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.

[Anonymouse]

Well, one would think the burden of proof would be on you to prove you are the same company. If I open a store, and call it "Gimbel's", then you don't automatically assume that it is the same as the old one. ~~~~

[Somey]

Perhaps, but it does seem to have gone beyond that at this point... I'd say that if you're gonna go after somebody for something they did on the internet, it's best to just sue 'em and get it out there, rather than engage in a lot of sabre-rattling. Most people respond to the sabre-rattling by doing absolutely nothing, because to do something in response to it looks like an admission of guilt... And since the would-be defendant has already done whatever he's been accused of doing, such an admission doesn't even necessarily help. (Or, at least, there's no guarantee it will.)

[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.

[Jonny Cache]

I confess that I've only sampled this groove a couple of times, but it seems that the initial poster suffers from a common misconception about our Purview in this Review. We are far too busy trying to bring about Peace On Middle Earth (POME) to bother with any lesser concern. I realize that it gives DT Yet Another Grail (YAG) for his Fringe-Quest (F-Q), but seriallly, folks, don't you think he can get enough of that in his own WP'HOOD, without having to range so far and wide?

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[biographco]

As far as "Suits" go, I said nothing about suing Wikipedia in the last posting. Also, outside of the Wikipedia box, you cannot be "Blocked" because this is the United States and under free laws. We want to stop being harassed by the certain editors of Wikipedia and LEFT ALONE! When this happens, there will be no further action by us. If the article is corrected so all are happy, and the harassment against us stops, then we don't have any problems. It's as simple as that.

If anything, this incident will make Wikipedia BETTER by spotlighting the REAL problem editors.

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.

Mr. Tobias, we have documents, references and "Verifiable" proof that CAN be revealed publicly that proves we are the same and continuation of the company. this even includes goverment declarations. They are all EASILY accesible on the website, and all over the internet. The only thing we will NOT reveal is our privacy as a privately held corporation. However, the proof that is verifiable has been "Ignored" by Wikipedia and the certain "Editors". I also invite ALL of our Wikipedia Review members to PLEASE visit our website, and you can see for yourself as well.

If you're gonna go after somebody for something they did on the internet, it's best to just sue 'em and get it out there, rather than engage in a lot of sabre-rattling...

Somey, thank you for your input and you have been very kind. I was not refering to a "Suit". I think there is confusion here, it is beyond that now. All we want is for the article to be corrected and the harassment to stop. That is all, very simple. We have verifiable references that we are who we are, which in any other Wikipedia article would be fully acceptable, but NOT on ours. Again, singled out, and indicative of an agenda.

Well, one would think the burden of proof would be on you to prove you are the same company. If I open a store, and call it "Gimbel's", then you don't automatically assume that it is the same as the old one. ~~~~

Please visit our website, all the proof is there, as well as on the internet... You can see in the article "American_Mutoscope_and_Biograph_Company" that is exactly what is going on (Intended force disclosure of private/proprietary primary source documentations), and what the other editors are attempting to do. We have verifiable "Proof" published and government certified that we are who we are that has been ignored. That pretty much says it all.

This post has been edited by Somey:

[biographco]

For our Wikipedia Review members and ANYONE here are links that verifiy our company. Just for fun, check it out...

(YOU HAVE TO HAVE ACROBAT READER TO SEE PDF'S)

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-...-picture-studio

http://www.moviemaker.com/magazine/editorial.php?id=86

http://www.biographcompany.com/laresolution2.pdf

http://www.biographcompany.com/laproclamation2.pdf

http://www.biographcompany.com/senatorialaward2.pdf

http://www.biographcompany.com/rudyletter2.pdf

http://imdb.com/name/nm0000217/

http://imdb.com/company/co0066927/#productionX20company

This post has been edited by biographco:

[dtobias]

Those various proclamations prove nothing, given that governments at all levels are issuing tons of this sort of ceremonial stuff, often with little or no scrutiny; I've heard of complete hoaxes being "honored" in this manner, if the hoaxer manages to pull enough political strings. I'm a bit more surprised that Britannica bought your assertion that your company is a continuation of the older one; I'd think that being out of business since the 1920s is enough reason to consider any new company of the same name a totally separate thing.

[biographco]

The last posting was in reference to verifiable information on our company. The information that is there was and is verified and published. this should have been accepted by certain "Editors" and was not. This happened before you even entered the discussion. The only other "Proof" (Please read ENTIRE article discussion) was for the editors to gain private information about the company. If we did not supply this, then the article would remain incorrect. The information in the article on Wikipedia intended to harm the company's image and reputation (Admitted by an "Editor" in writing). We have verified published information and we have offered it time and again. If this was not the case, the information that is readily available and verifiable should have been enough to verify our valididty, as in all the other Wikipedia articles.

