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.

[dtobias]

The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in defamation. All they're doing is saying that the burden of proof is on him to show some sort of continuity between a company that demonstrably went out of business 70-some years ago, and one that was incorporated 60-some years later. Wikipedia has strict policies requiring claims to be backed by verifiable references; without them, any crackpot would be able to insist that their bizarre theories be inserted. But he's perfectly free not to disclose any confidential information; nobody's putting a gun against his head or breaking into his office to search it. It just means that the article won't contain alleged "facts" about his company that he is unable or unwilling to prove, that's all.

[Joseph100]

The thing is, nobody on Wikipedia is engaging in defamation. All they're doing is saying that the burden of proof is on him to show some sort of continuity between a company that demonstrably went out of business 70-some years ago, and one that was incorporated 60-some years later. Wikipedia has strict policies requiring claims to be backed by verifiable references; without them, any crackpot would be able to insist that their bizarre theories be inserted. But he's perfectly free not to disclose any confidential information; nobody's putting a gun against his head or breaking into his office to search it. It just means that the article won't contain alleged "facts" about his company that he is unable or unwilling to prove, that's all.

To believe the statment made by MR. Dtobias, "love, peace and wikipedia" numb nut, and I have some nice land in Florida for sale, cheap, and with the gators thown in for free...

Let's be clear, there is no rule of law on Wikipedia, other than jungle law. There is no such thing as fair and just when dealing with Wikipedia - it is just a dank dark jungle full of intellectual thugs, like MR Dtobias and JIMBO's merry band band of juice drinkers, who's lies and deceit and thuggery makes Wikipedia, the laughing stock of the intellectual world.

Drink up.

This post has been edited by Joseph100:

[Somey]

To believe the statment made by MR. Dtobias, "love, peace and wikipedia" numb nut, and I have some nice land in Florida for sale, cheap, and with the gators thown in for free...

I thought we were going to be nice-ish...?

Technically, that isn't exactly what Dan wrote originally. This thread has been heavily modified FOR MORE LOW-END POWER!!! to allow the, uh, discussion to continue in a more, uh, constructive fashion.

Nevertheless...

I, for one, completely accept the notion that Wikipedia has to have high standards as to what constitutes verification of an assertion by a self-interested entity. I would hope for nothing less, in fact... The issue here is really the threat of undue emphasis, and potentially an effort to "punish" a principal representing the subject(s) of an article for, and I think we all have to admit this, being a "tendentious editor" and violating WP's internal definition of "conflict of interest." While that editor may have been tendentious, the company itself has not been - it's still just a company, and even if we accept that the editor represents the company, or even is the company, his behavior shouldn't be a factor, as hard as that is to accept.

Personally, I don't think they should split the article, and making some sort hard distinction between the "old company" and the "new company" really isn't all that necessary in terms of providing accurate information. Britannica's approach to the situation was the right one: Simply mention that the company has been revived, maybe include a few details about how it was revived, and leave it at that. After all, AMBC, as it's currently constituted, is in the same business, claims a fairly plausible (though admittedly not rock-solid) chain of ownership, appears to be working with the same titles, and apparently has plans to continue doing so.

But if you ask me (and I realize nobody has), the comparisons to Gaumont and Pathe aren't close enough to warrant similar treatment. Granted, both Gaumont and Pathe went bankrupt and underwent various merges and restructurings, but from what I can tell, there just weren't any decades-long periods of complete inactivity. In Gaumont's case in particular, that company has always been primarily owned by the mysterious Seydoux family, in some shape or form, and may not have been completely inactive at any time - other than maybe the middle of WWII.

Anyway, the problem with Wikipedia in a case like this (at least as I see it) is that standards of conduct fly out the window when flamewars erupt. People can turn into persecutors very quickly, particularly when dealing with what they see as unreasonable demands. What can be done about it? Maybe nothing, but they should try anyway. Remember, they're the Big Huge Massive Online Encyclopedia - they can afford to back off from counter-attack mode if the situation calls for it... right?

[biographco]

...After all, AMBC, as it's currently constituted, is in the same business, claims a fairly plausible (though admittedly not rock-solid) chain of ownership, appears to be working with the same titles, and apparently has plans to continue doing so.

But if you ask me (and I realize nobody has), the comparisons to Gaumont and Pathe aren't close enough to warrant similar treatment. Granted, both Gaumont and Pathe went bankrupt and underwent various merges and restructurings, but from what I can tell, there just weren't any decades-long periods of complete inactivity. In Gaumont's case in particular, that company has always been primarily owned by the mysterious Seydoux family, in some shape or form, and may not have been completely inactive at any time - other than maybe the middle of WWII.

First, thank you Somey for the input... I needed to interject a quick item here for our WR readers. This next quote comes from the "Gaumont" http://www.gaumont.fr/gaumont/qui.html profile itself...

"In 1925, Leon Gaumont signs an agreement of distribution with the Subway Goldwin Mayer and creates a new company GMG, Gaumont Metro Goldwin, dissolved in 1928. With the arrival of speaking, in 1930, Leon Gaumont withdraws itself: Gaumont Franco Film Aubert (GFFA) was born: in addition to the extension of the park of rooms, the company produces comedies and, especially, immortal Atalante of Jean Vigo. In 1938, the GFFA becomes the New Company of the Establishments Gaumont (SNEG) ..."

This explicidely states that Gaumont is a "New" company, only carrying on a "Gaumont" name. Yet, in Wikipedia, there is NO contradiction on the "Gaumont" article, ..." See Wiki-Talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaumont_Film_Company and it is fully accepted by Wikipedia with only ONE source that this is the same and contunuing company...

"Gaumont is a French film production company founded in 1895 by the engineer-turned-inventor, Léon Gaumont (1864-1946). It is the oldest running film company in the world." [i]See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaumont

Yet on our article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Muto...iograph_Company it is completely ripped apart with 40+ references trying to disprove (Unsuccessfully) that we are the SAME or continuation of the same company, even though we have verifiable outside sources, (One being Encyclopedia Brittanica) which have been completely ignored by the Wiki-Editors and the Wiki-Staff. Our situation is different since we are a continuation. But nevertheless on the articles and prejudice, I would like for someone to explain to me why? Thanks:)

This post has been edited by biographco:

[Cedric]

Yet on our article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Muto...iograph_Company it is completely ripped apart with 40+ references trying to disprove (Unsuccessfully) that we are the SAME or continuation of the same company, even though we have verifiable outside sources, (One being Encyclopedia Brittanica) which have been completely ignored by the Wiki-Editors and the Wiki-Staff. Our situation is different since we are a continuation. But nevertheless on the articles and prejudice, I would like for someone to explain to me why? Thanks:)

This would be the nearest explanation I can come up with:
(IMG:http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/76-head_up_ass.jpg)


This post has been edited by Cedric: