Talk:Lindsay Ashford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Lindsay Ashford, has edited Wikipedia as
Zanthalon (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

Entering his name in popular search engines brings up a reasonably accurate profile on an anti-pedophilia website. He attended Redwood Christian Schools in Castro Valley and San Leandro, CA, then known as David Alway. He later graduated from Mt. Eden High School in Hayward, CA. Sometime during his final year of high school he became known by his current name. He is estranged from his two adoptive sisters, now married, and his widowed adoptive mother, who currently resides in rural northern California.

Contents

[edit] Dead link

http://hfp.puellula.com/Press/2005-07-12.html does not seem to have the content that is described. If other editors can access Ashford's response, then please summarize it here. -Will Beback 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In my last edit I fixed it -- it was supposed to be http://hfp.puellula.com/Press/2005-12-07.html. // paroxysm (n) 00:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I still see no response to the parents of missing girls. I see him saying he can't afford to keep the site running. -Will Beback 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it doesn't work in Opera. Actually, I think it's more of a Firefox glitch that allows you to see the content. http://img271.imageshack.us/img271/1180/will9vh.png // paroxysm (n) 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I get the same result in Firefox. I'll assume your summary is correct, but delete the link.-Will Beback 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This is odd. I can't view the page either and i've tried IE, Firefox and Opera. --Jelligraze 06:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox 1.04/win. // paroxysm (n) 19:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Zanthalon created this article on himself. Goes to show you how notable he really is. 216.165.12.100 01:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

And if, say... this guy wrote his own article, would that mean he is not notable? I doubt it.
I agree with Silent War. There is nothing wrong with him making an article about himself given his fame. Jelligraze 03:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Well Jimmy Wales didn't start that article on himself. If you're notable enough to have an encyclopedia article about yourself, someone else would have already made one for you. 216.165.12.100 21:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The Obama-stunt certainly qualifies as notable. Even the Norwegian news services covered it. This guy deserves an article, IMO, and it seems NPOV, not a vanity page or whatever. Zuiram 07:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither puellula.com nor puellula.org work. I can't find any information on why the domains throw a 404 or if they are going to be back. As a new editor, I'm not sure how to address the dead links in this article, since they are the only references for some of the statements. Animamea 10:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was told by a friend that he is a wikipedia editor. Is the information that she states is true and if so can you comfirm? ~ Kerry

He is User:Zanthalon. Look at the message at the top. Christopher Connor 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That account has been blocked. [1] -Will Beback · † · 22:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Shutdown Puellula

