Talk:Paul Staines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Move to Paul Staines?

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

[edit] Citations needed under Early life and education

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

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

[edit] Source of Lawyer's Letter

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

Not very, I've removed it. I've left the text in, apart from the statement about Nevis. The rest of the information appears in the footer of the Guido Fawkes blog. Alan Pascoe 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reinserted the reference to Nevis with improved sources. DWaterson 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Move to Guido Fawkes

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

The original article was for Guido Fawkes (blogger), but very quickly the article contained more material about Paul Staines than his blog persona. Alan Pascoe 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Some arse buggering about appears to have removed the only reference we have that Staines is actually Guido Fawkes. Since we know that Staines is in a litigious mood, is it safe to link his name to a blog for "Tittle Tattle Gossip and Rumours"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.136.238.65 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Comment from the Subject

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

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

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

Paul, feel free to edit your own article if you wish, this is no longer a taboo given the current revision of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. If there is a comment which you contend is untrue, and in the article it is either unsourced or the source is wrong, then correct it. Personally, I can't see anything terribly controversial or unbalanced myself at the moment, whether it be from the 'scribblings of journalists' or not, however... Whilst you may be right in stating you are a private individual with no official role, you undoubtedly are notable in Wikipedia's terms as the author of one of Britain's top-ranking blogs. If you'd prefer that this article be located at Guido Fawkes rather than under your own name, I assume people would be happy to consider that request. DWaterson 18:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Have you any verifiable evidence beyond speculation as to the identity of the author of the Guido Fawkes blog? No. It is not for me to edit your article. Suffice to say that from the very first line it is riddled with errors. The whole article is unsupported by the evidence and based on mere assertion. Paul.Staines
  • 1. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not the original author of this article, I am merely a minor contributor to it, and I do not speak on behalf of the Wikipedia community.
  • 2. Surely you must agree, as with some of your own articles, that there is a point at which the weight of circumstantial evidence becomes unavoidable. Every source I have read names Mr Paul Staines as the author of the Guido Fawkes blog, and as such there appears to be no evidence to the contrary, beyond these comments. This is sourced according to the linked citations; if these are all incorrect, then that is unfortunate and should be corrected, based on new more accurate sources.
  • 3. The first paragraph alone makes a number of value judgements, which I personally do not think are unreasonably unencyclopaedic; however, the community may disagree and wish to revise in accordance with Wikipedia policy.
  • 4. In any case, I personally am a keen reader of the Guido Fawkes blog, and have no interest in entering into a dispute, so hereby withdraw from this discussion. DWaterson 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Sheer weight of evidence, and media statements, strongly link Staines to Guido, so that's sufficient for the article. Guido's repeated mentions in the media (and complaints if they take his stories without doing so) make him a public figure, so this article is warranted. Describing him as a conservative is always a value judgement, but you don't have to be a member of the Socialist Workers Party to be a socialist, and although Guido was originally described as an "equal opportunities stirrer" by the media when they first noticed him, the recent political slant of his column does tend to lead a number of people to feel that would describe his political leanings as not being completely non-partisan [4] [5]. As such, I feel the current statements are defensible, as reflecting the current opinion in the related media. 128.243.220.41 14:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friends Reunited as a source for the subject's schooling