Those various proclamations prove nothing, given that governments at all levels are issuing tons of this sort of ceremonial stuff, often with little or no scrutiny; I've heard of complete hoaxes being "honored" in this manner, if the hoaxer manages to pull enough political strings. I'm a bit more surprised that Britannica bought your assertion that your company is a continuation of the older one; I'd think that being out of business since the 1920s is enough reason to consider any new company of the same name a totally separate thing.

Mr. Tobias, apparently maybe you do have an agenda. I do not have to defend or be defensive about our verifiable information, nor us being Biograph Company. Because of your demeanor and attitude, and if you are accusing us of being a "Hoaxer", and saying that Encyclopedia Britannica "Bought" our assertion proves that as well, then it is obvious you do have an agenda, which is to discredit me, and our company. Because of this I will not be able to reply to your posts.

[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.

[dtobias]

My only "agenda", by the way, is that I'm pissed off at somebody who threatens legal action against people who are doing their best to have an accurate article about a historical company, with facts which may or may not be in congruence with your own view of the world.

[biographco]

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...

Somey, I would love to be more open, but we are the same company. We have confidential "Things" proving this in which I wish I could go into, but can't. It is not a gray area, and I hate to be so vague, but have to, in order not to violate our right of privacy as a company. On this civil case, all civil cases are tough, and yes it would be difficult. But I can say the FBI takes this very seriously, and again have to stop there due to confidentiality. On Wikipedia, we are blocked and with what is going on it would be impossible to make a non-confrontational article. The whole thing could be solved if a correct article could be attained but that is not going to happen. Remember, this whole thing is about our validity, which is being fought tooth and nail by certain Wikipedia editors, with insults, slander and malice. Why? There is an agenda, and that's that. It is to discredit the company, and even me.

[dtobias]

So I suppose the company didn't die in the 1920s... it was just put in suspended animation, and was revived by some electric current applied by Dr. Frankenstein.

[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:

[Somey]

...I would love to be more open, but we are the same company. We have confidential "Things" proving this in which I wish I could go into, but can't...

So, that means compromising a bit more on the wording, doesn't it? As hard as that probably is to take, given what's already happened.

I mean, being "the same company" in terms of possessing various copyrights and trademarks, and even the original film library or whatever, is one thing. And that's probably good enough for most purposes - possession is 9/10ths of the law, after all, at least in the US. But you can't claim organizational continuity, or administrative continuity, or even artistic continuity, right? Everyone connected with the company from 1930 is presumably long since gone, may they rest in peace. From a purely human perspective, it can't possibly be the same company, even if it's the same company in various (if not most) other respects.

Nobody is telling you how to run your business (or at least I should hope not). Reviving the "spirit" of a company like Biograph is a noble thing to do, at least in my opinion, but at the end of the day that's essentially a marketing claim. No matter how valid it is, it's not something you can insist on everyone accepting at face value - you have to convince people, and Wikipedians are (as you've seen) notoriously hard to convince. In some cases that's good, in others, maybe not so good, but either way, Wikipedia is so damn big now that it can only function on the basis of consistent application of rules, which often don't make sense and contradict each other, but they're rules nonetheless. Every time someone makes an exception for someone, or something, there's an uproar - so they avoid making exceptions, even in unusual cases like this one. There have been plenty of times when the uproar has started right here, even...

Anyway, that's all I'm saying.

[biographco]

Somey, thank you for the comments. Yes, we are the same company, and the information can be accessed on our website. I do wish I could go into it further, but can't because I would be compromising the privacy of the company and its officers. Honestly, we really don't have to convince anyone, the information is there and if it is accepted by certain parties, that is fine. If it isn't by certain parties, the party or parties are detached from reality, and we simply do not deal with them. We will NOT release any private company information, nor be pressured into doing so (refering to Wikipedia).

Also, please go to the other articles on Wikipedia with similar companes, such as "Gaumont", who claims to be the "Oldest movie company in the world". There is hardly any refrences on that article, and the statement goes unquestioned. However, I had found out on thier own website the company went under in 1938. the name and "Some" trademarks were "Bought" by another company. The stocks were liquidated, and the rest of the company remnants sold off. Wikipedia not only NOT questioned this, but pushed the "Gaumont" article as valid without question or further references, defying anyone questioning it. You can read for yourself.

