Talk:Diana Napolis

delete
Please delete this page. This was marked for deletion and it was decided to be deleted. This is not a person worthy of encyclopedic record. regulaestultis (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Started page
Any suggestions, there's a surprising number of sources! WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow WLU. And to think that this was one of the suspected meatpuppets that You Know Who invited to talk:SRA... If this is the best opposition from other side, you guys will soon have a FA SRA article. —Cesar Tort 19:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Naw, the limiting factor for FA on SRA is putting in yet more time to re-write, re-research and re-everything. Bleah.
 * Besides, it's not about who your opponent is, wikipedia is not a battleground, it's all about sources and quality. Ahem. Now I must visit a confessional.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeap, but I had in mind the scene of Planet of the Apes where Taylor (Charlton Heston) tells his friends while watching to the speachless Cro-Magnon-like humans: "If this is the best, in a year we'll be running this planet". —Cesar Tort 05:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never actually seen the movie, did they succeed? WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 12:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nop: this happened just a second before they heard an horrible noise and... (better watch it: the original 1968 movie is one of the best five sci-fi films in history). —Cesar Tort 16:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted, I'll have to convince the significant other first. Page is an orphan, I've spammed talk: Steven Spielberg, Elizabeth Loftus and Jennifer Love Hewitt as potential candidates to add to, where else could we link to here?  I don't think it's really notable enough for a mention on SRA unfortunately.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 16:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories
I was asked on my talk page by User:WLU to do an analysis of the categories on this page. This'll take a few edits before I'm done, but that's what I'm up to here...


 * Category:Day care sexual abuse hysteria - Looks appropriate.
 * Category:Mind control - This one bothers me. I guess it's supposed to be that she's accusing those she harassed of performing mind control?  Seems a stretch as a category.
 * Category:Abuse - This one bothers me as well. If nothing else, it seems way too general a category for this article.  But a quick glance down the chain of children categories does not show me any obvious, more specific replacements.  Maybe this is covered well enough by Category:Day care sexual abuse hysteria.  While the DCSAH cat is not directly under Abuse, as far as I can see, I wonder if cat:DCSAH should be in Category:Child sexual abuse, which would then put DCSAH as a direct child category of cat:Abuse, and thus make cat:abuse no longer needed on this article directly.
 * Category:Stalkers - Looks appropriate.
 * Category:Living people - Standard category. Looks good.
 * Category:People from California - It's OK, but could be better if it could be narrowed to a specific city or county in California.
 * Category:Internet vigilantes - Looks appropriate.
 * Category:1955 births - Standard category. Looks good.

TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Analysis is done.  Use or don't use my comments as you all see fit. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree with your reasoning on and will remove abuse, I think I'll stick with mind control as the only other cat I could think of would be "paranoid delusionals" or creating the category "people who believe they are subject to mind control devices" and that seems a bit long.  It seems like there should be something linking her to Project MKULTRA 'cause it is a fairly common delusion (for lack of a better word).  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 03:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments - made "from California" to "From SD county, Cal.". The Day care sexual abuse hysteria is not really about abuse, it's more of a moral panic.  It's overarching conceptual rubric is far more about hysteria than the abuse, as the actual "abused children" didn't appear to be abused.  It's got more to do with McCarthyism  and the Red Scare than actual abuse.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

linking her homepage
i do not think it's appropriate to link her homepage, even if it's technically permitted under policy. if we are serious about 'doing no harm', then we shouldn't exploit her by linking to it. e.g. here is an excerpt from her latest blog entry: "I have reason to believe that a few of our major perpetrators are housed in Europe and may be accessing us via satellite. I would appreciate it if someone could immediately investigate the real estate holdings of the Earl of Sandwich and perhaps monitor his estates, keeping in mind that there is rampant identity fraud occurring. Last night an entire group of people accessed me in efforts to stop the horrific activity in my home which included children. They were hurt. The strategy used by the enemy was to stay on the perimeter and surround them. I repeat. To offset this, please try to send in several larger artificial intelligence robots which could surround the perimeter. Also try suction devices. Keep in mind that there are innocent people on the premises. Try not to hurt them. One is a man named Tom, the other Hlaing T., Sifu, and others. " . this person's blog clearly has no place in this encyclopedia, even if it's really hers. i believe it's a blatant disservice to her health for us to link to it. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * besides teh fact that i think it's potentially harmful to her mental stability to legitimize her site by linking to it from here, her blog warns "WARNING: DO NOT DOWNLOAD THIS WEB PAGE: VIEW FROM A PUBLIC LIBRARY." so that's another reason why it shouldn't be linked, because apparently it's unsafe due to viruses implanted by mind control hackers. i don't want that stuff on my computer; i don't know about you guys Theserialcomma (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of those reasons are legitimate policy concerns as far as I know. With the coverage of Napolis' notable activities already in this entry I have a hard time understanding how linking her blog is "a blatant disservice to her health." Can you explain this a bit?  I also note that you originally removed the link claiming it was "spam".  What is the real reason you wish to remove it?  Because it is spam, or because it is damaging to someone's mental health?PelleSmith (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * note, i've revised my wording to make it a bit more BLP compliant. i've tried to remove any strong or accusatory language about the veracity of her blog and the ramifications of what it means when someone claims that foreign agents are attempting mind control on her. 
 * the first reason i removed her blog was because i thought it was spam. i read the site before removing it as an external link and decided that it didn't add any encyclopedic value whatsoever to wikipedia. the site linked, most simply and with the softest language i can muster, is filled with very unencyclopedic content.
 * however, the blog was added back by another editor, so i assumed that consensus must have decided that her blog benefited the article in some way. so i decided to read her blog again to see what encyclopedic value it could possibly bring to the article. that's when i decided that linking to her site might have a deleterious effect on her. i am hesitating to use any stronger wording because this is a living person, but i truly believe that we should not link these unencyclopedic rantings for reasons involving compassion towards a living person who might misinterpret our linking of her site in a way that might further any questionable ideations she has. i hope my point has been made clear.


