Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Jimmy Wales (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 > 10 >>

Contents

"bespectacled"

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/united_states/article1264098.ece

He wears glasses? Since when? -- Zanimum 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Beard of the Year

Jimmy Wales was nominated for this, but he didn't win. Don't know if it should be mentioned. Esteffect 02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why mention it? Wales' beard is weak, trimmed very short, and shouldn't have even been nominated for this award.

Added POV warning.

The article seems to lean towards an apologist view towards Jimmy Wales' involvement in what may be called by some as "pornography" or perhaps merely "men's entertainment" depending on your particular POV. It doesn't sufficiently present the counter view and attempts to diminish Jimmy's pass involvement with Bomis. I have therefore added a NPOV warning.

Given that this subject is both controversial, and pertains to Jimmy Wales, it appears to be a major omission. I understand that it is an ongoing battle, however I feel that both sides must be addressed even handedly for this to be sufficiently resolved.

Sean White --58.161.48.55 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion. Mergerlomanica 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

IE 7 Freezing

I'm wondering if anybody else is having the same problem as me: when I try to see the last revision, made between 24.163.65.201 and Frencheigh, my Internet Explorer freezes. I just wanted to see the difference, since it seems that a massive amount of information has been removed. BirdValiant 01:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Switch to Firefox. Rick 08:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Five live

he is on it atm--Slogankid 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Co-Founder

I put a disputed tag up on the article in regards to the "co-founder of Wikipedia" sentence. To my understanding, Wales was unhappy with Nupedia and asked Larry Sanger to make a collaborative wiki to work on it, which eventually became Wikipedia. That would give both of them roles as a co-founder.

However, articles on Wikipedia having to do with Wikipedia should have, IMO, an added level of npov to protect the credibility of the project as a whole.

After all, if we cannot comment accurately on ourselves, how can others trust the judgement of this encyclopedia on other subjects?

"A founder" may border on acceptable elsewhere, but due to that higher standard, it doesn't cut it here; taking the "co" out of there sets the impression that Wales was completely alone, which is not true.

I'll live with the consensus whatever it is, because i'm a Wikipedian and Wikipedians must respect the consensus when it can be determined, but until then, I stick by my opinion and I hope to work with you all towards a consensus edit.

Also, if Mr. Wales edits here, I ask that he follow WP:AUTO. Despite his position, we should ask him to set an example for others: if he doesn't follow the rules that he himself made, other celebrities will follow suit and the credibility of this encyclopedia will be critically damaged. Just H 16:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely why I raise my objections on the talk page. Look, you may have done your own original research and come to the false conclusion that Larry Sanger was co-founder of Wikipedia, and that's all well and good. But it remains true that this is known to be a controversial position, that there are reliable sources which contradict it completely, including multiple statements by me on the record disputing it. Therefore, Wikipedia must not assert it as if it were an uncontroversial fact. That's just basic neutrality.

"A founder" is absolutely no compromise at all. It is simply nonsense weasel wording at best. It still implies, as if uncontroversial, that there were other founders. --Jimbo Wales 17:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. "A founder" isn't acceptable. It must be "co-founder" in my opinion. I would ask Mr. Wales if he believe my statements to be original research to provide his own non-original research stating this to avoid future conflict. There is plenty of outside data that can be corroborated to the contrary, and maybe that will help avoid future edit wars over that status as well as a section disputing Wales' status as the founder of Wikipedia. Just H 17:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Co-founder" is simply false, and we have reliable sources which report that I have called it, on the record, in the press, "preposterous". That is definitive as to it being controversial, and therefore if you want Wikipedia to take a stand on it, you want Wikipedia to push a particular point of view.--Jimbo Wales 17:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that is only definitive as to it being disputed by you. One person's view doesn't make something controversial in a general sense. So far you have not provided any reliable source explicitly agreeing with your position. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If you can provide the links, please feel free to put them here, I will add them to the article. I would also ask you Mr. Wales, not to use Wikipedia to push a particular point of view (i.e: yours) when there is dispute over it, unless there is outside corroboration.

