Talk:Jonathan Lee Riches

Untitled
why the removal of his mugshot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.200.146 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

use google cache to re-build page
here's the link; he's clearly notable the page should never have been deleted Riphamilton 05:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The previous version of the article was in gross violation of the biographies of living persons guidelines. Sources were inadequate, and it was filled with original research. If it is rebuilt, it will be subject to deletion again. --Moonriddengirl 11:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no WP:OR in the previous article. Your understanding of the term seems to be flawed; I suggest you review it. The article was not contentious and while it did use primary sources I am a licensed attorney and can tell you that the article agreed with the primary sources as per WP:RS.75.183.86.60  —Preceding comment was added at 19:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The administrator who deleted the article disagreed. However, the version cached now is actually the current version, not the original, which violated policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifics!
Agreeing with the comments below - it is not libelous to JLR to quote his lawsuits. It is also not libelous to report what someone has put in a lawsuit - it is quoting a public document. Therefore, your legal intern needs to get out his text books again. I say this as a lawyer in England - and you do not want to get on the wrong side of our libel laws.

I am also confused why secondary sources (someone talking about someone else talking) are better than primary sources (someone talking) or are you getting the terms confused with something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.27.50 (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't read WHAT was libelous about the original article? It was little more than a recitation of the lawsuits Riches has filed. I came back looking for this page because I wanted to tell someone about it, remembering how funny these lawsuits were.

VERY SIMPLE QUESTION: If a guy files a gazillion lawsuits, how is it libelous to quote him??? Can anyone answer this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkvolkswagen (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This could be a great article, but I wouldn't consider it complete until it shows the specific grounds upon which he tried to sue e.g. George Bush, or Terry Schiavo. Considering the press attention that has been given these cases, notability doesn't seem to be a concern, and the potential for reader interest is pretty big, considering what a, well, insane fellow the guy seems to be. 76.114.172.199 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We have to be very careful to abide by the biographies of living persons guidelines, so while we can certainly add some details if they come from reliable secondary sources, we have to be sure that the information is neutral in tone and does not have undue weight. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's an article about a crazy guy who files hilarously outrageous suits against a host of random celebrities which have been mentioned in the mainstream media on more than one occasion. Why do you care that much? Let us have our fun; wikipedia's a joke, anyway. Maybe devote your life to something more meaningful? 24.178.78.67 (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You might think Wikipedia is a joke, but I don't. And in this case its policy is to comply with US law. :) I'm sure there are many other websites that are not as careful to eliminate potentially libelous claims. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how linking to this guy's legal filings is potentially libelous considering they can be found on websites that are run by the US government. And do you see any possible lawsuit this guy files against Wikipedia actually going to court based on the multitude of past frivolous lawsuits he'd already filed? There's no law being broken here, and nothing is going happen here, except maybe you popping a few blood vessels over a few words written in an article that maybe a dozen or so people will actually read in a year. It's not like this is the article on the Iraq war; no one cares what we write here (well, no one who has a life outside wikipedia, at least).24.178.78.67 (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be presuming that I'm emotionally very invested in this. :) I assure you that I'm not popping any blood vessels. The article was deleted wholesale by an admin with a legal internship for Wikimedia as a BLP violation. It will be deleted again if it crosses that line. I recreated the article with proper sourcing because I think Riches is of encyclopedic notability. When I restored it, I took some responsibility to make sure that it doesn't return to the state it was in, which most definitely was libelous. That's why it's on my watchlist, and that's why I'm here. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to add material relevant to his legal filings with proper reliable sourcing, so long as it meets WP:BLP policy and is not problematic with regards to tone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to say but I see no valid argument for keeping the page in its edited state - just repeated unsubstantiated claims from the editor. The page should be restored. Is this how all wikipedia editing proceeds? --User:anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.104.3 (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The guy's in prison for identity theft and he regularly files entirely wacked out lawsuits. In short, he's libel-proof.  User:random person

Reliable Secondary Sources?? Look at the complaints this guy files in federal court as linked to - the original page that got deleted tracked every lawsuit the guy was filing. Do we realy need to quote Lee Riches complaint when Lee Riches says "Michael Vick sold my dogs on ebay so he could use the money to purcahse missles from the Iranian Government" Ah Come On Man!

Links to lawsuit details:. Clearly noteworthy, should not be deleted. Topical to the abuse of the court system by inmates. Galizur (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced?
I'm posting to suggest the removal of the 'unbalanced' template on the page. I don't see where the article is unbalanced. The subject, maybe, but the article itself states facts and not opinions. The fact is that there isn't much known about the subject except through his court filings.

I would like to see a section on the cultural impact of Mr. Riches' activities. That might help to 'balance' it out. He has certainly made an impact on internet culture, where he is widely regarded to be a very clever comic essayist who's chosen lawsuits as his medium. Or else he's nuts, no one's really sure.

At any rate, I don't see any justification for the 'unbalanced' template. Unless a rationale is presented in the next couple weeks, I suggest that template be removed. Erie lhonan  03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Guiness Book of World Records
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/may/23/man-sues-book-over-most-litigious-crown/ CashRules (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you're posting this link here, but in case you felt it should be included in the article, I just thought I'd point out that it's already there, including a link to that source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks to the folks that kept this article alive. Certainly is helpful to be able to google Jonathan Lee Riches and find this article, which quickly explains what he's up to.--Elvey (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit against WikiLeaks and Wikipedia
Cryptome claims that Riches filed a lawsuit against WikiLeaks and Wikipedia. Details are at http://cryptome.org/0002/riches/riches-v-assange.htm, http://cryptome.org/0002/riches/riches-001.pdf , and http://cryptome.org/0002/riches/riches-002.pdf. Cryptome doesn't vet documents, so these sources are not sufficient for a Wikipedia article, but could anyone try to unearth a more authoritative source for either of these documents which meets Wikipedia's requirements? 70.233.128.247 (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

this article is very messy
This article needs to be cleaned up quite badly, as it keeps alternating between describing him in general and making significant statements about something involving him with descriptions of specific ones of the countless frivolous lawsuits he has filed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.89.148 (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

History Section
The history section would look and read much better if the content was segmented. Also, some of the information is irrelevant or out of place e.g. "Someone has made a Twitter account using @jonathanlriches on Twitter and others.[12]" Libertas80 (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan Lee Riches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030053702/http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2006-04-13/fineprint2.shtml to http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2006-04-13/fineprint2.shtml
 * Added tag to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/08/man_of_many_suits_1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523233742/http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/2006-04-13/NC_FP_Lawsuit.pdf to http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/2006-04-13/NC_FP_Lawsuit.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Lee Riches. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011112846/http://www.wsoctv.com/nascar/14108729/detail.html to http://www.wsoctv.com/nascar/14108729/detail.html
 * Added tag to http://www.madofftrustee.com/DownloadDocketImage.aspx?Docket=48

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Crime YouTuber
It needs to be mentioned that he now parades as a true crime journalist and protested outside the Laundries house with a megaphone Has become unnaturally obsessed with the Summer wells case Spreads misinformation on the Moscow students case and wears a "press" hat He also is in league with other notorious unsavoury YouTubers Bullhorn Betty and Molly go lightly 2A02:C7C:7237:A800:8583:A566:428F:2870 (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Birth date and early life info?
Does anyone know where this guy came from? Did anyone go to high school with him? 192.161.201.27 (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)