006, User:Pilotguy restored 383 revisions of "Talk:Daniel Brandt". On 23 February 2007 User:Yanksox deleted "Talk:Daniel Brandt". There are now 540 deleted edits that could be restored. --JWSchmidt 17:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Many of these may be libellous or privacy violations. Gahgh.--Docg 18:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Says who? I've followed this article and its talk page quite closely in the last few months, and people were extra-super-duper careful when it came to WP:BLP stuff and quickly removed anything that could be interpreted as negative or controversial. It is entirely possible that a few possibly controversial (and unsourced) statements slipped through, but that is true for every talk page of every article that we have. --Conti|✉ 18:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. Were these deleted edits in the log, from when the page was here. They may have been harmful and must't be inadvertantly undeleted when/if the rest is.--Docg 22:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. What you say makes perfect sense, of course. --Conti|✉ 23:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There was a move archive done on May 29, 2006. Since that time, the only deletion prior to Yanksox's was under WP:CSD#G8, simultaneous with a deletion of the article. There are no deletions and partial restores to point to as evidence that there have been edits needing to remain deleted. (I have no access to oversight, so can't tell if edits were oversighted while undeleted.) Anyone who wants to crawl through the history and point the oversight community at any specific edits needing attention is encouraged to do so. GRBerry 04:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History restored

Looking at the deletion log, there are no instances of a selective deletion on this page (they show as a delete immediately followed by a restore by the same administrator). Given that, I have restored the page history, and will soon merge the top revision. --cesarb 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also undeleted all the redirects to this article I had deleted, and their talk pages. --cesarb 15:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

The article was full protected while the deletion review was running. I have lowered this to semi-protection given the deletion review result. It wasn't protected at all immediately prior to this little episode of drama, but I suspect that this is a high attention article right now, so choose to only lower the protection to semi. I think I am somewhat doing a WP:IAR action in leaving it protected at all, and go on the record now that I have no objection to any admin changing that protection status without prior discussion with me. GRBerry 15:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] San Antonio Express-Times article

Hello, one editor reverted my inclusion of this as a source. There is a passing reference to the WP editor Slim Virgin, but everything else in the article is corroborated by other sources and I don't see any reason to exclude it as a source. Why is this not a good source? - Denny 16:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a high chance that source may have used wikipedia as its source. It cites no primary evidence. Further I can't see how this relates to this ridiculous article. Leave the guy alone.--Docg 17:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
it seems that in referencing slim virgin they must have used wikipedia as it's source (for that one passage out of the whole article), but it's a legitimate news story by a reputable source, on a notable subject with approximately 50+ sources about him (give or take). No offense... but your closeness to topic based on DRV I would like extra input. I just want to help make sure the article is 'bullet proof' in sourcing so there are no BLP concerns. It mentioned he did jail time for the draft card burning, and this source has a specific figure (four days) so it seems like worth noting. The article also serves to establish notability/fill in gaps, as our job is add in all relevant info. Please let me know, thanks... Does the fact they mention a wikipedian/one on-wiki situation mean that they can't be used as a source? if so, where do we say that...? - Denny 17:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Too many idiots spoil the article. Some Wikipedians have no idea what they are doing. Why don't you just delete the article? 1. I didn't spend four days in jail for dodging the draft, and I didn't spend four days in jail for burning my draft card. In fact, I didn't dodge the draft at all. I publicly refused to cooperate with my draft board over a period of about 18 months, and waited to get indicted. The four days in jail was because the judge who presided over the trial thought I was a hotheaded whippersnapper, and improperly refused to set bail after the jury came in with the conviction. It took four days before my attorney convinced the judge to reverse himself and set bail. Over a year latter both convictions were reversed by the Ninth Circuit. 2. No one has ever done four days for draft-card burning. It was a felony at the time, with a five-year maximum sentence. I was not prosecuted on this count, but rather on two other five-year counts: failure to appear for a physical, and refusing induction. If the phrase "draft dodging" ends up in the article, I consider this highly provocative and libelous. The convictions were reversed by the Ninth Circuit and my civil rights were restored by the President. If anything is dodgy about this biography, it's the Wikipedians who are writing it. -Daniel Brandt 68.89.128.115 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've quit for now. But is any process pillock removes the above as the post of a banned users, I will rise from the grave and block them for 1,000 years.--Docg 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"Draft resistance" would probably be a more apt phrase than "draft evasion"; what he was doing was attempting, for political, philosophical, and ideological reasons, to publicly and openly defy the draft, rather than trying to "evade" it for his own personal purposes. The latter has some connotations of sneakiness which don't apply here. *Dan T.* 19:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If the San Antonio Express-Times has demonstrated a willingness to use information from Wikipedia as a source for criminal convictions, it has demonstrated that it lacks the editorial oversight we require for reliable sources on Wikipedia, especially those related to Biographies of Living people. Wikipedia mirrors are not reliable sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't wanna fight... where does indicate that the San Antonio source used Wikipedia as a source for the criminal bit? I just want to understand. - Denny 19:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that deciding the SAET is no longer a reliable source because we have decided that they are not using reliable sources because we have decided that despite not mentioning any sources they have taken all their information from Wikipedia is itself OR. --Gwern (contribs) 20:16 28 February 2007 (GMT)

