Talk:Brian R. Price

Proposed Deletion
I added the deletion tag as a weak suggestion. If it contested, I will drop the issue. There are few, if any, notable independent sources backing up his notability. It is hard when the author is self published, but has also published other authors. Further, the subject of the article seems to be in the midst of a legal proceeding, and while the recently added section may be kosher with wp:bio guidelines, they are sourced by here-say in forums and blogs. It's a touchy matter and we should be careful that this battle isn't fought on Wikipedia. Just my $.02 Sethwoodworth (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

---I disagree. Brian is notable in the growing WMA/HEMA movement, as an example if nothing else. While the sourced references are predominately forums, they're not entirely disreputable sources either (including a number of well-known academics, and Brian's authors). I also think that the current wording of the 'controversy' section is pretty clear that these are allegations, not necessarily proven facts, and should remain as stated until such time as they are proven. I could see the argument for removing the article entirely for notability far more readily that any argument deleting that section again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhaelen1 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Plenty of people are notable in the growing WMA/HEMA movement, but people far more notable than Brian Price are still not on Wiki, nor is there any real demand for it. WMA is still pretty nichè - many people aren't even aware of its existence. And even within WMA circles, Mr. Price isn't that important. I could well say that I'm notable in my home town, but that hardly qualifies me for a wiki article. --Tsuka (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

-- I agree about touchiness with legal matters, but it seems that part of what led to the bio first being created was his notability as an author and publisher, and those matters directly relate to the controversy, and apparently, his press ceasing to produce new works. It seems that as the article is neutral in its tone and thoroughly noted, it really needs to all stand or be deleted entirely; repeated deletions of the controversy sections for "libel", while maintaining the rest of the article isn't kosher. Firstly, because some of the controversy section is documented fact: the issues with the "Schola Saint George" school, is government record. And at least one forum post from the subject himself acknowledges some of the allegations. Secondly, the original creator made clear that the parts that are *allegations* and defined them as such, and thus this cannot be libelous. Truth is not defamatory, and the fact that such allegations have been made by the authors in public forums and legal action is apparently in process is a true statement. So long as Wikipedia makes sure we don't let the article state more than what is a matter of record there is no libel nor do we seem to have a dog in this race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thierry1963 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversies
A number of controversies around the subject became public knowledge in 2011. These lead to two out-of-court settlements (one involving his publishing house, one involving a former customer) and a change in his relationship to Revival Enterprises and Schola St. George which the affected parties announced on social media. It was discussed in some online magazines which no longer exist in 2020 and are not on the Wayback Machine (earlier versions of this article have the link). The subject of the article announced one of his responses to this controversy (the change in relationship to Revival Enterprises) on his LinkedIn account. Another appears in a Certificate of Forfeiture published by the Secretary of State of Texas which is linked and cited, and on the official website of a martial arts school which the subject was involved in.

Since the allegations never came to court, and were not discussed in print newspapers, I believe that summarizing statements by the subject and accusers is consistent with WP:SOCIALMEDIA 'Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves'. If it is not, it would be impossible to discuss significant disputes which never reach the courts or media. The article currently has a lengthy summary of the subject's career, and the size of the 'Controversies' section is proportionate.

Since 2011, the 'controversies' section has been repeatedly edited from anonymous IP addresses, often by people making false claims such as 'accusations made only in blog or forum entries' (there was a lawsuit and an out-of-court settlement) or 'This entry is consistently edited by a small band of individuals who have founded their own competing business (Freelance Academy Press)' (only two of the accusers founded this press, and who is performing the edits is unproven). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagans2019 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)