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

No, it is a poor source. The existing source is a published book, which is clearly more reliable. This is all made clear on WP:V. Alan Pascoe 19:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I must say, it does raise doubt about the accuracy of the current claim about his schooling. Whilst friendsreunited is clearly a dubious source, nevertheless the conflicting evidence perhaps indicates we should remove the statement altogether until it is clarified by a third source? After all, published books are often wrong too... DWaterson 21:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Because FU is an unreliable source, I don't think it is strong enough to question the reliability of a published book. Of course, I am making assumption; I am assuming that the book actually states what is in the article. I have not seen the book myself. On the other hand, I have not seen the FU entry. When I visited the link provided by User:Nakedbatman, all I got was a login screen. Alan Pascoe 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
That's my concern too. I haven't read the book either, and there is a possibility that it is either incorrectly sourced, or does not actually support the claim it is supposed to do. My inclination would be, given Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, to delete the statement altogether pending further reliable sources being identified. I'm not convinced that it is a question of the relative weight to be ascribed to a (purportedly) reliable vs a (purportedly) unreliable source, rather that, even if one is in fact unreliable, it has nevertheless cast enough reasonable doubt over the whole matter to take precautionary action. DWaterson 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I have removed it. It appears likely that it is false. It's not like the book is available online to verify it anyway Nssdfdsfds 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hull University?

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

[edit] UK Atari Video Games Champion.

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

It's quite a claim, maybe we should give it more prominence on the page?--Pogsurf 10:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
How about we delete it? Sounds good to me.--Tom 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There was a reference, to "Collin, Matthew; Godfrey, John (1998). Altered State: The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House, 2nd edition, London: Serpent's Tail. ISBN 1852426047. " However, someone's removed the reference. Incidentally it appears it was actually the Atari Asteroids championship. There's a fairly interesting, even if not WP:RS, from Staines, saying it in the comments here: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003392.html The book is a perfectly good source though. Nssdfdsfds 21:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It was sourced, but the source got lost as collateral damage in this edit: [7]. The reference can be restored when the page is unprotected. If possible, I will try and get hold of a copy of the cited book and verify the reference, but I'm not sure whether my local library will hold such an, eh, interesting text :) Cheers, DWaterson 22:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the book was rather more reliable than its summariser. Try searching for 'Atari' here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1852426047/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-9373996-5148159 Page 99 says: Staines came first in "an Atari Asteroids championship". He's also described as a Harrow schoolboy - not a Harrow School boy. Obviously whoever added the claim in was more familiar with Harrow the school than Harrow the rather large and populous area of London..... It's no different from describing someone as a former Essex schoolboy. Nssdfdsfds 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altered State : The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House

Re [8]