 * and finally, should we link to a place where the site owner warns us that it's unsafe for our computers? you say that this is not a legitimate reason to remove the site. i mostly agree for technical reasons involving the understanding of computer virus delivery. it's a technically plausible claim that a website can give you a virus - there are browser bugs that allow remote code execution. while technically plausible under certain circumstances, i consider it an implausible threat. this presents a murky area, however, where we know the site is probably safe for our computers, but the site operator legitimately believes that it's infected with mind control computer viruses. so if her site is encyclopedic enough for linking, then the veracity of its words should be given some weight.

in conclusion: her blog adds nothing encyclopedic to the article and seems to serve as a fringe and wholly unencyclopedic platform unrelated to benefiting the wikipedia. i would consider this to be mostly editorial decision rather than a policy decision, but it can become a policy issue if you consider the aspect of doing no harm and whether linking her site could do her harm Theserialcomma (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ELYES, "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any" and I would argue that even though it's a blog page, it's still Napolis' official site. As for her health, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not therapy.  The page is meant to inform the world about Napolis, not help her get better.  Cold and brutal, but reality.  I'm pretty sure Napolis warns people to use only public terminals not because she's worried about the health of their computers, but because it relates to her, ahem, unusual thought processes.  If Napolis' health is in danger, she should seek the services of a doctor.  We aren't doctors, and we shouldn't edit wikipedia with a goal towards healing the minds and bodies of others.  We've got both a general disclaimer and a medical disclaimer to this effect.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * wikipedia is not therapy, yes, but also wikipedia has an obligation to wp:do no harm. i believe that it's plausible that linking her site might harm her in the sense that it might make her think that her ideations are encyclopedic, which might possibly promote further ideations which i judge to be potentially harmful to herself. that is only my opinion and yours may differ. i believe that at an impasse such as this, we should request some uninvolved and outside help from some experienced editors Theserialcomma (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and request comment from others but there is no reason to see this as harming her except your own opinion. If there were a real case made for harm it would be a BLP concern and it would effect the entire page not just linking her blog.  My opinion is that removing the link has no basis in either policy or fact (regarding what harm it is or is not doing anybody).  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not linking to a defamatory site, we're linking to her own site that allows Napolis to express her thoughts in her own words. I can't see any harm, but then again I'm not her doctor.  Nor should I or anyone else presume to be or try to be her doctor or say what's best for her.  I had originally included a summary of some of her beliefs, but it was removed - and I think that's OK.  However, by simply and plainly linking to her own blog we're not doing anything a google search doesn't do.  If we want to avoid making her ideations appear encyclopedic, we shouldn't summarize or report on them.  We don't (anymore, yes my bad previously).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * i have requested input from the blp board. i disagree with your assertion that if this external link is a blp issue, then the entire article is also. on the contrary, i feel that the article is written NPOV and the claims are backed by reliable sources, so i don't see any obvious BLP issue. however, her website is an external link, not a purported reliable source, and so the BLP issues with linking to her site are not the same as potential BLP issues with the entire article. Theserialcomma (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * wikipedia has an obligation to wp:do no harm -- no, this was explicitly rejected as a WP policy. i believe that it's plausible -- your beliefs aren't relevant. (And neither are NewYorkBrad's.) -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Support removal. The link does not supply the reader with any objective information. "Do no harm" seems to me to be a perfectly good principle for not allowing our encyclopedia to be involved in encouraging mental delusion. Placing it here simply encourages people to stop and stare at an ill person. That's not what Wikipedia is about.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Link to BLPN, and also very importantly a link to WP:OFFICIAL - please review the EL page as there seems to be some confusion between an external link and a source. Note that external links are not required to be reliable sources, that misses the purposes of having them.  ELs are not necessarily to "supply information" - a manufacturers website doesn't necessarily "supply information", it primarily sells products.  But we still link to it.  We also link to the blogs of many, many people, which can't be argued to supply objective information.  It's "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy" (from the first paragraph of WP:EL).  Official websites "are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself" (from WP:OFFICIAL).  Linking to her official site allows the reader to review the primary source material and decide what they think.  Napolis herself doesn't think she's an ill person, and I refuse to (publicly) say whether she is or not.  We can't say whether were protecting her by not linking to her home page and I'm pretty sure no matter what we do either way, Ms. Napolis will think what she will - since we're speculating, removing the blog may be equally harmful to her mental health since she might percieve we are censoring her or preventing her version of events from being released.  Who knows?  I don't, and I refuse to edit on the basis of how a BLP subject may or may not have their mental health affected by the inclusion of a page that they themselves wrote.  