We feel that some of these Wiki-Editors are possibly influenced by Gaumont who has started to use "The Oldest movie company" (Which is a phrase we used for years) since March 2007 in Variety (Magazine) as thier new company "Campaign" push. It smells, that is a fact. To summarize, we are who we are and that is it. We will not be harassed, threatened, misrepresented, slandered, or defamed. The point being is the malicious intent in regards to the certain Wikipedian editors toward us, and that this is part of a smear campaign and a defamation "Agenda". It is all right there and obvious. This is what we want stopped and it will be. Our goal is to have a fair and balanced article, or no article at all, but not a defamatory one. I hope this clears things up.

[Uly]

I think a closer parallel would be the British East India Company. Here's a little quote from that article:

In 1987, coffee merchants Tony Wild and David Hutton created a public limited company called "The East India Company" and in 1990 registered versions of the Company's coat of arms as a trademark, although the Patent Office noted 'Registration of this mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of the words "The East India Company"' [4]. By December 1996, this company had a website at www.theeastindiacompany.com. It sold St Helena coffee branded with the Company name and also produced a book on the history of the Company. This company has no legal continuity with the original Company, even though it claims on its website to have been founded in 1600.

[Somey]

Okay folks, we're going to try again with the all-new, shiny-clean "censored" version of this thread. I'm still not so sure the subject shouldn't be closed, but I'm at least going to put it back out into the (public) Articles forum, so non-members can see it.

Also, I have to apologize to Dan Tobias, whose posting on WikiEN-L about this thread is no longer reflective of what's here. To think, he even used it as an example of why linking to us shouldn't be disallowed! Ah well, those are the breaks, I guess... By all means, please convey my apologies to the WikiEN-L folks for having done all this nasty, hypocritical censorship stuff.

Anyway, if we're going to continue this thread - and I'm not saying we should - please, everyone try to be nice-ish, and if you're going to call the cops, just call 'em already, and allow us to be surprised (pleasantly or otherwise?) by the results. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[biographco]

Anyway, if we're going to continue this thread - and I'm not saying we should - please, everyone try to be nice-ish, and if you're going to call the cops, just call 'em already, and allow us to be surprised (pleasantly or otherwise?) by the results. :D

Somey, sounds good. I do want to make one point however. Mr. Tobias used strong language and insulting verbage towards me and the company on WR which there is no excuse for. If he has an issue or a comment, or even rebuttal, please have him act with respect and decorum in this forum. This will also help keep WR on a civil level. Also, with this thread there really is no more I can add, except that we want the harassment to stop and for the article on the company to be corrected. It can also be used as a positive force, in which unbiased Wiki-Editors can try and correct not only our article, but the ones on Gaumont and Pathe as well. Thanks:)

[biographco]

I would also like to post a clarification on an item posted by Mr. Tobias on posting on WikiEN-L. the following is the posting and my response to this and clarification:

The person (with a questionable grasp on reality) from American Biograph and Mutoscope Company is here accusing Wikipedians of hacking his bank account, in addition to calling it "defamatory" that they don't accept on his say-so that his company is the legitimate successor to a company that went defunct back in the 1920s.

our response:

The person (with a questionable grasp on reality)

This is a personal attack and is uncalled for.

from American Biograph and Mutoscope Company is here accusing Wikipedians of
hacking his bank account,

I did not accuse ALL Wikipedians or Wikipedia. I said that there is a possibility and it needed to be "Looked into".

in addition to calling it "defamatory" that they don't accept on his say-so that his company is the legitimate successor to a company that went defunct back in the 1920s.

1. That is NOT what is "Defamitory" about not accepting my "Say-So". What is, is the examples of "We want the company to look ridiculous", in the articles discussion pages.

2. I am not asking to go on my "Say-So". I have offered creditable and verifiable sources indicating who we are, including other encylopedias, publications, etc. This is NOT on just a "Say-So".

In summation, we have offered verifiable and published sources for the article to Wikipedia. In reality though, the article will not be changed. Most likely in the days ahead it will be segmented more and the outcome is for this will be an attempt to make it even more damaging to us. However, this kind of vindictiveness, and that is obvious, will not harm the company, or our validity. We are the same company and hold the private and confidential "Items" to prove this. No amount of slander or misinformation against us can change that. The attempts made by the certain Wiki-Editors, allowed by Wikipedia itself, only makes Wikipedia again look like the publication that it is... What is that kind of a publication? That is for the readers to decide.