Talk:Jonathan Lee Riches

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Fulton County Daily Report. "From Galvine to Van Halen, Inmate Racks Up Nearly 200 Suits", 2008-03-25. (details)

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jonathan Lee Riches article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] use google cache to re-build page

here's the link; he's clearly notable the page should never have been deleted [1] Riphamilton 05:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous version of the article was in gross violation of the biographies of living persons guidelines. Sources were inadequate, and it was filled with original research. If it is rebuilt, it will be subject to deletion again. --Moonriddengirl 11:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no WP:OR in the previous article. Your understanding of the term seems to be flawed; I suggest you review it. The article was not contentious and while it did use primary sources I am a licensed attorney and can tell you that the article agreed with the primary sources as per WP:RS.75.183.86.60 —Preceding comment was added at 19:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The administrator who deleted the article disagreed. However, the version cached now is actually the current version, not the original, which violated policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specifics!

I still haven't read WHAT was libelous about the original article? It was little more than a recitation of the lawsuits Riches has filed. I came back looking for this page because I wanted to tell someone about it, remembering how funny these lawsuits were.

VERY SIMPLE QUESTION: If a guy files a gazillion lawsuits, how is it libelous to quote him??? Can anyone answer this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkvolkswagen (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This could be a great article, but I wouldn't consider it complete until it shows the specific grounds upon which he tried to sue e.g. George Bush, or Terry Schiavo. Considering the press attention that has been given these cases, notability doesn't seem to be a concern, and the potential for reader interest is pretty big, considering what a, well, insane fellow the guy seems to be. 76.114.172.199 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We have to be very careful to abide by the biographies of living persons guidelines, so while we can certainly add some details if they come from reliable secondary sources, we have to be sure that the information is neutral in tone and does not have undue weight. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an article about a crazy guy who files hilarously outrageous suits against a host of random celebrities which have been mentioned in the mainstream media on more than one occasion. Why do you care that much? Let us have our fun; wikipedia's a joke, anyway. Maybe devote your life to something more meaningful? 24.178.78.67 (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You might think Wikipedia is a joke, but I don't. And in this case its policy is to comply with US law. :) I'm sure there are many other websites that are not as careful to eliminate potentially libelous claims. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how linking to this guy's legal filings is potentially libelous considering they can be found on websites that are run by the US government. And do you see any possible lawsuit this guy files against Wikipedia actually going to court based on the multitude of past frivolous lawsuits he'd already filed? There's no law being broken here, and nothing is going happen here, except maybe you popping a few blood vessels over a few words written in an article that maybe a dozen or so people will actually read in a year. It's not like this is the article on the Iraq war; no one cares what we write here (well, no one who has a life outside wikipedia, at least).24.178.78.67 (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be presuming that I'm emotionally very invested in this. :) I assure you that I'm not popping any blood vessels. The article was deleted wholesale by an admin with a legal internship for Wikimedia as a BLP violation. It will be deleted again if it crosses that line. I recreated the article with proper sourcing because I think Riches is of encyclopedic notability. When I restored it, I took some responsibility to make sure that it doesn't return to the state it was in, which most definitely was libelous. That's why it's on my watchlist, and that's why I'm here. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to add material relevant to his legal filings with proper reliable sourcing, so long as it meets WP:BLP policy and is not problematic with regards to tone. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The guy's in prison for identity theft and he regularly files entirely wacked out lawsuits. In short, he's libel-proof. User:random person

Reliable Secondary Sources?? Look at the complaints this guy files in federal court as linked to - the original page that got deleted tracked every lawsuit the guy was filing. Do we realy need to quote Lee Riches complaint when Lee Riches says "Michael Vick sold my dogs on ebay so he could use the money to purcahse missles from the Iranian Government" Ah Come On Man!

Links to lawsuit details: [2]. Clearly noteworthy, should not be deleted. Topical to the abuse of the court system by inmates. Galizur (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced?

I'm posting to suggest the removal of the 'unbalanced' template on the page. I don't see where the article is unbalanced. The subject, maybe, but the article itself states facts and not opinions. The fact is that there isn't much known about the subject except through his court filings.

I would like to see a section on the cultural impact of Mr. Riches' activities. That might help to 'balance' it out. He has certainly made an impact on internet culture, where he is widely regarded to be a very clever comic essayist who's chosen lawsuits as his medium. Or else he's nuts, no one's really sure.

At any rate, I don't see any justification for the 'unbalanced' template. Unless a rationale is presented in the next couple weeks, I suggest that template be removed. Erie lhonan 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)