If the SA Ex-Times article was the only one the focused on Brandt as a primary subject, then couldn't we take this to AfD right now since there are no citations from multiple non-trivial publications that focus on Brandt as a primary subject? All of the other citations from non-trivial sources are about incidents and activities that Brandt may have had a part in and only make mention of Brandt in a tangental way. Any other source that makes more mention of Brandt would not hold up to scrutiny under the WP:RS policy. This deletion discussion would be in-spite of bainer's arbitrary moratorium on deletion discussion but totally per policy. — M (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review 'Meet Mr. Anti-Google' and 'Searching for Daniel Brandt' among others for more articles about Brandt. They are all listed in the refs. AfD is scheduled in a week per the DRV closer. Jokestress 20:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"Searching for Daniel Brandt" by CounterPunch is from a political blog, which at first makes it suspect per WP:RS. It is an interview with Brandt and does not provide a basis for reliable biographical information. It would serve well in the Google article and an article about NameBase. It's entirely unsuitable as a reliable source in a biographical article. The same is true for the Salon.com article. —M (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
CounterPunch has been printed since 1994. They also have an online version. Hardly a blog, since it predates the word. Your assertion that Salon is not a reliable source appears to be the opinion of a very small minority. Jokestress 20:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
They don't serve as suitable reliable sources for a biographical article because they don't discuss him in a biographical context. They would be suitable sources for articles about the subject they discuss, eg. internet privacy. Where are the sources that verify his date and place of birth? —M (talk • contribs) 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? Interviews in generally reliable publications are reliable sources about what people have to say about themselves. This is longstanding precedent. JoshuaZ 20:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Where in that interview or the Salon article are questions and answers about his date and place of birth or his legal struggles regarding the draft? —M (talk • contribs) 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh? That's not what the source is being used for, is it? JoshuaZ 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And with a week's grace we can make sure to the best of our efforts that the article wont get deleted by making it credible, well sourced and meeting BLP, SqueakBox 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Why does Wikipedia need this article? —M (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'll answer that question when the article goes to Afd, SqueakBox 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
multiple international Media sources keep citing him as a to them authority in privacy, internet privacy, google, and wikipedia, and people may try to look him up due to that. why don't we need it? He passes the wp:bio test easily for multiple non-trivial sources... - Denny 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Why does Wikipedia need any article? An encyclopedia's value is directly proportional to its completeness. Where do you think the term "encyclopedic coverage" comes from? -- Jay Maynard 01:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we all please postpone the "Should we have this article?"-discussion until the AfD starts? Thanks! :) --Conti|✉ 20:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Right... everyone just WP:CHILL and we can tear each other apart in a week...--Isotope23 20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I started (another) fight over all this, I was just trying to expand sourcing out. I'm bowing out till the afd. sorry. - Denny 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your initial question was fine, since it was about the content of the article, not about its existence. --Conti|✉ 22:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] use of nowiki on hyperlinks

Could someone point out why a number of the hyperlinks in inline citations and external links are wrapped in nowiki? Is it to avoid them being click-able or to make the url visible? The addition of nowiki has broken syntax on a few of the inline citations, as they still have a trailing ']'. John Vandenberg 21:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is so the URL's are not clickable.--Isotope23 21:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason is because the links are in the spam blacklist and so can only be displayed in this fashion. (Try putting one of the links into a sandbox and you will see). JoshuaZ 21:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the cluebat; it says so right there in content I was reading: "Several PIR domains have been placed on Wikipedia's spam blacklist." I'm not sure why that is relevant to this BIO; were these sites put on the blacklist due to the subjects actions, those of another person, or persons unknown? John Vandenberg 21:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not relevant to this article. WAS 4.250 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on "bio" articles that aren't really "biographies"

What do people think about saying something like "This article contains noteable information about a non-public living person and is not intended to be a rounded biography as details of their personal life are private." at the top. If people like it, we can use it on other articles named after living persons that aren't really "biographies". WAS 4.250 21:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

hate to butt in again but curious... who decides who is non-public? whats the criterion? - Denny 22:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Our servers are in Florida and Florida state law provides a right to privacy for nonpublic persons. I suggest that is a good place to start. WAS 4.250 22:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to say, that seems like a good idea, but I am curious what the firm definition of public vs. non-public is then. is it Florida law? is Ben Affleck public or non? is Bill Gates public or non? is Scooter Libby public or non? is the Unibomber public or non? might be a good idea for a guideline that is 100% non-subjective. meet x criteria, you are public, otherwise no..., like WP:PUBLIC? Having that as a template then could be good for all people that don't meet the x to get to WP:PUBLIC status... - Denny 22:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't need a firm definition, just clueful careful caring people who try to do what is legal and moral. We should not even get close to the line dividing illegal from legal with respect to the privacy rights of non-public persons. See Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_4#Invasion_of_privacy_issue_is_not_mentioned_adequately#Legal liability for true statements (privacy concerns) and Invasion of privacy. WAS 4.250 22:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the WMF should weigh in on this... that post by Brandt there is pretty vague. By his implied wording even if someone posted a 100% true but unfavorable thing that was sourced the WMF would be liable. thats a pretty gray area, shouldn't that be for the WMF lawyers to address? - Denny 22:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[1] says "One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public." Seperating people into public versus nonpublic is for convinience. Privacy issues are actually decided by the specific encroachment of privacy alledged. But we should get nowhere near the line, so simplifying by dividing people up into private vs. public will work most the time. Anything contraversial about a private living person that is "not of legitimate concern to the public" should not be in Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 22:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Should that be in WP:BLP then? I'd imagine so... but then BLP will need to make a distinction between private/public persons. Which is a good idea too. - Denny 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping the discussion on the proposed deletion of this article will help us to both fine-tune the BLP policy and help everyone better understand BLP issues. WAS 4.250 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that he has done things like give interviews to publications, wouldn't that make him a public person? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think of him as semi-private. Sometimes simplifications don't work. WAS 4.250 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
True, on simplifications... but since it's all so subjective (our take, the media's take, the subject's take)... who decides? A famous actor deciding everything is private? What is a private person becomes the textbook def of public, then tries a 'take back'? Or someone that fate makes famous... who decides? I'll post on BLP I guess... - Denny 23:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Answers exist at