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

[edit] Unbalanced article

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

Oh really? I had a quick search on Google News, and I could find *nothing* critical of Guido Fawkes or his blog. No reliable sources whatsoever. Unless you want to refer to the petty blog squabbles that have formed in the last few months? Surely not. Nssdfdsfds 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What about the Telegraph piece that said he should go to jail? And his spat with the New Statesman? But your argument is ludicrous. If he is notable as a blogger then his blog is notable; then blogs that make significant criticism are notable. The source is the blogs. Blogs are sources for what is contained on them, if it is notable. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Further to that, read WP:NPOV: "where there are or have been conflicting views" (which there certainly have) "these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight .. and all significant published points of view are to be presented". Published includes published on the web. The article does not present the significant published point of view that Paul Staines' blogging is harmful to democracy. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Why are you misrepresenting things so blatantly. Said he should go to jail? Are you serious? It said nothing of the kind, please don't be so ridiculous. Here's the article:
"The Charity Commission has warned an online blogger he could go to jail unless he submits information he has gathered about the activities of the Smith Institute, the left-wing think tank under investigation for links to the Labour Party.
The formal direction was issued to Paul Staines, who runs the Guido Fawkes political website, ordering him to release documents relating to the institute by Friday."
[9]
This is not saying he *should* go to prison, in fact he and others sympathetic to him used it humorously. [10] [11] In any case, the Telegraph article is ALREADY REFERENCED IN THE ARTICLE.
'Should' means the same as "could" when a Yorkshireman uses it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this 'spat' with the New Statesman, I only see this. [12] It's hardly a spat, there's one sentence that's critical, "Once again he has not allowed accuracy to get in the way of a piece of mischief." You could of course report this, but it would only make sense in the context - something like "Staines alleged that the New Statesman had improper links to the Smith Institute and had failed to cover the funding scandal, Martin Bright responded saying that they didn't think their readers were interested, and accused Staines of being more interested in mischief than accuracy." I would have no objection to this. But covering the few lefty bloggers who've been attacking him? Get real. Nssdfdsfds 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a significant published point of view. "Get real" does not amount to an argument, certainly not one that gets around WP:NPOV which is absolute and non-negotiable. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Mr Staines' blog is not a reliable source on anyone other than himself. That is why we do not report *any* of the many allegations he makes, unless they have been further reported on *reliable sources*. Until a blog spat becomes more than just a few bloggers squabbling it is not reported here. That is why there is room for debate on referring to Tim Ireland's blog in Anne Milton, because Tim Ireland's attack blog was reported in The Times. Without that mention it would never be in the article. Blog attacks are simply not reported on wikipedia without reliable sourcing. Nssdfdsfds 20:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah now, I see where you have gone wrong. A blog is a reliable source as to what is on the blog wherever that is relevant to the topic under discussion, not just in an article on the blog itself. The position you advance has become irredeemably confused: the idea that we can only report what's said on a blog when The Times says what it is, when we actually have the blog itself, is ludicrous. What's said on a blog can be significant even if no newspaper or other source picks up on it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Temper please, gentlemen... the article is currently protected due to edit warring, and the threat still does not appear to have lifted. Perhaps this would be a fine time to try to gain consensus on suitable wordings here on the talk page. Fys, would you like to suggest proposed edits to the article that would address your concerns? However, editors on all sides are going to have to give some leeway otherwise we are on a hiding to nothing here. And I would remind everyone of the importance of WP:BLP where anything controversial that cannot be referenced by high quality sources is concerned - especially that "zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". DWaterson 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to reporting things from reliable sources. Come up with something and we can debate it. Nssdfdsfds 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Nss' objections are not founded in any policy or guideline. The fact that someone has been criticised is not in and of itself controversial. I'll work on some proposed wording. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't intend to join this debate because I believe Nssdfdsfds is just a time waster. He has a very partial view on the subjects he contributes to, and seems to be "guarding" Paul Staines in a very peculiar way.. My views on Staines are well known (see http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ros_taylor/2007/01/post_944.html). I wish you well in your endeavours to sort this page out. --Lobster blogster 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead, this discussion up to now has been pretty pointless as you've just said "this article sucks" and haven't made any attempt to improve it. If you've got something to say say it. Nssdfdsfds 01:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a small point to add here, that it was Nssdfdsfds that repeatedly undid revisions of mine both here on the discussion page, and on the article itself. --Lobster blogster 13:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
How exactly did he pull that off? You see, your first edit was 2 March while the article has been protected since February. IrishGuy talk 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I didn't have an account before then, and editted using an IP address. --Lobster blogster 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that Nssdfdsfds has acted unreasonably in some of his deletions on this talk page - the reasonable discussions of the Guardian article. Seems to me Nssdfdsfds's actions match "Talk page vandalism" in WP:VANDAL in fact. He is entitled to argue that the Guardian article should not be mentioned in the article as it is "libel", but not delete all discussion of it on Talk. Rwendland 15:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussions are *not* reasonable. They are libellous against Mr. Staines. Therefore they have no place on wikipedia, whether it be talk page or anywhere else. Libel is just as libellous on 'talk' as it is on the main article. There's no discussion whatsoever that can be had about it, so just stop it and move on to productive things. Nssdfdsfds 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What on earth is libellous about publishing someone's date of birth (February 11, 1967) or middle name (de Laire.)? Nssdfdsfds has repeatedly removed both from the site. If he bothered to look up 192.com or 1837 online he would see that both those references are correct. There's no point me putting in a link to them as they are both subscription sites. Beaureparian
Eh, there's nothing libellous, I never said there was, I removed them because they are not in compliance wikipedia's policy of *sourcing* information: WP:RS. That's all. Anyone can make any statement they like, you have to be able to prove it by reference to a reliable source. Nssdfdsfds 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We seem doomed to an endless cycle here unless we retain notes on Talk along the lines of:

The Guardian published a news item about Staines on X, but later on Y published an apology for inaccurate content and retracted the article (or some other good and verifiable reason). The agreed consensus was not to mention this news item in the article.

