Biograph, Wikipedia and the FBI, New Wikipedia harassment incriminates more Options

[biographco]

As you all have been following the Wikipedia slam of our company "American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company". Since that time, more activity is going on which I will share with you. The activity however, has coincided with attempted malicious changes to our listings, including IMDB.com. These other websites have been informed and are very supportive.

The most recent activity in the article is the malicious Wikipedian editors attempting to "Split" the article to "New Company" vs "Old Company" but there is no way they can try and prove we are NOT the same company, intimating unless we "Show" these "Editors" our confidential paperwork that shows we are the same company. Pretty slick? Show us what you have or we will defame you.

I will give you this Wikipedia example from the article "Discussion"....

"I agree. This situation seems similar to the history of PanAm airlines. It went out of business then was revived a couple of times. We have separate articles for each incarnation: Pan American World Airways, Pan American Airways (1996-1998), Pan American Airways (1998-2004). In this instance the original company is more notable so we could leave it at the present name and the new company could be at "American Mutoscope and Biograph Company (1991)". -Will Beback · † · 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, though I haven't seen any evidence that the new company is notable enough for an article. —tregoweth (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Splitting it into two articles won't end the squabbling by the new company that it is really the same as the old company, will it? I don't know if the new company really has enough substance for its own article. In 16 years it has released one commercial product: a DVD containing an interview with Tommy Bond and a silent Our Gang comedy in the public domain. — Walloon 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The point isn't to end squabbling, which would probably continue no matter what. The immediate problem we're facing is the use of categories. These two sets are in conflict.

Category:Companies established in 1895

Category:Defunct media companies of the United States

Category:Companies established in 1991

Category:Re-established companies

Splitting the article would allow more logical categorizattion. I think we can make a case for the notability of the new company based on several profiles they've received. -Will Beback · † · 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company"

First, the Little Rascals my Dad "Hosted" and there is only one 12 minute silent Rascals film included in the whole hour long DVD. The majority of it is my Dad's stories, viniettes, and talking to his older star friends.

Second - They got caught on calling our company "Defunct". Too late! Already downloaded and reported! Again, all this is funny. They can block, change and scramble all they want on Wikipedia, this does them no good now. Truth and honesty does win out, and always will. And to the others, when this hammer falls, it will change, and hopefully clean up Wikipedia, forever.

[Somey]

I will at least say that the Biograph Company website has improved dramatically since the last time I checked - all the extraneous, non-company related stuff is gone now, so that's good. But the WP article is now using pages from the "Wayback Machine" at archive.org as citation sources for stuff like the "studio lot on the moon" claim, which is no longer on the company site, so that's bad. IMO, if you have to rely on an archive.org version of something for a cite, then you're just being nasty.

There's also this:
http://www.biographcompany.com/about_us/legal.html

The American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, Inc. owns all trademarks/service marks of, and associated with the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, Inc. from January 1st, 1896 to the present.

Assuming this is true, then that would tend to make the comparison to Gimbel's somewhat less apt, in so far as anyone trying to "resurrect" Gimbel's without owning such trademarks really would just be borrowing the name. I still don't think they can claim legal continuity, but is that really what they're claiming? Maybe I'm making the wrong distinction here, but I get the impression they're mostly claiming they own the IP rights that were held by the original company, assuming those haven't actually passed into the public domain. That last bit, to me, would be the crucial issue - obviously 75 years have now passed, but IP rights can be renewed, and IIRC the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act might help them somewhat in that regard. (I'd have to research that, except that I really, really don't want to...)

If they're saying "we are the same company," then you're in grey-area-land. That's almost a philosophical issue more than anything else. IOW, if Biograph is saying that the Wikipedia editors they've dealt with are biased against privately-held companies, particularly those that sell consumer products, I could probably believe that. But this doesn't change my original assessment of the situation: Biograph's civil case is just not there, at least in my opinion... I wish I were wrong... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I'm sorry to say this, but if I were the Biograph Company, I'd probably cut my losses - maybe make a new, non-confrontational account to argue against splitting the article, assuming that's considered desirable. With any luck, the furor will die down before the WP'ers get it into their heads to add a whole section on the Wikipedia-based squabbling itself.

[biographco]

I will at least say that the Biograph Company website has improved dramatically since the last time I checked - all the extraneous, non-company related stuff is gone now, so that's good. But the WP article is now using pages from the "Wayback Machine" at archive.org as citation sources for stuff like the "studio lot on the moon" claim, which is no longer on the company site, so that's bad...

I just wanted to add a thank you on the website revision compliment. There will be some more revisions soon. However, the moon subject and everything is still there and on the website. It is valid, and can be referenced. Also, on the "Archive.org, yes they are just being "Nasty". Again, an agenda to discredit the company by using something valid and twisting it. I would also like to add one other thing. It is very obvious of intentions here. Wikipedia is "Not" an informational source. This is a witch-hunt, nothing more. Every resource is being used to dig up something "Bad" on the company. This is not unbiased which shows both sides, but one side or none. We are singled out. No other article has the references and cross-references like this one, nor been pulled apart like this one (PLEASE READ OTHERS LIKE GAUMONT). This is not my opinion, it is obvious and has been for some time. We did not initiated any ill feelings, nor wish any problems with Wikipedia, when this started from them and the certain Wiki-Editors back in 2004. I am also going to post now what we believe is going on:

http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t7257.html

You may want to even start another thread on just this topic. In summation, I want to state again, that we just want correct and fair information out there, and not to be harassed and left be. I guess for Wikipedia that is way too much to ask, so we proceed.

This post has been edited by Somey: