Talk:Raymond Samuels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25/2/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

I'm not going to revert the recent changes at this time, but could you please provide tangible proof (in the form of weblinks, if possible). I'm not certain that court docket reports are recommended as Wikipedia sources. CJCurrie 01:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] On second thought

I've decided to risk erring on the side of caution, pending the resolution of some concerns I have about original research and the use of sources. I'm going to ask other Canadian WIkipedians what they think of this situation; please do not return the information until a discussion has taken place. CJCurrie 01:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I reverted before I read your talk page. (Not sure how to put my own talk entry up- I looked for links, so sorry to edit yours.)

Look, if you're gonna have a page praising Raymond Samuels like he's a real force in politics, you've got to show the other side to the guy too. He uses things like this to make himself look legitimate and then "hires" people who oddly enough, don't always get paid for what they do.

For the things I posted, I was directly involved, so I am the source. I worked for him, he scampered without paying, and then after I won the suit he punished me with vexatious lawsuit after vexatious lawsuit.

Are you one of his "freelancers"? Curious why you seem so set on protecting him...

Anyway, I will cheerfully scan the court documents themselves into jpgs if you want and they can be posted here as well, I'm happy with that. I just check the web every 6 months or so to see what King Raymond II has posted and to try to get some accurate info out there to protect his "freelancers" and "voluteers", because I don't think they know what they are getting into. (by Technicalglitch)

My response:

I'm not a supporter of Raymond Samuels. I've heard these rumours about him before, and I considered adding a reference to them when I wrote the original article -- but I wasn't able to able to find verifiable evidence to confirm them. My interest is ensuring that potential libel does not appear on this page; if you can assure me that the charges against Samuels are available in the public domain and can be confirmed as legitimate, it may be possible to include the information here. (The tone will have to be neutral in any case, however.)

As to "making him look legitimate" ... I think his electoral record alone might be sufficient evidence to the contrary. CJCurrie 19:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what are your sources for your incomplete and incorrect information?

What libel? What do you mean about the public domain? All court cases are in the public domain, except in the case of family law cases where children are involved. I've given you the case numbers, and offered you scans of the court documents what more do you need? Any researcher can go down to the courthouse and read the stuff. I know, because I HAVE.

I'm a first hand source. What is so unbelievable that Raymond formed his own party? That he is the sole person involved with "Agora Publishing" and "Agora Cosmpopolitan"? What's the libel in that? It's true, what's you information that indicates otherwise? (He actually did form Agora Publishing as a corporation around 10 years ago but last I checked he let that status lapse, and none of the others have been involved for a long time, certainly not since he started publishing under that name.)

I'm serious, what is your big concern with what I have posted? I didn't delete your unsourced stuff. (You can't believe everything you read on the internet you know.) Mine is actually accurate. I mean, it's a couple of clicks to verify the party status and you've never even done that. None of your stuff is sourced, so I'm not sure why you keep deleting my accurate, first-person experience information, especially when it's very respectful of ADDING to and not REPLACING yours. (by Technicalglitch)

Also want to add, you don't own the page, no one does. I've done a bit of background reading on Wikipedia today and you don't have the right to do any wholesale deletions of my info any more than I have the right to delete yours, and as I have said, I have been very respectful in not deleting yours. (Although I just now did delete a sentence of yours that says the party status is unclear because it isn't; it's not a party and you said that already. According to Wikipedia, that's quite OK to do a deletion like that so I did) [by Technicalglitch]

Response:

I'm a first hand source.

This, in essence, is the crux of my difficulty with this page. One of Wikipedia's guiding principles is that the project only accept information that exists via reliable sources in the public domain. There are rules prohibiting original first-hand research, explained here.

Further: the information that is provided on Wikipedia must not only be accurate, but also verifiable. Although court records exist in the public domain, they are not widely available unless specific requests are made. The case numbers you've cited may be accurate (and I have no reason to disbelieve you), but I'm not certain these are appropriate sources if they have not been reported elsewhere.

To clarify: I am not proposing that the information you have added be permanently removed. I simply want to ensure that proper procedure is followed in this instance. If the general consensus is that the material be allowed to stay, I will not object to its presence. Until then, I believe it should be removed.