Otherwise periodically a fresh editor will come along and mention the Guardian article, and we will go through another tedious discussion cycle. Purging all mention of the Guardian news item in Talk seems entirely the wrong approach to me. Mentioning the existence of the news item is not libel, and should not be deleted from Talk. (NB This is not to imply the Guardian news item has been retracted - I have not myself seen the claimed retraction.) Rwendland 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really such an issue. It mainly comes down to one user, Lobster Blogster, who has stated on his blog about his 'battle' to get this libel into wikipedia. BTW, the retraction or not is irrelevant. If you cannot prove a story to be true, it is libellous. The original articlem, from when Staines was a student and didn't have the legal knowledge/resources, has long since passed the statute of limitations and there's no need for The Guardian to retract it. Nssdfdsfds 19:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have my own doubts on the veracity of the story in the Guardian in 1986, but I doubt it is libellous to distribute it. However, Paul Staines' reaction to it is highly significant and should be in the article. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If you republish a libel it is libellous. The 1986 story is too old, but any republication is libellous. Anyway, as I've said before the attitude that he should be damned for defending himself is rather unfair, as effectively any old smear against him then becomes notable - either by publishing it if he doesn't respond, or by publishing that he acted to repudiate it when he does. Nssdfdsfds 14:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
a) It has not been established that the article is libellous. It has been republished by several bloggers and remains up, with none of them reporting any legal contact from representatives of Paul Staines. b) Staines' blog makes libellous accusations against other people and he taunts them with his defiance and contempt of the libel laws. c) It clearly is worthy of note that his attitude to the libel laws changed by 180 degrees when the boot was on the other foot. The point of this article is not to be "fair" to the subject (is it fair to Lord Levy that his article reports accusations against him that he has been unable to respond to during an ongoing criminal investigation?), but that it is informative. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
(a) I'm not sure what you're arguing any more. If the allegations are defamatory, and they clearly are, and you can't prove they're true, they're libellous. Simple as that. I don't get your 'none of them reporting legal contact'. A minute ago you wanted to attack him for making legal contact, now you're saying because he hasn't it might not be libel. Do make your mind up. (b) He's well aware of the law and has removed libellous content from his blog. He had the opportunity for instance to explicitly name Prescott's mistresses and instead just did Sun-style picture juxtapositionings hinting at it. (c) But he has responded to complaints and removed libellous content from his blog. It's absurd to say that he just allows any old libel to be published. I can't imagine what you're referring to on Levy, but as far as I can see on this issue at least, he's just recycled content from the BBC and Guardian, I don't know what you're talking about.
Your opinions are exactly that - your opinions, and not worthy of mention on the page. But as I've said, I think it would be easier if you just come up with a paragraph or so of what you want to add to the article, because this discussion is rather abstract, and thus ultimately rather pointless - content is what matters. Nssdfdsfds 17:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify my position, I'm in general against making a big meal of someone's foolish actions when they were 18 or 19. I simply want to take some basic facts along the lines of Staines studied at Humberside College of Higher Education, taking a degree course in business information studies. He became chairman of the college's branch of the Federation of Conservative Students., and keeping a note about the source and its limited use on Talk. I'm against purging the existance of the Guardian article. I'm open minded on the suggestion of mentioning Guido's recent fuss about the article, and would be interested in seeing a draft from Fys on this. Rwendland 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
He denies making any such actions. The article is quite clearly not a reliable source, as it has been removed from Lexus Nexis. The article already states his FCS involvement, the additional information about it being Humberside + business information studies is rather mundane and does not justify the use of the source. Nssdfdsfds 15:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It matters not one jot or iota whether Staines prints libels himself. The only issue that is important here is the protection of Wikipedia from actions, against which it is unable to defend itself legally or financially, in accordance with Wikipedia's stated policies. If people want to repeat libels elsewhere, that is of no interest to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip blog, and just because there is an article about a gossip blogger, does not mean the article should take the same tone. Cheers, DWaterson 18:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed para