Upon googling User:Charmeyn, I found the site Operation Shutdown Puellula. We can probably look forward to a number of POV warriors spawning from there and making their way over here. Expect them to exhibit great interest in removing the link to his site.Chris Croy 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Chris I will have you know that Lindsay Ashford, is just a sliver away from promoting child exploitation, which is illegal in many countries, and I need not go any further in explaining my advocating that Wikipedia is accountable for promoting a site that advocates sex with children if they continue to put his link to his site, Lindsay Ashford is treading on thin ice bye for now :).... Charmeyn
To what end are you pushing your POV on this article? What good does your personal opinion poorly disguised as encyclopedic fact do anyone... including yourself? --Jim♥Burton 06:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
To what end you ask? You mean your too blind to see, by having his site linked to Wikipedia your site is in support of this man's ideals on sexual abuse of children by repeatedly linking to Lindsay Ashford's site, I am quite sure their are other alternatives one could provide to show a site that is questionable and won't subject a viewer or child to questionable content like perhaps a screen shot of the site which I provided; you must realize that Wikipedia is viewed in public school's and looked at by young children, do you not? And from what I read of your terms this Article about Lindsay Ashford would be considered self-promotion and would not be allowed seeing as he is the original editor of this article, am I correct? And by providing the link to his site, this is by all means self-promotion. And any "reputable" encyclopedia wouldn't even give Lindsay Ashford the time of day as he's not done anything historically notable other than spew his pedophile agenda.
And I am surprised that Wikipedia allows themselves to be abused in this fashion by this self promoting pedophile at the cost of your public reputation; unless of course there is truth to what has been said about Wikipedia that it is over run by by pedophiles. This is not knowledge I would like to have my family subjected to and now I can understand why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation in school's that what is found here isn't worth a failing grade should a student use Wikipedia resources; given that, why do you people even offer this service? and to what end are you willing to go?and what good does your service offer seeing as any dimwit can come along and write any "fabricated" version of any article cited on this site? To me this service you offer serves no purpose that a good college library could easily do.
By having articles like the one of Lindsay Ashford has changed my opinion of Wikipedia to a negative. The least Wikipedia could do is add a viewer warning to sites that are Adult oriented, and there are plenty of those here as well, or a "not child safe" warning; until this occurs I have to say this service is far from reputable.
Charmeyn
P.S just an added note: why don't you try writing an article on a more noteworthy person by the name of Lindsay Ashford: http://www.lindsayashford.co.uk/
Thanks for coming to the article talk page to discuss this rather than just reverting which is unhelpful. On Wikipedia we try to remain neutral about our subjects no matter whether they're sinners or saints. Like it or not, the subject of this article has achieved some measure of notability. The fact that a group has formed to oppose him is evidence of that as are the TV news segments devoted to him and his website. Like those news organizations, I think that giving children knowledge about who and what are out there is beneficial. Removing neutral information about pedophiles does not make the world a safer place. Just the opposite. As for the websites, we link to porn sites from articles about porn stars. If children want to look at nasty stuff they don't need to come to Wikipedia to do so, but we don't shield them from it either. I don't see anything obscene or illegal on his site, though its content may be objectionable on principle. This article, while perhaps catering to a reviled self-promoter, does maintain a neutral viewpoint on the subject. -Will Beback ·:· 08:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
"or a "not child safe" warning;"
What can be defined as "not child safe" is subjective. Some people wouldn't approve of a child learning about evolution, others might be perfectly comfortable with one reading Lindsay's site. Singling out certain websites would violate WP:NPOV.
"why don't you try writing an article on a more noteworthy person by the name of Lindsay Ashford"
Why don't you?
"is in support of this man's ideals on sexual abuse of children by repeatedly linking to Lindsay Ashford's site"
So... does Wikipedia promote anti-Semitism by linking to the text of Mein Kampf or "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?" Does it support seeing the Apollo moon landing as a hoax by linking to this site, and simultaneously support not seeing at it as a hoax by linking to this one..?
"as he's not done anything historically notable other than spew his pedophile agenda."
Yeah, and since spewing his pedophile agenda was historically notable, as you say, he qualifies for an article.
"and won't subject a viewer or child to questionable content like perhaps a screen shot of the site which I provide"
Nothing's forcing them to click the link. Anyone who follows it is subjecting themselves to the content, presumably after reading several paragraphs describing what it is. That's warning enough. -Jillium 19:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Charmeyn,
Even if you happen to disagree with the viewpoint that Lindsay Ashford promotes, you have not provided sufficient reason to successfully defend a claim that Wikipedia should not have an article about him. Your statements above are equivalent to proclaiming that any major figure associated with an ideology or perpective that is controversial and/or not supported by the majority of the population should not be discussed in this encyclopedia. Besides, Lindsay Ashford is one of today’s major leaders of pro-pedophile activism, especially within the internet realm. This fact alone makes him a notable figure, and worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Furthermore, this individual definitely passes the usual Wikipedia notability test, getting hundreds of thousands of legitimate google hits. Thus, no matter how repugnant you may find Ashford or the ideas that he promotes, an article about him should indeed be a part of Wikipedia. As for the inclusion of the link to his site, since there is nothing illegal or overtly obscene on the site, and it does indeed provide useful information about the author and his ideas, it makes sense for the link to be included in the Wikipedia article. All the while, the inclusion of the article and the link does not imply any kind of support on the part of Wikipedia of the views that Ashford holds, or of the way he chooses to conduct his life. Finally, if you are sure that the other Lindsay Ashford you mentioned is notable, please feel free to create an article for that individual. As long as the text is well written, and the topic discussed is legit, the Wikipedia community will only be greatful for your contribution. I’m sure other editors will then assist you in expanding and improving the newly-created article. Please feel free to qualify your position further on this discussion page if you so wish. Homologeo 11:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Citation Needed" Tags