Also, any contributor may delete information that seems incorrect or inappropriate. I'm doing this now solely as a precautionary measure. CJCurrie 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so who are the people involved in the consensus? Is it just me and you? I don't see anyone else here.

What are YOUR sources? I need them named, otherwise I think we'd have to delete your info to stay on the safe side too, no?

Who is saying that court records are not appropriate sources? Is internet hearsay a more reliable source? Because frankly I don't see you using any sources at all, so I'm guessing you just got your stuff off the internet. I think you should say what your sources are. You don't seem to have any.

Why are you considering yourself to have more clout than me in deleting info? Should I delete yours as a precautionary measure?

I'll wait a day to hear back from you and then I might approach dispute resolution, because I think your behaviour is inappropriate. [by Technicalglitch]

  • I've already invited other Wikipedians to look over this page, and provide their views. So far, no one has taken me up on this. I hope this changes shortly.
  • Another guiding principle of Wikipedia is to assume good faith among other contributors. I am not trying to censor your views or your information, only to clarify if this information is acceptable for the project. Please do not interpret this as personal hostility. CJCurrie 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't address the issue of your own material being unsourced. Please address. (by Technicalglitch)

  • I'm actually tidying up a different page at present, but I'll turn to this in a few moments. CJCurrie 02:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few things to this page, and have included references. I've also removed your comments as a precautionary measure again, for the reasons mentioned above. (For what it's worth, I have no reason to disbelieve anything you've written -- I just want to be certain that it won't raise liability issues or contradict official project policy). CJCurrie 05:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Um ... are you the person from this discussion? CJCurrie 05:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I've now discovered that someone writing from Samuels's e-mail account advertised on pornographic newsgroups throughout all of 2005. This information is in the public domain and is fully verifiable, and has been added to the article. Assuming that it was Samuels, I'm stunned that anyone would do something this idiotic.

Obviously, this discovery is causing me to suspect that the accusations against Samuels may have some validity. The only reason that I remain hesitant to include them on the site is the fact that they have not been reported in a reliable publication. An anonymous accusation against Samuels is not encyclopedic, and I am not certain that the court documents are acceptable sources for this particular project.

Now, if someone were to do an expose on Samuels and get it published in a real newspaper ... CJCurrie 05:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sourcing your stuff. I'm going to go through my stuff tonight and source some things that I am going to put back in. A court document is a real source, CJ, and I'm completely willing to scan the necessary bits and send them to you so you can see for yourself (I can e-mail them, you can read them yourself and do the edits yourself if you want to be the last person to edit the page.) not sure why you're being so stubborn about this. I don't think the idea of Wikipedia is that it only draws on internet sources- if that's the case, then it would be a search engine, not an "encyclopedia". Court stuff is one of the few places where "fact" is filed and proven before a judge. My court judgement against him went through two court days of scrutiny, so sorry, it's closer to fact than anything else here.

Yes, the porn stuff is pretty interesting, isn't it? He's been doing that for a long time. Did you notice the link to Sex TV on his political party site? BTW, the Toronto Star article you mention has some incorrect things too if it's the one I think it is... Raymond gets people to say things about him that are not quite true by speaking incredibly vaguely and non-committally, so that when someone pares it down to what they think he's saying, incorrect things like him being a lawyer, a university professor, an academic, come out and he doesn't refute them. They get repeated over and over, and then someone like you stumbles accross it and thinks it's legitimate because it got repeated somewhere like the Star, when it's total BS. The Star had to print a correction about the lawyer thing they said about him once.

Also, I'll have to check when I come out (I'm away from my computer today) but I doubt all the books on your list have actually been written. Raymond has an ISBN number (or whatever it is) fetish, where he registers the name of an "upcoming" book, even lists it at Chapters and Amazon (of course, it's "out of print"), and then it gets added to his amazingly long list of accomplishments, even though he never wrote it (maybe he'd do so on the fly if anyone ever actually ordered it.)

There's a very funny book review written by someone at the Varsity (UofT newspaper), did you find that? If not I will post you the link.

Another way he gets people to believe things about him is by saying he's "associated" with (might use other words, can't dig now) an organization, one of his favourites being U of T, and people assume he's a prof. He was an undergrad at U of T. That's the association. He does that all the time. He also says his book was "critically acclaimed by the (whatever) review of books" (but a big review, probably the New York or one of those), when what he did is submit a user-review and then cites it himself.

All that above stuff is internet-accessible, if that's your chosen research method. However, I am going to add stuff back in that's from printed documents, and if you plan to take it out please start finding now a spot on Wiki where you can point out that court documents are not an appropriate source. Because, they are available to anyone who chooses to go read them, so yes, they are. Wiki only requests that things be verifiable, and I actually do have second-hand sources for all the stuff I added. I want to put the variations on his name back in. I have court documents to prove he goes by several. (Technicalglitch, Jan 26 0905 am)

added: Yes, just checked and that's me in the discussion you posted the link to. For the record, I only posted once, not sure who that other person was but I wish I did, they probably have some tips for me!  ;-) (Technicalglitch, Jan 26, 0910 am)

added more: I found this on the verifibility page: "anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources". Court records are records. They are reliable and reputable. So DON'T remove it this time!

Response:

As I said before, my initial decision to remove the information was just a precaution. I'm more inclined to leave it in place now.

I still believe that court documents are a grey area, insofar as seeking out such materials could be interpreted as original research (this matter came up in another discussion that I was involved in quite recently). However, if you're willing to stand by the veracity of such materials and their suitability for this project, I will not remove them again.

As to why I've been so stubborn on this point: given the difficulties Wikipedia has been through in recent weeks (re: Seigenthaler and all), I've become hesitant to include accusatory information about living individuals without solid proof being provided. It may seem that I was too cautious on this point, but I think it preferable to risk erring on the side of discretion whenever possible. No personal slight was intended.

Regarding the sources ...

The Toronto Star article does, in fact, describe him as a lawyer and academic (although the lawyer claim was corrected the next day). I've kept to a strict reporting of his "accomplishments" as reported, though I'll admit to having doubts about these as well. (I saw the "associated with" line, and chuckled a bit).

I can also remember seeing an amusing review of a Samuels book, but I cannot find the link now. I'm not sure if it was from The Varsity or another source. CJCurrie 22:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Ground Zero about the debtor issue "not why he is important", you really believe he's important for his "politics"? There are lots of others out there who have not been paid- I used to have one bookmarked, I'll look for it (it'll be a second-hand source, whoohooo!). I would hazard a guess that Raymond Samuels is googled far more often as a debtor and as a scammer than as a politician. (Technicalglitch, Jan 26, 19:40 pm)

Just found that link, Peter was an editor on Raymond's first stab at a "National Newsmagazine" (sound familiar?), I think there were around 10 of them hired and none of them ever got paid. [1]

CJ, I have a question. I'm going to add his other names back in, what kind of reference are you going to want? (not that I'm deferring to you, but it would be nice to skip all the deletions that happened last time, it's more time effective this way.) If you want me to footnote like you did, point me to the page that shows how to do internal links, I know how to do them in html but it's a bit different here. I'll do it tomorrow, hope to hear from you before then.

BTW, there is a rule at Wikipedia that it's not a second-hand source if you're referring to someone's self-published stuff as a source, and everything at his website is self-published. I'm not saying to take your stuff down, I'm very tolerant of the rules being bent, just wanted to point that out. (Technicalglitch, Jan 26, 20:18 pm. Must start remembering to sign in before editing...)

Response:

I found the Peter Ansel quote a while ago ... I suspect it's probably accurate but, as a general rule, I'm hesitant to post accusations made on a public forum by disgruntled former employees. As to the names: any verifiable proof would be acceptable, but the information cannot be accepted without the same.

With the exception of Samuels's claim that he was a Liberal supporter in 1988 (which I have no reason to disbelieve, although I'm not buying his "party organizer" claim), I've not taken anything from my website at face value -- it's "he says" or "the party claims", rather than "he is" or "the party is". Under these circumstances, the source material is acceptable. CJCurrie CJCurrie 04:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a lawyer

Added that he's not a lawyer under the sentence that mentions his law society membership, as otherwise it implies that he is one (most people won't visit the source note to see that the title of the article points that out.)