I propose this:

Staines' blog has attracted criticism from other bloggers over both its style and content. Tim Ireland launched a sustained campaign, including a pastiche 'Guido 2.0' blog, in January 2007: he accused Staines of deliberately making posts alleging scandal in vague terms, in order to encourage anonymous comments which were more specific, and also accused Staines of deleting critical comments. Ireland also discovered a newspaper article which implicated Staines in questionable (although not illegal) activity while at college. Staines insisted that the journalist who wrote the piece had retracted it; however, his attempt to restrict distribution of copies of the article (for which he was criticized for hypocrisy) was not entirely successful.

I've not added sources at this stage but I think everything there can be sourced. However for the benefit of the doubt I am not suggesting actually linking to a copy of the article. What do you think? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree that what Ireland says about Staines is notable. I think a better way to approach this would be to cite Staines' own blog. E.g., "Staines has been criticised by other bloggers for deleting comments to his blog." I don't think this is in dispute. That he encourages anonymous libels is a statement more controversial and needs a better source than just Tim Ireland's attack blog. In fact, Staines says [13] "If you want to libel someone - get your own blog." So, "Staines has been criticised by other bloggers for deleting comments. Staines is unapologetic about this telling those who 'complain that it is biased, get your own unbiased blog'."
I don't think, however, that it's reasonable to reference Ireland's attacks as a source, nor to suggest that Staines was involved in unspecified 'questionable activity'.Nssdfdsfds 21:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha Nss, what were you saying about the fact that a blog spat doesn't become notable unless the dead tree press report on it? See Pippa Crerar, "Guido v Manic in war of the Westminster blogs", in the Evening Standard on 13 February 2007 on page 11. And there are also external sources for criticism of blogs for running unsubstantiated smears - Nick Robinson did so in his piece on the BBC News online website. Peter Wilby in the New Statesman on 17 July 2006 did so in even more extreme terms; it's on page 25 if you want to check it. So you've no case, really you haven't. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I can find no reference to the Crerar piece at all online so I'm afraid your reference to it hasn't added anything for me (no reference even in any blogs to it, I should have thought that Ireland would be crowing about it), and if Nick Robinson said something on his blog, I have no idea which post it is. I located the Wilby piece, [14], I'd hardly say it's 'extreme', and if you want to cite it, go ahead, the editor of the New Statesman is certainly a good source, even where some shrieking blogger is not - if you have criticism from a reputable published magazine then why do you prefer instead to cite Ireland to say the same thing? Nssdfdsfds 12:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't have been looking very hard. Multiple independent sources, check. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Para with refs

Now with some added referencing.

Staines' blog has attracted criticism from other bloggers over both its style and content. Tim Ireland launched a sustained campaign, including a pastiche 'Guido 2.0' blog, in January 2007: <ref name="Evening Standard">Pippa Crerar, "[http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20070213/ai_n17224263 Guido v Manic in war of the Westminster blogs]", ''Evening Standard'', 13 February 2007, page 11</ref> he accused Staines of deliberately making posts alleging scandal in vague terms, in order to encourage anonymous comments which were more specific, and also accused Staines of deleting critical comments. <ref name="Ireland blog">[http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2007/01/guido_fawkes.asp Original criticism]</ref> Ireland also discovered a newspaper article which implicated Staines in questionable (although not illegal) activity while at college. <ref name="Evening Standard" /> Staines insisted that the journalist who wrote the piece had retracted it; however, his attempt to restrict distribution of copies of the article (for which he was criticized for hypocrisy) was not entirely successful.