Wikipedia is bigger than me, or even you. It's meant to be a source of all information from all POVs presented in a neutral way for all of mankind. That is what I will try to strive to, even if I have to disagree with you.Just H 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are also sources for the assertion that Sanger claims to be a co-founder. Thus, under NPOV, both viewpoints should be noted. *Dan T.* 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dan T. I'm wondering at this point if we just shouldn't mention the founding of Wikipedia at all in the lead and replace it with "internet enterpreneur" or something and put the Wikipedia founder dispute into its own section both in Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Just H 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
That was the previous compromise, which was a good one. The founder dispute is already well covered in the article, the problem now is in the lead paragraph. If you look back through the history, there have been some good examples.--Jimbo Wales 14:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the previous compromise was putting it as "a founder", which to me is just a hop, step and a jump away from "the founder" if you're reading it quickly. I'm ok with internet enterpreneur, and shifting the founder controversy down to a "accomplishments" or "criticisms" section, what about you all? Just H 21:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


If there is more than one founder, I think it is wrong to say Larry is the only other person besides Jimbo. Anomo 11:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start off with the "internet enterpreneur" part, and we can continue to talk about the founder discussion. I'll give it a shot and you all can let me know what you think. Just H 21:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
We need to start thinking out of the box, as it were, rather than going round in circles. (As no-one seems to like me "anoiding the questions "founder" without article). How about "reigning founder" or "victorious founder" ? -- Beardo 00:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the article is at an all-time low with respect to this issue.--Jimbo Wales 13:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If you provide several sources where people other than yourself make the same claim as you, it will change. I'm too lazy to check through all the sources to see if there are already sources that say that, but seeing as I don't see you provide any sources and you say yourself that there are sources where you claim otherwise not just sources that claim otherwise...
Persude me with sources that aren't just you saying Larry Sanger isn't Wikipedia's co-founder and I will personally watch this article and make sure it says sole founder instead of co-founder. --Dookama 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How about saying "best known for his role in founding Wikipedia"? That way we avoid making any assertions in the lead about whether he's sole founder or co-founder, but acknowledge that this is what Jimbo is known for. Actually, I'll try being bold and making that change — if folks don't like it, we can talk it over. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My birthdate, wikiasari

According to my birth certificate, this article is wrong. If anyone has a reliable source for that bit of information, please produce it. Otherwise, I recommend it be removed.

The wikiasari bit is nonsense. It should be removed as well.--Jimbo Wales 17:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A strange comment about the birth certificate. You have yourself previously stated what your birthday is, and that your birth certificate is one day off. If you don't want your birth date in the article, why don't you plainly say so, instead of trying to insinuate that there's some completely wrong date in the article now. And if your own statement is not a reliable source, then neither is your birth certificate, since this is not verifiable either. We don't have your birth certificate available as a source, we have your statement about your birth certificate and we have your statement about your actual birth date. Assuming that people are an acceptable source for their own birth dates (unless there's any particular reason to doubt them) then we should take the date you said is your actual birthday, and this is what's in the article now. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not say so? Because wikilove requires that veil our derisive comments toward others. I suppose I just don't have that much wikilove in my heart, and woould rather speak honestly and openly. I'm sure they have a lot to say about that on the secret Wikipedia IRC channel Wales frequents. Mergerlomanica 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
In most situations, primary sources should be enough for birth date information. If we keep the birthdate, perhaps we should add a note that Wales has formerly claimed that 7 August 1966 is his birthday but has now retracted that claim? Also, we'll need a link to the original claim. The article on Ann Coulter has a section similar to this, though it is cited with numerous secondary sources.
Or even better- Jimbo could actually publish his real birth date himself rather than being elusive with this whole "my birth certificate doesn't say that!" stuff. --- RockMFR 20:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is his previous statement. I did put that link in the article earlier but it was removed because of some people's mistaken application of the principle that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source", ignoring the fact that using a fixed diff is not using "Wikipedia" as a source, but rather the specific editor, in this case Wales. It makes no difference whether he published his birth date on Wikipedia or on his personal website or anywhere else - either way he is personally the publisher and he is a reliable source for his own birth date. The same kind of dispute is going on at Angela Beesley, by the way. Bramlet Abercrombie 20:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Direct statement from the subject seems good enough for me. How about this compromise- at the beginning of the article, list his birthdate as August 1966. Put in a footnote linking to the diff and explaining that his birth date is either August 7 or August 8. --- RockMFR 21:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know of any reliable source for it. Right now all we have is nndb.com, which is a user generated content site. It clearly should be removed.--Jimbo Wales 15:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a user generated content site, does that mean the content from here isn't reliable? Just H 03:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Bingo! Wikipedia is not ever a reliable source, period. That's why it is not allowed to be cited in Wiki articles. - Crockspot 18:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you certainly have a high opinion of the thing you're editing now... Just H 03:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well it's impossible to use the talk page diff now as it seems to have been deleted by someone with at least oversight powers. That's the best way gain to consensus, isn't it? --- RockMFR 05:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep. "Consensus" on Wikipedia basically just seems to be a big game of chicken unfortunately. Just H 03:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just H-- yes it does, if it's not cited. "Proven guilty of unreliability until proven cited," I guess. -- Zanimum 18:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound a little short Jimmy, but I'm having a frustrating Wikiday. Can we just cut the bullshit, and assume that you do not want your birthday published in this article? Considering the apparent lack of a reliable source for that info, I don't think it will be a problem honoring that request. Crockspot 18:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