We aren't doctors, and we aren't her doctor.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WLU and others, the link is useful, informative and is not in violation of any policy; it should remain. Doc  Tropics  18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that based on her contribution history, Ms. Napolis has added this link herself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this link as grossly inappropriate because its contents are unacceptable pursuant to, among other things, the BLP policy. The link may not be restored without an affirmative consensus to do so. See, if necessary, Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff; Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite my first impression regarding the link, I regard Brad as one of our highest authorities on these matters and defer to him utterly. I retract my earlier statement and no longer support inclusion of the link. Thanks Brad. Doc  Tropics  18:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I simply don't understand this point. The link removed was to Napolis' own site, where she expresses herself in her own words.  This isn't a link to an attack site made by someone else (I managed to find such a site this morning, and did not link to it).  It's not used to source any information.  There is no summary or discussion.  Is it because the content of the blog is clearly dubious?  This isn't a salacious expose, she's not writing pseudonymously, and she discusses the very same issues the page does - involvement with Speilberg, Loftus, Love-Hewitt, Aquino and others.  There's no address published (though on her site she does host PDF scans including personal information), it does not disclose her date of birth, and it's not even an archive copy - it's live and updated regularly.  Asking in honest ignorance, what part of BLP applies here that calls for its removal?  I respect NYB as well (he was an arbitrator in an arb case I was involved in) but I'd like to understand this, if nothing else than so I can apply it to future pages.  We don't maintain or control the content on Napolis' blog, she does.  We aren't affecting her life through the blog's contents; she is.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The website contains comments by Napolis about other, innocent people, some of whom are not named in our article and some of whom are not notable at all. The only thing saving these allegations from being defamatory is that they are not believable on their face, but that is not a good reason to retain a link to them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Brad do you mind explaining a bit further? In that vein aren't the official websites of hate groups and various other organizations or individuals making accusations against "innocent" others equally or perhaps even more problematic than a blog like this?  This is really an innocent question.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the idea that we are protecting her by not perpetuating the spread of possibly defamatory statements, whereas we don't need to protect hate groups? I can live with that to some extent but I'm unsure where the line is drawn.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly there are many more links we might be better off without. At the end of the day, it really comes down to balancing any encyclopedic value a link might have, versus the negative effects of linking to that site. If a major group with a hateful ideology has a nasty website, one might at least argue (though I might disagree) that linking to their page has some educational value in depicting the ideology and belief system of that group. In this case, though, we merely have seemingly random, delusional allegations against innocent bystanders asserted by an individual without any notable following or credibility, linked to in an article whose Wiki-worthiness is marginal at best. The whole thing is very sad, but we have an obligation to try not to add to the burden that being mentioned on the blog in question is probably imposing on the people affected, particularly where the return in encyclopedic content is so small. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * One might argue that the return in encyclopedic content is not as small in this case as people suggest. There seems to be an assumption that people who find this entry are mostly going to be random individuals ogling at a human spectacle, as opposed to individuals who linked here in order to increase their knowledge of celebrity stalking or the satanic ritual abuse moral panic -- which are both subjects involving many "sad" human situations, but that does not make them less important in terms of encyclopedia coverage. The fact that the entry, and the blog link, have escaped BLP scrutiny until now may in fact provide some indication that users of this encyclopedia are not ogling at it at all.  Just because a negative outcome is possible doesn't mean that is is probable, or that is more common than a positive one.  I think the assumption either way is completely unscientific, though thoroughly human.  A true cost benefit analysis of something like this would take into account the actual occurrence of the negative and not the hysteria caused by its possibility.  Those are just thoughts to consider in this case and others.  In the end I think taking the link down is just fine.  Anyone who wants to Google the subject of the entry can find the link on their own.  I do think, however, that people are being a bit over-protective of both the entry subject and the encyclopedia based upon unfounded assumptions about how this entry is and will be viewed.  That's it for me commenting on any of this.  Thanks for your further comments.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I think there's tremendous advantage to having the link, because it allows Napolis' own statements to be viewed, for better or for worse, direct from her mind to her keyboard. Readers can see the claims made and assess the credibility of the source and therefore the statements on this page. And this isn't intrusive or a violation of her privacy - we didn't put it on the internet. However, since consensus is against inclusion I will not replace it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The imperiousness displayed above is astounding -- an extraordinary abuse of authority. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)