Perhaps the New Statesman and Nick Robinson criticism could be inserted into the bit about Prescott. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've no problems with that. Some of the wording (e.g. "was not entirely successful") is a bit airy, but I suppose there's no way around that given the issues that have been raised in this thread. It's probably time to request the unprotection/downgrading to semi-protection of this article, now that User:Lobster blogster has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Cheers, DWaterson 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you've said you want to report criticism of Staines but then followed it up with a paragraph entirely about Ireland's smears. His smears are useless for this article, although the ensuing 'blog wars' are something we can discuss (as per Evening Standard article). This should be better: Nssdfdsfds 14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism (proposed text)

Staines' has been criticised for his approach to blogging. He has often criticised the media, and the BBC in particular, for being too cosy with the political establishment and for keeping internal secrets about political scandals. He said of allegations about John Prescott that "You can tell it is a big story because Nick Robinson is ignoring it". Robinson responded,[1] accusing Staines of having a political agenda to damage the government, and reporting unsubstantiated and unverifiable allegations.

These criticisms were echoed by Peter Wilby, in The New Statesman, who suggested that Staines' claims to have made the news on Prescott were unfounded, as the story had previously been covered in The Times, and that Staines' contribution to the debate was persistent implications of scandal without supporting evidence.[2]


How bizarre. You started off until a few days ago saying that the Guardian piece was libellous and could not even be mentioned here, and now you go and repeat the libel! Very odd. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't then aware of the Evening Standard article that you pointed to. I assume if the Standard printed it, it must be ok. I'm not entirely sure of the legality of all of this though - you're probably right that it would be a good idea to be careful. Probably it's best not to mention it at all without being 100% sure of the legality of it. So in that case, it would be better not to include that last paragraph starting "In February 2007". Nssdfdsfds 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Bit confused myself too, TBH... DWaterson 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libel Law

Well, I've had a look at this. [15] and this [16] and it's clear that saying that you are reporting the words of others is not a defence to libel. The Standard article must therefore be libellous, and so I don't see that we should link to it. Make sense? Nssdfdsfds 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It has still not yet been established that the Guardian piece is libellous, and I'm certain the Standard piece isn't. You seem to be developing an advanced and acute case of libel paranoia and should really report for treatment before it gets worse. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Eh? Anything is libellous if it damages somebody's reputation and you cannot prove it to be true. The allegations in The Guardian clearly are damaging to Mr. Staines' reputation, and cannot be proven to be true. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Secondly, the links provided clearly say that reporting libellous statements from somebody else is no defence against libel. Reporting a suggestion that Mr. Staines was linked to extremists is clearly damaging to Mr. Staines' reputation. It seems quite plain to me. Paranoia is what you might call it, but I see no reason to risk things over unprovable allegations from 1986. Nssdfdsfds 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Prima fasce what Nssdfsfds says is correct, but I think he is overlooking important case law such as Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others, 1999 and Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe 2006. --Dr Finkbottle 08:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Merely 'damaging somebody's reputation' is not enough. A libel must bring someone into (I forget the exact phrase) scandal, ridicule and contempt. No libel action has been brought over the Guardian piece nor over anything which has repeated it, and I don't think the level of accusations in the piece really are substantially libellous. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, we're not here to test that out. Yes, a jury might decide that the allegations against Mr. Staines would not expose him to scandal, ridicule and contempt, but it's not something that we're in a position to test, unless of course you have Messers Carter-Ruck and Co. on retainer. The fact is there is a substantial whiff of libel around this issue, and it's not prudent to expose wikipedia to it, over something which really doesn't add much to the article. There is plenty else to communicate to give a good impression of what Paul Staines is like without needing to get into this. Nssdfdsfds 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
What it's about is you're just trying to spray around the suspicion of libel because you don't want the article to include anything that might make people think less of its subject. That's why you've had to adopt such an extreme interpretation. However, it does not get around WP:NPOV. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an absurd allegation. I added in the section "Criticism of the Guido Fawkes blog". I wouldn't have done that if I was so bothered about making people think less of him.