[2] WAS 4.250 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see: Public vs. Non-public_people BLP talk. thank you. - Denny 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop speculating on legal matters here. This area is for improvement of the article. If you have comments about the article's content, that's fine, but this isn't a place to speculate on Brandt's legal status as a limited public figure according to Florida law. Jokestress 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
That's why I moved it over there... - Denny 23:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The proposed sentence has been deleted because it is contested whether or not Dan is a public or private person. Further, the actual criteria is more carefully construed as public or private data not persons. So it needs to be rewritten if it is going to be used. WAS 4.250 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, it was moved from where the public (readers) could see it to where only editors could see it. The intent of the sentence is to indicate to readers as well as writers that this is not a rounded biography and therefore do not jump to conclusions about ommissions. Let me quote from Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 5#"Biographies of living persons for deletion" (BLPfD) policy proposal:

"BLPfd Comments section 2 I don't have enough history with, interest in, or support for this project to lend any credibility to a vote I might make here, but I can share a comment. My comment relates more to the narrative task of writing bios than to the administrative obligations related to publishing biographies, but evidence of insufficient substance to produce useful narrative might be relevant to a policy discussion. Looking at the complete message, my comment is a bit of an essay, but I hope it is useful. In short, some of the "BLPs" on little known figures aren't bios at all; they are collections of facts that have strayed into the public arena. Wikipedia follows two standards that make production of bios on little-known living persons exceptionally difficult, if not impossible. One is the rejection of "original research". The other is similar; it requires citations from reputable publications. A biography is not simply an account of a person's public life. A biography is a well-rounded account of a person’s life that hopefully lends some insight into the influences behind a person's public activities, or reveals profound meanings from their personal activities. A news story about Ted Bundy, for example, (fair subject because he's a public figure and deceased) might start with his murders and end with his execution. A biography of Bundy would tell us what childhood influences might relate to his adult activities, or at least reveal a stark contrast.In the absence of interviews with the subject, or with acquaintances of a subject, we can never produce well-rounded bios. Public figures have usually been the subject of numerous biographical interviews. Less "notable" private persons, who might be quasi-public figures in specific news topics, often or usually have not been exposed in personal interviews. The result, as I stated in my premise, is not a biography, but a collection of published facts.Wikipedia doesn't systematically call these articles biographies. The articles seem to become "BLPs" in discussion, but in the main space, they are just articles. Their content sometimes tends to expand from a collection of published facts into what appears to be a biography. The result is a false impression about that person's life -- an apparent biography that is instead a collection of summarized news clips under a heading that seems to indicate a bio. The difference in that and the actual news clippings is the clippings are archived in a context that indicates they were the news of the time, but not that they are the predominate facts of a person's life. If a person searches "John Doe" in an online news archive, they can know all the results with old dates are old news, not in the context of either current events and usually not in the context of the person's entire life history. We can discern from the narrative of the articles whether they were intended to explain particular events or whether they were composed as a personality profile. In the original context, discernment is possible. Compiled out of context, a collection of summarized news clips can appear to be a biography.From the numerous biographical articles of little-known persons I've read in this collection, I've found no compelling reason (aside from general, widespread and overwhelming concerns about the efficacy of such exceptionally loose editorial management as Wikipedia seems to advocate) to reject publication of these articles except that the no-original-research bans exactly what any responsible biographer, nay, any responsible writer would do. Contrary to ethical guidelines of most biographical publishers, subjects of Wikipedia articles aren't routinely contacted about contents of articles that claim to describe their activities. I find nothing in Wikipedia guidelines or policies that prohibits such contact, but a general arms-length attitude toward subjects and sources implied by no-original-research suggests a Wikipedia bio need not be believable to its subject if it can be documented with other published sources. That doesn't fly with me, but that's not my point. If people want to write poor narrative and no one says they are personally hurt, our critique would usually be toward the general quality of the narrative, and not about the negative impact on the subject. My point, in the context of responding to the above proposal, is that when subjects of biographical articles contact Wikipedia to complain about a bio, they might not be prepared to expose the differences between an actual biography and a user-generated collection of news accounts, but they can be negatively impacted all the same. Their ire might or might not be well articulated.The least Wikipedia can do is to recognize that these collections of news items about little known persons are not biographies. As such the introductory sentence "John Doe is..." often has little comprehensive meaning and can easily misinform people who John Doe is. John Doe might in fact be the man who streaked naked through a televised college football game, but that one fact about John doesn't tell us much. It's certainly not the story of his life. If John contacts someone from Wikipedia and says "look, off the record, I was recently divorced and running with some old buddies from my alma mater, but that was 15 years ago. Now I'm the candidate for CFO at a major firm. Could you please at least remove that fact from an article under my name and place it in an article about "streaking" or "Streaking at College Football Games"?There is no reason other than stubbornness I can imagine to deny John's request. There might or might not be legal reasons to honor his request. The reasons offered in the policy trial balloon above primarily consider the impact on the subject of the bio, but the impact on public appreciation of narrative is also worth considering. If as some suggest, Wikipedia can serve as an alternative text book, degradation of standards in Wikipedia could have a cumulative effect if collections of news items became widely considered tantamount to biographies written by professionals trained to expose the psychological, social and cultural influences that shaped a person. It seems the core question is whether Wikipedia wants to campaign for a cause, which would be the right or privilege to publish anything that can be remotely construed as factual regardless its value to any meaningful narrative, or whether Wikipedia wants to produce meaningful narrative. In summary, there are humane reasons to heed the advice of little-known subjects when publishing biographies, there might be legal reasons not to misrepresent narrow slices of their lives as comprehensive accounts and there are definitely reasons related to the integrity of knowledge.Jill Hemphill 21:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)" - - - - - WAS 4.250 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References pending inclusion

moved from article. Savidan 20:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

tweaked to a more complete list of all possible sources (first section is mainly on Brandt as main sources, others as supplementary)... - Denny 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Salon news, August 2002
  2. AlterNet, August 2002
  3. Counterpunch news, January 2003
  4. PC Magazine, June 2003
  5. Web Pro News, January 2005
  6. Linux Insider Magazine, December 2005
  7. San Antonio Express News, December 2005
  8. People's Daily China, December 2005
  9. Editor & Publisher, December 2005
  10. The Register, April, 2006 - page 2
  11. Quad City Times/AP, February 2007

---

  1. United States v. Brandt, 435 F.2d 324 (9th Cir. 1970)
  2. The Christian Science Monitor p. 8., July 1989. Thatcher, Gary. Cloak-and-Dagger Database: Software Sniffs Out Secret Agents.
  3. McCarthy, Jerry (January-March 1994). Mary Ferrell Profile. NameBase NewsLine, cited on Spartacus Educational
  4. CBS News, March 2002
  5. Secrecy News, March 2002
  6. The Guardian, September 2002
  7. Wired news, January 2003
  8. ZDNet news, March 2003
  9. St. Petersburg Times, April 2003
  10. Sydney Morning Herald, April 2003
  11. The Telegraph UK, October 2003
  12. Heartland news, December 2003
  13. Tech Review News, March 2004
  14. The Register, March 2004
  15. Daily Texas, April 2004
  16. Sydney Morning Herald, January 2005
  17. Web Pro News, January 2005
  18. Stepforth News, January 2005
  19. Wired news, April 2005
  20. The Age.au, January 2005
  21. ZDNet news, June 2005
  22. CNET News, June 2005
  23. The Guardian, October 2005
  24. Journalism.org, October 2005
  25. USA Today, December 2005
  26. New York Times, December 2005
  27. ZDNet News, December 2005
  28. ABC News, December 2005
  29. Seattle Times, December 2005
  30. ZDNet news, December 2005
  31. Journalism.co.uk, December 2005
  32. Associated Press, December 2005
  33. CNN broadcast, December 2005
  34. Guardian Unlimted, December 2005
  35. Editor & Publisher, December 2005
  36. News Factor News, January 2006
  37. Washington Post, April 2006
  38. Info Sec News, April 2006
  39. Boston Herald, November 2006
  40. Burlington Free Press, February 2007
  41. Concept, accessed March 2007
  42. Googling - this search took me 77 pages in before I quit.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/n/Talk%7EDaniel_Brandt_Archive_8_ce11.html"