I also added his other two most commonly used aliases (the carby-samuals variant is most likely his legal name, and his first name is most likely Horace as it's documented as being his Dad's name) as they are used all over the place. If anyone has a problem with it ask me to add specific references and I will. (by Technicalglitch)

[edit] Now he's starting his own religion

Tommy Douglas seems to be the prophet. This is definitely the funniest Raymond Samuels offering ever (don't just stick to the theology link, check out the featured books!  :-D )

http://www.jesustians.com/

Mailing address matches his documented mail address! Whaddaya know, he's accepting donations!

[edit] Cited site is run by Raymond Samuels

CJ, you refer in one of your sections to "www.elections-canada.com", and while you point out it's not to be confused with the real site, you don't mention that it's yet another of Raymond Samuels own sites (it's obvious but I can point out how to tell if you need me to). I think that that point should be added in if you're going to keep it there, or the content that comes from there deleted. (research should not be from suject's self-published work, or from unreputable sites, and this counts as both.) (by Technicalglitch)

I agree that it's obviously a Samuels site; I just couldn't find proof. If you can, please include it in the article.

As to the "Jesustians", all I can say is that Tommy's legacy doesn't deserve this sort of treatment. CJCurrie 00:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I added info tying the Jesustians site to Raymond (same mailing address), will try to make an obvious link to the other site in the morning! The Jesustians para, maybe it should go under political ideology instead now that it's linked with the party? (by Technicalglitch)

---

I just added the connection between elections-canada and Cosmo, the other thing we can do if you're still not happy with it is just take it out. If a source is known to be a bad one, it doesn't have to be included in the article just because it has the window-dressing to look legitimate. To see the link (and I'm saving everything I find with screen captures), go to www.elections-canada.com, click on the "advertise" box at the left, and at the bottom of that page is Cosmo name and address. Read the scroll-box too, it's a "multi-partisan oriented" (typical Raymondese, to imply more than one party is involved without actually lying outright) project "associated with the values of the Cosmopolitan Party of Canada." Yep, the other parties are definitely on board with that. Uh huh.

Next stop, the Trudeau society page...

OK, added the Trudeau Society connection in. If you want to move it or rephrase it that's fine, but I think it should stay in, it's a pretty blatant and obnoxious riding-of-the-coattails of a prominent and successful politician and trying to imply that his legacy endorses his party, so it needs to stay in. (THIS sort of thing is what Raymond Samuels is all about!)

added- the Trudeau society shares a phone number with the Cosmo party, so that's a very strong connection that we can call that site his as well.

[edit] The Pamela Anderson Porn site connection

The Agora Book Cafe is one of Raymond's ventures, it shares the phone number with his political party:

http://www.agorabookcafe.com/ (click to enter, takes you to a page where "customer service" is the Cosmo party's phone line, and under contact info, the contact address is that of the Cosmopolitan Party of Canada.)

Now, click back to the intro page and click on "Erotica Books", it takes you to this:

http://www.tvagora.com/

The Pam Anderson site prominently connects it's readers to "request free erotica titles from Agora Book Cafe", and the link takes you there.

You gotta admit, CJ, that working on Raymond Samuels as one of your political interests got a lot more interesting after I dropped in here. (by Technicalglitch)

added: also, the intro page of the Cosmo Party itself has a link to the Agora Book Cafe, so when a Political party ties itself in to an orgainization that so prominently sells "erotica books" on it's own home page as one of the first 3 options, I think that's worthy of a mention.

[edit] Raymond's own edits and the appeasement afterwards

Look, a bunch of people have removed stuff from the page and not bothered to discuss it here. I know that anything I added to it I have sources for, so if someone is worried about something I added being unsourced, please ask here and I will source it. I'll source the names tomorrow, right now I have to go to bed, it's late!

Some folks have taken the sex connections out- fine (and note that not all of it was added by me), but hey, if this was Paul Martin's page or Jack Layton's page, would you be tiptoeing to appease them when something is out in the public domain so obviously? Raymond Samuels (among other aliases) is leader of a federal political party. It's quite reasonable to discuss the full picture here. It's part of the deal of wanting to be prime minister. Sure, he'll threaten to sue you up and down for being accurate, he does that to get his way because it usually works, but he has no grounds to do so and it's pathetic to remove sourced, accurate, relevant info because he screams and yells and threatens to sue you for "millions of dollars".