Secondly, this is not an 'extreme interpretation'. The fact is, he sent out multiple libel takedown notices, to various bloggers, and to Lexus Nexis, so there is clearly at least a suggestion of libel. Your argument is that the allegations are not libellous because they would not expose him to scandal, ridicule and contempt. Yet the question of whether they would "expose him to scandal, ridicule and contempt" is one that can only be decided by a libel jury. Clearly Mr. Staines thinks it does. The only way to decide would be in a court. That's a fact. Whether it is libellous could only be determined by the subjective opinion of a jury. This is not an appropriate matter to be determined on a wikipedia talk page - you can't get around WP:BLP.

Thirdly, 20-year-old allegations that are quite probably untrue are not a fair thing to bring up against him. If you want to use the article to attack him, do so responsibly. Nssdfdsfds 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh really?

Staines is a right-wing libertarian who described in a 2000 publication how he became a libertarian in 1980 after reading Karl Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies, from Plato To Marx. He joined the Young Conservatives "because they were the only people around who were anti-Socialist or at least anti-Soviet", and at this time began calling himself Delaire-Staines, the name shortened by his father to Staines in the 1960s.

What does Staines himself have to say about this? If this reference - [17] - is to be believed, Staines was approximately 10 years old in 1980. Even the smartest 10-year-olds are not that clued up (and, I would hope, not that pretentious).

And since then: hedge fund manager, bull runner, Atari game champion, acid house party organiser (not necessarily in that order)? It all just seems too fanciful to be true, and some of the references (a druggy book published 10 years ago?) are dubious at best.

Given that Guido's blog (assuming Staines is really the man behind that? Do we really know for sure?) has boasted a completely fictional "Peter Hitchens" who isn't the real Peter Hitchens [18], I am led to wonder just how much of the biographical data provided here is real and how much was just made up by somebody as a joke. 217.155.20.163 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has claimed that he was born 11th February 1967.[19] That would make him 13 when he read that book (I imagine the age on the yahoo profile has just not been updated since he originally posted it). That seems a fairly common sort of age to acquire political awareness. Secondly, what Staines himself has to say about this, I suggest you check the References: Staines himself said that - he's the man who wrote the "2000 publication". The references to hedge fund manager and bull runner are conspicuously well sourced. The Atari game champion is not only referenced by a published book, but mentioned by someone who is extremely likely to be Staines himself, [20] "Disclosure:

I was the UK Atari Asteroids Champion circa 1983 (am very proud owner of medal and T-shirt).

I came 9th in the World Championships in Washington.

I now trade derivatives online for a living. Aim, Firel, BUY/SELL. Same game different scoring system.

Incidentally I am looking to hire someone. Proof of Elite Video Gaming skills will be sought on the resume.


Posted by Paul Staines at April 28, 2003 05:11 PM

The acid house organising, is supported by TWO published books. The other is Generation Ecstasy : Into the World of Techno and Rave Culture by Simon Reynolds (available on Amazon for 'search inside').
The fictional Peter Hitchens is not Mr. Staines, but somebody that posts, heavily, in the comments to his blog. You might as well argue that The Guardian is unreliable because there are anonymous nutters posting on The Guardian's blog.
Finally, according to the reference, "Staines doesn’t like to talk about his background, but acknowledges his Wikipedia entry is fairly accurate.".
So all in all, this article is solidly referenced - it's really impossible to make anything up as a joke, because it's all supported by published books, Mr. Staines' own statements, and other reliable sources. Nssdfdsfds 23:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Look at all the edits made tonight by the man himself! Laughably vain. ZephyrAnycon 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about me? Amusing suggestion, several miles wide of the mark though. Nssdfdsfds 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/u/Talk%7EPaul_Staines_cc89.html"