I don't know about anyone else, but to me having a "citation needed" tag after almost every single sentence that currently lacks a reference seems somewhat excessive. Wouldn't it be easier to just attach a general Wikipedia tag at the top that calls upon editors to add citations and such? I'm pretty sure there is a tag like that. Not only would this improve the article's overall layout, but it would also be easier for readers and editors alike to follow the prompt to improve the article by researching the topic and adding legitimate references. Besides, most likely, several solid news articles and those short documentaries on Lindsay Ashford would be enough to support the majority of the statements made in this article. There is no need to add a reference after every sentence, especially when there are general references to several legitimate sources that incorporate all the necessary information. Homologeo 09:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Excessive. Christopher Connor 11:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In BLPs material that is unsourced or poorly sourced needs to be removed immediately. See WP:BLP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No longer makes sense

This article makes no sense right now, since ZScout and Jossi removed large chunks of unsourced information. (Perfectly justified in doing so, of course, but that's what resulted in this mess of an article.) In fact, I'd go so far as to say there's not even a claim of notability anymore, which would make it eligible for speedy deletion. This either needs to be cleaned up or deleted. Powers T 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As much as I dislike what happened, I have to agree with you - this article has turned into something quite awful. The sad thing is that all that unsourced info was totally legit. All that was needed were some appropriate references. However, since Wikipedia prides itself on proper citation, removal of unsourced info was probably justified. Unfortunately, I currently do not have the time to provide all the references that are needed to restore this article to its former state (with appropriate references this time). It would be understandable if the article gets deleted right now, for it does justice neither to the topic nor to Wikipedia. At this point, I would urge anyone who knows more about this subject to contribute to its rebuilding. Otherwise, it will most likely be deleted. Also, I was wondering about something - if an article gets deleted, do any of its past versions get saved in Wikipedia's memory? I ask this because I think I might be able to provide the needed sources for the information within the article as it used to be, when it was of decent quality, at a later point in time. The only thing is that I really do not want to rewrite the entire thing from scratch. So, is there any way to restore the text of a deleted article? Otherwise, I guess I could copy all the text to a Word file right now, and hope to re-add it in the future... Please advise. ~ Homologeo 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
All intermittent versions can be undeleted if the article is deleted in the usual fashion. __meco 20:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. How does one go about doing that? If this article does get deleted, I will probably try to revive it with appropriate sourcing at a later point in time. Although, I think finding references won't be that hard, because I already managed to salvage the intro with pretty much the sources that were already listed. ~ Homologeo 20:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add that I for one found this article an invaluable source of info, especially since so much information about this guy seems to have been twisted or cencored. This guy is not only a prominent spokesperson for a large (or at least significant) group of people, and often cited and referenced as such, he is also the subject of much heated debate all over the world, which alone makes him notable. Added to this, he is, whether you like it or not, a main character in a very central social debate issue (that of the status and definition of pedofiles in society). Imagine what a mistake it would have been to remove an article about the first prominent gay rights activist, or the first prominent church critic, or for that matter Marquis de Sade, from wikipedia. I consider this article to be among the more important articles on wikipedia, even if it does get messed up by partial deletion. This article should be expanded, not deleted. Ravstein 15:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

As expected, the sources already provided within this article contained some of the information previously deemed unsourced that was deleted. Could someone tell me how to reference a website that has already been referenced in a different place within the article, as to avoid repetition of sources? Thanx in advance, ~ Homologeo 19:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I figured it out :-) ~ Homologeo 20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

After making sure that the information is indeed grounded in a provided legitimate source, I copy edited a previously delted portion of the intro and added the updated paragraph to the article. I think that's all I'll do for the moment, but maybe there's hope for this article yet. ~ Homologeo 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, although there's still not really any assertion of notability. There are lots of pro-pedophile activists (and even more pedophiles, period); what makes Ashford notable? Powers T 23:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point. The article, as it currently stands, does not explain his notability. I will try to re-incorporate other previously deleted text that points out his role in modern pro-pedophile activism, providing appropriate citation in the process. However, I may not have the time to do that this week. ~ Homologeo 03:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, reference 7 (the link to the petition) doesn't work; it takes me to the thepetitionsite homepage. Powers T 19:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the reference, and added a "Citation Needed" tag. Hopefully somebody will be able to find an appropriate reference for this info. Plus, just like the majority of the article, this section needs to be expanded. Otherwise, it's kind of pointless and meaningless right now. ~ Homologeo 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source for Info on Further Legal Action by Obama's Lawyers

I have moved the reference to the Fox article that was previously used to support the info on further legal action by Obama's lawyers to the bottom of the paragraph. I have done so because the linked article contains no such claims. While the reference to this article should still remain, since it does describe the overall situation pretty well, there is now a need for a source that would substantiate the claim that Obama's lawyers are threatening possible further legal action against Ashford. I could not find any such info. Please help, if you know where a source for this can be found. Thanx in advance, ~ Homologeo 12:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should be deleted

Before Ashford's recent withdrawal from the public eye, I'd have said that this was an article of borderline notability (internet activism and one TV interview). Now, it should be a certian delete. How does one get an article deleted here? GrooV 07:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be deleted. It's already gone through AfD twice and survived. The fact that his website is down is irrelevant. Notability is not temporary, once notable always notable. Ospinad 19:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
As much as I am personally opposed to Ashford's agenda, I too, have to contend that he is way too notable to have his article removed. Albert Wincentz 11:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The shutdown of Puellula

The shutdown of Puellula shouldn't go in the section of the police investigation because it has nothing to do with it. SqueakBox and Will Beback gave these two reasons for why it should:

  1. it is absolutley a part of the previous section and section nshould be longer than this so rv
  2. move to end - most recent event

It seems to me that SqueakBox believes Puellula was shutdown because of the investigation and wants the article to reflect that, which is why he said, "it is absolutley a part of the previous section." I don't think he really cares how long the section is otherwise he would do something about the "Missing children service" section which isn't even as long as the Police investigation section. Will wants to put the closing of Puellula at the end of the article because it is the most recent event. First of all this article isn't organized chronologically (not that it has to be) it's organized by topic. You want to put it at the end but instead of putting it in a separate section you are sticking it in with the police investigation section like SqueakBox wants it. Like I said in my edit summary, if chronological order is so important to you why do you object to putting the closure of Puellula at the end of the lead section? It is only one line so it doesn't need it's own section, it hasn't nothing to do with the police investigation so it doesn't go there, and since it has as much to do with himself as with his website (he shut it down because he's having difficulty finding employement) then the only place that makes to put it is in the beginning. --Ospinad 06:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a section for it called "website closure". It's not a big deal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a big deal? That's why this edit was reverted four times? Very funny... --Ospinad 14:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsay Ashford interview

Can video interviews be used as a source for the article? There is one on Youtube in five parts. It was originally a reference here when the interview was on KCTV News. Ospinad 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, video interviews by appropriate parties, such as news networks, can be used as sources. However, it is usually best to source an official and accurate transcript of the interview. I'm not sure what to do in a case when the video in question can only be found on a Web 2.0 website like YouTube. Maybe it's possible to find an official transcript of this interview. ~ Homologeo 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A baseline for linking is that we can't link to copyvios. If the material has a license to be re-posted on Youtube then it'd be OK. However it's unlikely. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You need to find where it came form, for instance if it was an interview on CNN then that coul;d eb sued as a ref (without mentioning YouTube). Thanks, SqueakBox 04:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
However, as we all know, many of the videos on YouTube are uploaded without the permission of the original source. As an encyclopedia, we need to be sure that the material is legally available on YouTube before referencing anything within that video. This holds true even though the video was originally aired somewhere else. This is why it may be best to find an official transcript, summary, or a review of the video by an appropriate legitimate source. This approach would also decrease the likelihood of misinformation, seeing as sourcing a video uploaded on YouTube carries the risk of the material already being edited before the upload. ~ Homologeo 04:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The video originally came from KCTV and was used as a reference in this article up until a few months ago. The problem is that once it was removed from their website the reference was removed from this article. I tried looking for an official transcript on the KCTV website but it looks like they removed all references to the investigative report. As for editing, the parts of the interview that were actually shown during the news program were highly edited, of course. The entire unedited interview was only available on the KCTV website and that is what is now on Youtube. Ospinad 15:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Television can be used as refs but it is best to provide the show and the day it was aired, just because a KCTV page gets pulled does not make the ref invalid per se as we clearly cannot all anyway access obscure book refs etc but that does not invalidate them. But, yeah, forget YouTube as a source reply. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)