I was going to revert the 'appeasement' myself. But I couldn't find anything to source the claims in the 'Other' section either, such as the small claims lawsuit (which is the only one that remains now), so as far as I'm concerned that should be sourced or go as well. Of course, the rants that were added to this article going on about some designer implies that they're true, but we still need a real source. --Malthusian (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
An online source is no more real than a paper one. It is just easier for multiple poeple to double check it. Printed references are still the most authoratitive resources we have. Is there any way someone in Canada could double check the court records and confirm here that they exist and are correct? --Martyman-(talk) 11:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I have copies of the paper records from the court, but I don't think it would be allowed for me to place scans? I can put them elsewhere on the web and refer to them in the talk pages so skeptics can see for themselves, would that be OK? But geez, yes, the paper records and sources I have are much more reliable than the internet sources the rest of the contributors keep using, much of the rest of the "sources" is referring to autobiographical stuff that Samuels himself has placed online, he just didn't sign it, and likes to talk about himself using the royal "we" to make it sound like there's a group behind him. 70.80.235.90 14:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Technicalglitch

[edit] related Vandalism

Litigious spam/vandalism is being added to various articles (Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley and Brian Mulroney, for instance)... +sj + 20:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We have the IP's on a watchlist, I think some blocks may be in order now. -- Tawker 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Update: Blocked. Tawker 21:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
His earlier threat was that he would change IPs and elude us; please keep this page updated as necessary. The Foundation will want to keep all of this information for future litigation, which he has threatened repeatedly. --BradPatrick 21:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
His lawsuits historically have been as bizarre and repetitive as these messages, and become wierder the angrier he is. Technicalglitch 03:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The same vandal is attacking en.wikibooks.org, see [2] for example. The message and threats of this vandal appear to be the same as at Wikipedia. --Kernigh 00:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And Wikicities, using IP 209.226.117.38. Angela. 09:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
And Wikinews, under the IP of 216.209.117.127 (created a new page [now deleted], "Nancy Shaver", where he complains about a designer, then threatens the foundation with legal action). --Mrmiscellanious 11:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Similar IP as immediately above, and edits similar to further above, and Simple[3]. Seattlenow 23:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
articles for deletion page vandalized by 216.209.239.108 , with personal information and threats posted against an editor. Technicalglitch 18:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining my edits

After adding semi-protection yesterday, I decided to remove certain contentious information from the article. I should now explain why I made this decision.

It was not intended as "appeasement". Samuels's comical legal threats do not merit attention or response, and they certainly should not dictate the content of this article.

My edits were rather intended as a temporary, precautionary measure: to ensure that all of the procedural "i"s were dotted and "t"s crossed before arriving at a finalized wording on these matters. It's possible that I was being overly cautious -- and, in fact, I'm inclined to think that I erred to far on the side of discretion.

Nonetheless, there was a logical motivation behind my actions. In recent times, a number of far-right individuals in Canada have successfully complained to the Wikimedia Foundation to have information removed from their pages. (There were difficulties with sourcing in one particular case, with the result that the page in question was effectively blanked by Jimbo Wales until reliable sources could be found.)

I have no desire of seeing Mr. Samuels make a successful complaint to the Foundation, and I don't intend to give him any grounds on which to pursue such a case. If this means taking down information for a day or two until procedural matters can be resolved, I'm prepared to take that step.

I had intended to bring the issue of the court transcripts up for general discussion today. I've always had reservations about including these in the article, largely because the source documents are not widely available, and their usage seemed to border on original research. I have little doubt that the information is accurate, and my opinion is that it is also relevant -- I simply wanted to have further discussions on the matter.

However, in light of TechnicalGlitch's addition of citations, I am not inclined to press the matter further. The material is both sourced and relevant, and so should remain.

I should clarify that I have no hesitation in believing TG's side of the story. Her contributions to this discussion have been extremely valuable, the exact opposition of Mr. Samuels's approach. (And I know that I promised not to delete the court references again ... apologies. As I said, it was just a temporary precaution this time).

I had similar concerns about the names, but these have also been resolved. CJCurrie 23:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for adding the list of annotated websites, they're much better laid out like this. Technicalglitch 03:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
added: CJ, on the history page I see you ask a question in your edit summary about the websites (I think that's what you're asking about?) I might have whatever info you need but not sure what you're looking for as I looked over that list already and it looks good to me. If you're trying to link the sites to Samuels himself (more so than you already did?), all of them refer to either his mailing address or his 1-800 number that he has used since 1999. The court documents show that his own mailing address is the same as those ventures, not sure offhand about the 1-800 phone number being documented in the court files (but I'll bet it is), would have to check them tomorrow.

[edit] Adult newsgroup posts: relevant?

An earlier version of the Samuels bio page included the following:

Samuels frequently uses the e-mail address [deleted] for business purposes. Throughout 2005, an individual using this address posted several messages to pornography newsgroups, promising free pictures, adult personals and anonymous memberships.[4]

#^  Google newsgroup search for posts from Samuels' address, available here. For confirmation that Samuels was still using this account in late 2005, click here.

I have no doubt that this information listed is accurate and verifiable, and that it does not constitute libel or defamation (Samuels is not personally accused of making the posts in question). I have some doubts as to its relevance.

The question is as follows: are posts made to adult newsgroups from the business address of a national party leader significant enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? I have an opinion, but I would prefer to wait until others have had their say.

I'll note in passing that RS has two openly erotica-themed titles on his catalogue of books. If you don't feel like searching the list (and who could blame you?), they are as follows:

  • The Canadian National Newspaper Guide to Erotic Fiction (2005)
  • The Canadian National Newspaper World Guide to Books on Erotica and Sex (2005)

All also note that the advertisement on the second link (above) promises "renumeration" rather than "remuneration" for Samuels's writers. CJCurrie 03:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's relevant for someone who is the leader of a federal political party (although I am not the one who added that item to the page). His political party site has a link to Sex TV as well. If you'd uncovered a hotmail address or something then I think one might argue that you were prying and that it's his private life, but he openly uses his business account, and it's not like it was once or twice, it's copious, it spans over a number of years, and it's commercial in nature, not just his own private sex life. Technicalglitch 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
added: I mean, for the other leaders their careers are discussed. This is Samuels' career, or at least one of the few verifiable branches of it. He's been using this e-mail address since at least 1999, it used to be the contact address for his various "Agora" business ventures. Technicalglitch 03:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
me again- I just found something on the reliable sources page [[5]] that says one can never use usenet posts as a source (a shame, since I'm sure they designed the rule so that we couldn't pull info about the subject from the content of the post, which isn't quite what you are trying to do with it.) Technicalglitch 14:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I've had occasion to address the "Bulletin board and posts to Usenet" rule before. Notwithstanding the categorical language used on the page in question, it is not Wikipedia policy to prevent usenet posts from being used as sources -- the "rule" is merely a guideline, and if the matter of identity can be sufficiently addressed, the information may be included. An anonymous usenet post can also be cited if it is itself at the centre of a notable story.

The "usenet guideline" is meant to ensure that unsubstantiated comments are not used as sources -- and while this is a valid precaution, it is not applicable here.

So the question remains: should the posts in question be included? CJCurrie 22:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. It doesn't add anything to the article, which, if anything, already goes into far too much detail about a really not-very-notable person. Just because we "can" put something in doesn't mean we should. Really, what's the point? 90 percent of this article could be condensed down to "some guy who thinks he runs a political party out of his basement and self-publishes books." He's not a real politician, he never has or will be elected to any public office and Wikipedia doesn't need to enumerate the minute details of his life. Mark Gallagher made an interesting point on WikiEN-l... "I'm a bit concerned that sometimes Wikipedians have a habit of writing articles or including information, not because it's the right thing to do, but just basically as a way of saying "you can't tell US what to do, mate" whenever the subject of an article complains. In our rush to send a big "FUCK YOU" to any censors, real or imagined, we can ignore what's editorially or morally appropriate." Just because this guy complained in a massively uncivil manner doesn't mean he's not partially right. Technicalglitch, if I'm right in assuming you're one of the people involved in the Web design lawsuit, you need to step back and realize that you have a clear personal bias and therefore you may not be the best person to edit this article. FCYTravis 07:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This article lacked any sourcing [[6]] until I started contributing to it. It's now extremely well sourced, comprehensive, and much more accurate. That said, there is still the need for some more sourcing and a few minor corrections, that I will work on tomorrow. Technicalglitch 14:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand and appreciate FCYTravis's comments about the newsgroup posts, but disagree with his observation that the article already goes into too much personal detail. It's true that Samuels isn't a very important figure in the grand scheme of things, but he is the leader of a political party (albeit unregistered), and has received some attention from the national media. I suppose whether or not he's a "real politician" is a matter of interpretation, but he has campaigned for office three times (and twice as the candidate of a real political party). Under the circumstances, the present edit is fair. CJCurrie 21:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the above before seeing FCYTravis's recent edits. While it's possible that the previous version contained too much information, the new version contains too little. FCYTravis has deleted much salient information while including references that cannot be absolutely verified (please note that this is not intended as a personal attack, merely as professional criticism). CJCurrie 21:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phone and address references