German Wikipedia still lists the birthday as 7 August 1966, so I added it here before realizing it had been discussed on the talk page. But if the only way it can be verified is Jimbo's birth certificate, and he hasn't made that available, then "August 1966" is just as unverifiable as "7 August 1966". We can't prove he wasn't born in September 1967, or July 1965, or anything else, so the whole birthdate info has to go--from the text, from the infobox, from the persondata box, and from the categories. —Angr 12:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion

"He appointed himself and two business partners who are not active Wikipedians to the five-member board; the remaining two members are elected community representatives."

This is substantially out of date.--Jimbo Wales 17:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not out of date. It is a perenial fact because it his history. Wales might have changed the makeup of the board recently- was it to avoid a conflict of interest was he opens for-profit projects that exploit wikipedia's volunteer momentum? Was it because of withering criticism that he maintains control of an ostensibly volunteer project by appointing his business chronies to the board even though they've never been part of the project? Could it be because the light of day finally caught up with his jet-lagged mind? Whatever the reason, the facts remain that for the first two years, the foundation was under the control of Wales and his subserviant business partners, and for three years prior to that, he dictated direction as "god-king" who enjoyed sole ownership of the infrastructure that facilitates the project. Mergerlomanica 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"subserviant"... please don't insult people, it is just useless. Anyway, you have revealed yourself to be a hardcore POV pusher who really has no business working on this article.--Jimbo Wales 15:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo, please don't feed the trolls. Mergerlomanica, if you have corroborating external sources that you can present in a neutral manner, please feel free to add it to the article, but please don't engage in personal attacks on the talk page, that will just reduce your credibility on the subject. Just H 03:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Referencing this talk page in the article

I think that it is a bad idea to reference any comment made by the subject of a biographical article on the talk page for that article. I don't doubt that User:Jimbo Wales is who he says he is, but I am concerned that the practice here of consulting the subject of an article on a talk page and then referencing the response might serve as a precedent for other articles. It is possible for someone to create an account and impersonate the subject of an article, and it is also possible for others to edit comments made by a user on a talk page (the latter can be overcome by showing diffs though).

I order to avoid any future controversy comments made by anyone claiming to be the subject of any article on Wikipedia, such comments should be treated with a healthy degreee of scepticism if it involves adding any possibly controversial information. (Of course, if it involves removing controversial information the opposite is true per WP:BLP).