CJ, I think this might be what you were asking for in your edit summary from a few edits back. Here are references to use for his 1-888 number and his postal address to show they are his.


Reference for the p.o. box 24191 address that the ventures use:

Corporate Registration, March 31, 1997, Canada, Form 3 Annual Summary, for "The Agora Cosmopolitan National News Magazine".

Samuels is listed as a director (and auditor! How interesting, and not quite legal) of the company, and lists the p.o. box 24191 address as his own personal mailing address.


Reference for the 1-888-377-XXXX phone number: (X's added for his privacy, but number corresponds to his online ventures, and available widely)

Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, File T-360-02, Motion Record of May 29, 2002.

Samuels gives his 1-888-377-XXXX number as his phone number.


He's used the phone number since before 2002 but that's the reference I found in the records, didn't dig for more than one of each. Technicalglitch 14:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donations Link

Should we be posting donation links, most other pages don't have them, I checked the Liberal and Conservative pages. Tawker 23:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The other parties don't offer books from the party leader as incentives. I think it's appropriate for the Cosmopolitan Party section, but I'll remove the other references. CJCurrie 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New page attacking Wikipedia

http://www.anzwers.org/trade/wikipedia/

Any guesses as to the author? CJCurrie 04:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I also see that a new series of newsgroup postings has appeared from RS's business e-mail. CJCurrie 04:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

See: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.design.graphics/browse_frm/thread/9b628362da7a2a96/cd010d3438e77950?tvc=1&q=raymond+samuels+wikipedia#cd010d3438e77950 for an example of such newsgroup posts. Tawker 06:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Some of the attacks on Wikipedia admins seem to be crossing the line into stalking and harrassment- I know those targeted are probably not that concerned, but just wanted to let you know that if anyone ever does need his home address and phone for police reasons it is available. (I obviously won't post it here, we can do it by e-mail)
Ok, now this guy is downright a joke, my BOT is now commiting sins against him [7] Tawker 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I see he's hit the French Wikipedia too. [8] CJCurrie 05:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two sources needed (nitpicking)

I think there's two spots left that need to be sourced (although thanks mostly to CJCurrie's work it's an amazingly well sourced article already):

Under "Background", it says he's "listed" as an associate member (etc), listed where? The way it reads now makes it sound that info came from the society itself, and I don't think that's the case.

added: I mean, that group is not formally a part of the society, so that's what I'm getting at. Saw your new and improved footnote though and that does clear it up a bit but the trainee solicitor's group is only affiliated with that law society.

Under "Books", it's said they're published by a corporation, and I don't think you have any source to confirm that. His corporate letters patent identifies a different corporate name than that [9] and he has never registered the other name as an alternate. I think he's using "The Agora Cosmopolitan" as well as "Agora Publishing" as an unregistered sole-proprietorship business name, not that that can really be sourced, other than that a search for a corporation or registered business in that name does not turn up.

I'm only bringing this up since everyone is trying to source their info as well as possible in this article under the circumstances. Even if nothing is done to source these two nitpicky things it's hardly a hanging offense. Technicalglitch 20:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The first one is pretty easy: he's listed as an associate member in the Toronto Star article.

As to the second point: I suppose I was naive to think the Agora Cosmopolitan was a real corporation. CJCurrie 21:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usenet spam

Mr. Samuels appears to be spamming Usenet[10] with harrassing messages attacking (libeling/slandering/defaming?) the graphic designer he refused to pay earlier and lost in court to. *Dan T.* 20:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)