As always it is important to avoid self-references, and even if such information is considered plausible and uncontroversial it could be regarded as original research. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a reliable source! I have removed any references to Wikipedia in this article on these grounds (diff 1 diff 2). As regards references to other websites, such as the Wikimedia foundation, that is a different matter.--Oden 07:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your concern that others may do it wrong doesn't justify removing links where they are done perfectly right. Of course all such links require that 1) the identity of the editor is not in question, 2) you have to link to the diff not the talk page per se, and 3) it has to be non-controversial information for which the person is a reliable source (just like a birth date). A diff is not "Wikipedia", it's material published by a specific editor. It's not a self-reference at all. The talk page is public; anyone outside Wikipedia could use it as a source as well. And how is directly taking facts from a reliable source to be regarded as "original research"? Original research means information that has not been published anywhere before. Bramlet Abercrombie 12:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I interpret WP:NOR as including information which has only been published on Wikipedia. Publishing a statement on a Wikipedia page (such as a user page or talk page) and referencing it in a biographical article would, in my opinion, constitute original research. If a living person wishes to publish a statement they could just as easily do so on a personal or official website to equal effect.
As regards working with the subject, even if it seems harmless here I regard it as the thin edge of the wedge. I don't mind the subject of a biographical article posting comments on a talk page or even editing their own article for accuracy (in the same manner as any other user). What I object to is a running dialouge with the subject of an article; questions and answers followed by follow-up questions and using those answers as references. It is particularly bad if this serves as a model for other articles. If this type of behaviour should be avoided elsewhere it should also be avoided here. --Oden 00:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It is original research, and in this particular case, I regard it as borderline stalking. People should be ashamed of themselves for doing it.--Jimbo Wales 00:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There are usually far better places for information, but if it's relevant, I don't see the issue if it's presented neutrally. We can't influence what people say, only how it is presented. Public figures are in the limelight, and unless they're there against their own will, I don't see anything to be ashamed of in presenting their statements. Just H 16:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the current situation is any better. We are now using secondary sources ([1] [2]) that almost certainly got their information from this article (one even quotes the same talk page comment that was previously cited directly in the article). If we are to call this "original research" on the grounds that it was not published in a reliable source, then nothing from any of the Wikimedia wikis should be cited at all. Any Wikipedia-related articles using diffs to source something should be cleaned of all such references. --- RockMFR 21:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat peevish comment

All this back-and-forth (in, frankly, somewhat long-winded fashion) discussing various minutiae and re-hashing the same old controversies doesn't seem to go a long way towards actually improving the article. I would like to think that we as Wikipedians would be a little more concerned with making this high-profile article one of the better examples of what we do on Wikipedia.

When the references aren't even correctly done and look like shit, it annoys me more than just about anything else (see Footnotes if you're going to add a reference). The passage on Wikiasari - is a single sentence in a section okay with folks? I put it there to be expanded on by others, because I simply do not care about the section topic.

A living person commenting on their own biography is okay - it's editing that gets sticky. Editors have the option - nay - the right to ignore that person's comments. Simply put; just because it's Jimmy Wales doesn't mean we have to say how high every time he says jump. The whole birthday thing was silly - one day, big deal. He ought to be glad he gets presents on two days instead of one, in my opinion.

Jimmy is an important part of Wikimedia, but he isn't God, for heaven's sake. When he's here he's an editor and user, like everyone else. Even if he would like to set policy and precedent with one or two comments, that's not how things are done around here. So lets everybody relax and take a good hard look at what can actually be improved in this article. There's also such a thing as done.NinaOdell | Talk 14:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen sister. Under WP:BLP, I think we have an obligation to try to work with notable living people if we can do so without dramatically harming the encyclopedia, but in the end, the quality of the encyclopedia is more important than anything, even Jimbo, and to me that is making it written as neutral (not anti or pro-Jimbo) as possible while including as many sources as possible to show all POVs (all POVs cancel each other out into an NPOV).
And even Jimbo should not be above Consensus, because without consensus, the encyclopedia suffers and the encyclopedia should be important above all else. Just H 21:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I am probably stating the obvious, but I would much rather prefer that this article was of such a high quality that there should be no need for this kind of discussion. :-) --Oden 07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
So-called wikipedians have a hard time facing the facts about their own project. The fact is, open editing does not inevitably result in better content, nor does open debate inevitably move a discussion toward resolution. In its first five years, wikipedia cult leader could claim anything they wanted because there was no evidence to the contrary. Five years later, the myth that anyone can edit has been busted as a myth, but the myth that open editing is a practical approach remains an article of faith among those whose belief in a concept has eclipsed their appreciation of evidence. Mergerlomanica 04:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I so strongly disagree with everything you just said, I'm speechless. Cult? Really? Please. It's a hobby for heaven's sake, and a good one at that. Wikipedia certainly isn't a life - not even for Jimmy. I've seen implications around here that Jimmy is a vain asshole (which I strongly disagree with as well), but Cult figure? Come on.
If you hate Wikipedia so much, then why are you here? You're pretty much proving yourself wrong in your very statement. You have just edited and said (I'm assuming) exactly what you wanted to say, and it's still here. It will remain here as well. I don't see too many cults that practically beg for criticism (of it's leaders as well as it's members and product) at every turn. Cult? Huh...NinaOdell | Talk 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

For those who care

I renamed a section "Rumors" and referenced it using a blog. I understand the current controversy about using blogs as sources, but I felt that a blog was the best way to reference a rumor. If anyone has a problem with the renaming, or with the reference, they're free (stating the obvious) to change it, re-reference it, or remove the reference altogether.

Should anyone have a problem with what I did or would like me to change or remove it myself, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. In truth, this is one of those articles that I shouldn't be involved in. The talk page annoys me, and I find myself getting more and more off-topic on this page and in my editing in general with it. I'm removing it from watchlist. NinaOdell | Talk 16:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit silly to add "rumours" of a project he freely confesses to be involved in. See this link. Grace Note 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My idea for a founder soluton

  1. Leave the word founder out of there. Just avoid the whole word.
  2. Say Jimbo Wales thought up the idea of a wiki open to edits by the general public.
  3. Say the work Jimbo and Larry both did initially for wikipedia.

Anomo 09:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Talebanesque reference

benjiwolf, i'm not arguing with you whether "talebanesque" is a legitimate description of the u.s. in 2005. i suspect we would not agree. i'm not arguing whether "talebanesque" is original research or not. i suspect we would not agree. because you seem heavily invested in the idea, i doubt i can change your mind on this, so i'm not going over to Talebanesque to continue this discussion, as i think it would do neither of us, or WP, any good.

what i hope i CAN convince you of is that it does not belong in a biographical article on mr. wales. the fact that ashcroft is a bit of a prude has absolutely nothing to do with mr. wales. large numbers of people in the u.s. have been, and will be, annoyed by any hint of partial nudity. large numbers of people in the u.s. have been, and will be, completely ok with parital nudity. this is not new, and the idea of "talebanesque" has nothing to do with criticism of mr. wales in this area (which i think has been blown completely out of proportion in this article, but that is a separate issue).

to avoid an edit war, i will leave it as is for a day, until i hear your response, and to allow anyone else to comment. barneca 16:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it myself. Utter nonsense to have that in this article. --- RockMFR 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "talebanesque" doesnt at all need to be there...yet the fact is that the US has turned more conservative the last few years, we can pull up polls to prove this, and the extreme case of ashcroft covering the lady justice statues breasts is extremely relevant to pressure on mr wales for bomis and getting asked about "dirty pictures"...by other accounts, in a different culture, those pictures might be considered "beautiful pictures"...the "cleanest pictures we can make even"...i think when mr wales's page leads in right away with this thing about bomis it does him injustice...and does wikipedia injustice...its the pictures coming out of iraq that are "dirty" pictures...anyways ill remove "talebanesque"...yet im reinstating the factual statements that the US had turned more conservative and ashcrofts antics are the perfect example for this paragraph on wales & bomis...have a good one yall...Benjiwolf 18:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And exactly what does the Bush-Cheney administration have to do with Jimmy Wales? --- RockMFR 13:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about the bomis section on jimmy wales...and it is indeed relevant to acknowledge that the US experienced a conservative revival during the time wales experienced pressure over bomis...i evidenced this earlier by the fact that the attorney general covered up the breast of the justice statue...what more do yall need as example of this???...and i think this specific fact was the perfect evidence of this for these sentences regarding wales and bomis...and especially relevant to wales getting pressure over the bomis site...i ended up removing it as a couple of users relentlessly removed the factual line regarding the act of an attorney general that was rather spectacular... (if we went around covering nude statues...if i went up to the venus de milo and covered it... even i...an unknown...would get some funny looks and it would be spectacular)...an attorney general covering the justice statue as she has an exposed breast is rather spectacular...indeed its a thing that happens hardly ever in human history...(ashcroft & the taliban justice people are some of our few examples of such actions)...anyways...and this has great bearing on the way a site like bomis is thought of...when attorney generals make such displays and set such examples it effects the attitudes and perceptions of sites like bomis...anyways...i then merely stated that wales removed himself from bomis "during the cheney bush era"...this was greatly watered down... and merely a very mild statement regarding the time period in the US when this all happened without even acknowledging the conservative push in american culture at this time...and in fact i think it is better to have the line in there about the attorney general and covering of the breast...its american users that mainly edit english wikipedia...and so naturally english wikipedia has a bias towards americans...i think if yall removed urself a little back u would see that objectively we can refer to 2001-2008 in the US as the cheney-bush era...that will be thought of positively by some and negatively by others...yet we outside the states (and i have spent near 30 years in the states and can claim american citizenship if i wanted) we outside the states now know that the mood in the states at this time had a different flavor to other eras...and this is relevant to many articles...and so its relevant to log the time era in the states when wales experienced cultural pressure over bomis...Benjiwolf 13:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

benjiwolf, i sort of agree with half of your 13:15 21 jan edit which de-emphasized the boomis “controversy”. that portion of your edit has remained more or less intact, and i think it’s improved that section.
but i strongly disagree with your continual insertion of “talebanesque”, and later “cheney-bush” political comments in this article. what you claim as “indisputable fact” is, actually quite disputable. and unsourced. and pov. and in any case doesn’t belong in a biographical article on mr. wales. i really think at the very least you should stop trying to insert it in this article, and take it over to your “talebanesque” article’s talk page, where it can be more appropriately discussed.
your “cheney-bush” edit in this article has been reverted by several editors over the last few days, and it’s probably time you conceded that whether you are correct in your political interpretation or not, the consensus seems to be that it doesn’t belong in this article. barneca 14:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
clarifying my previous post, i got confused, and i see the whole "boomis controversy" thing is still there in a different section, and benjiwolf's revision didn't survive. seems like a mountain out of a molehill to me, but several people seem to want it left in, so i have no problem leaving it alone. my point about the "cheney-bush" comment remains unchanged. barneca 14:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

its not the most important this thing about bomis...i have made changes that have stuck...and at least it got successfully (for now) moved further down the page under a controversy heading... like something of this nature would on a policians page...so i feel it is now more in line with wikipedia policy on other bio pages and the politicians dont have preferential treatment any longer with a rosy introduction no matter what...and im thru editing this page...the talebanesque reference i only put in a handful of times...quite soon after someone said to take "talibanesque" out...i did indeed remove it or let it stay out without putting it back...that specific phrase was never a point of serious dispute for me...i put up no resistance to it being removed...i mainly put in the acknowledgement that this controversy over bomis came up during the cheney-bush era, and especially the fact of the attorney general of the nation mr wales lives in and his behavior regarding exposed flesh (or stone)...that is indeed an indisputable fact...and even more so is our ability to regard 2001-2008 in the US as the "cheney bush era"...you cannot change history...i put no adjectives characterizing the cheney-bush era on the page...yet when it comes down to it...i could...as lets face it...they brought in a "conservative" era...why they themselves claim they are conservatives...and would be happy to tell u they brought in a conservative era...the only dispute would be as to whether they are truly conservatives and what does it truly mean to be conservative...so i would actually dispute in some senses that they brought in a "conservative era"...i would actually argue they are false conservatives for many reasons...ie...if allowing a child predator to sit in congress for years is conservative...then i think they have totally flipped what that means...the deficits went thru the roof...government grew and didnt shrink etc etc...i think i could realistically say that all past definitions of US "liberal & conservative" no longer are really accurate anymore...anyways...its now up to someone else to document the fact that indeed the pressure over bomis came during the "cheney-bush era"...thats undeniable...it was indeed during 2001-2008...and the interesting parallel of the attorney general covering the statue of justice as she had an exposed breast i feel appropriate in the bomis section...if u removed the bomis stuff alltogether it would have no place on the page...yet i am against removing the bomis section as from what i understand its factual...and as i have said previously...i would like to see more info on this page regarding the mr wales personal section and his early career section...i think we should have more info on his education and early career, as after all, he is the founder of wikipedia, i feel his biography too small for his being the founder or co-founder of wikipediaBenjiwolf 15:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)