Talk:Kerry and Kay Danes

Untitled
The information contained in this article has been subjected to repeated manipulations by third parties not directly involved in the Danes case. Clearly such third parties wish to promote a view of the Danes that is unfavourable and contradictory to the strong support that the Australian Government provided in their case.(Rachavong (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

Souce of information
From Talk:Kerry and Kay Danes/Comments The information on this article was derived from my contact with the Australian Government and the Danes Lawyer. The information was forwarded to me as titled:

LEGAL SUBMISSION of DANES CASE PREPARED ON 12 FEBRUARY 2002 BY THE AUSTRALIAN LAW FIRM REPRESENTING KERRY AND KAY DANES

Sunnyroe 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note wikipedia policy WP:NOR and the guidleine WP:COI both of which are not met in my view for this contributer's contributions to the article. Hence I have removed the material.--Golden Wattle  talk 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Golden Wattle obviously prefers to perpetuate propaganda and cares nothing for the complexities of the Danes case, nor does he have any understanding of the case, yet feels authoritive enough to report on it. Golden Wattle does not have access to the documentation provided by the Australian Government so all postings should be considered purely speculative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.13.194 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 17 November 2007


 * This is an encyclopaedia not a soap box - please read the fundamental policy pertaining to this web site. I have cited sources that meet our guidelines on reliable sources.  I have removed original research (refer policy on no original research) based on unpublished sources which are apparently available to the anon contributer from IP 203.134.13.194 and / or User:Sunnyroe.  These editor(s) need to note our policies also on conflict of interest .  I do not think that the present article is particularly good but I don't think it shows much bias either way.  Of course one must quote the Laotian government comments on the case - that doesn't mean sympathy with their views - let the reader decide.  Should readers with a conflict of interest wish to contribute, it is preferred that they do not edit the article directly but place information or comments on this talk page for other disinterested editors to add into the article per our policy. --Golden Wattle  talk 23:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Presidential Pardon is under National Security and won't be available to the public for 30 years. I contacted the Australian Government about this. Rachavong (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is apparently easy to manipulate the truth by finding articles that were poorly researched, by third parties who were not directly involved in the Danes case. If we believe everything we are to read in the media, who were not even permitted into the country, during the Danes trial, then we are but fools waiting to be decieved. (Rachavong (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC))


 * I have reverted the deletions by a new editor. His edit removed 90% of the article including the sources. Such a large deletion based on "libel" as his edit comment claims should be supported by proof. If there are any concerns bring them up here for discussion. We only have what the sources give us so if they get it wrong then we need better sources to refute them or we have to use what we have. Wayne (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

-I have added a great deal to the trial section. Some of the previous information was reordered and/or reworded in the same section, but very little was removed. --Lmh08 (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite a lot was removed including all of the background. The "great deal" you added is actually too detailed as these charges are of little importance campared to the main claim of theft. They are probably best added in summary form. Reliable sources were not supplied for anything added which makes the added repeated statements of innocence a problem. They were charged in a country with a different concept of justice so we must avoid basing the article on what we regard as "justice". The article already makes clear their probable innocence based on what has been reported by RS and we should not go further than they do. Wayne (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

-Intro was elaborated on to give a quick overview of the Danes' case. Used the 'Lao Law Concerning Criminal Case Proceedings' and 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights' (which Laos signed December 2000; prior to the Danes' plight) to substantiate the use of 'unlawfully' and 'arbitrarily'. At no time were the Danes' ever charged of gem smuggling and the use of any terms implying such should be avoided as it only perpetuates a lie fueled by ill-informed speculation. --Lmh08 (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

- I have researched the company that Kay Danes was Director of in Thailand. It is Pacific Security Services. I have a copy of the KPMG report that shows all taxes were paid by her company to the Thai Tax Department. So the allegation is false that it was a false company. I also have a report from KPMG that all tax revenue was paid. I also accessed her lawyers legal summary and brief, and the book of evidence, with Ms. Danes permission and with the assistance of her laywer Mr. Tzovaras. I have extensively researched the legal side of the case for my studies and there are a number of anomolies. Ms. Danes has offered to clarify any and all allegations and advised me to disclose her contact details to that effect. She herself does not visit Wikipedia as she claimed to me it was edited by people who weren't there and who had no way of knowing what went on because they weren't "in the loop" (her words). She can be contacted at www.kaydanes.com (Rachavong (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC))


 * The sources are the problem. I'm sure they did nothing wrong and the current text does support that, but personal communication with the Danes themselves is not WP:RS unless a reliable source reports it. WP policy does not encourage people "in the loop" to edit articles they are connected with as it can lead to bias if the content they add is not supported. If you have specific problems then point them out so we can work on them. If I know what they are I can look for a source myself or reword for NPOV etc. Wayne (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, a tolerant attitude should be taken in cases where subjects of articles remove unsourced or poorly sourced material. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this may be an attempt by the subject of the article to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material:  For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake. – Arbitration Committee decision" (December 18, 2005)
 * I agree that many of the sources need to be reviewed. A great deal of the page is currently filled with incorrect statements and ill-informed sources. A big problem with the Danes' case is that media were not allowed into the communist state of Laos and therefore were not privy to actual facts.  Many of the printed stories were based on hearsay and were/are grossly incorrect.  If Rachavong does have access to said legal documents, than I would welcome much needed changes. --Lmh08 (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The best way to handle it is to list problems individually so they can be addressed individually. Wayne (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Very POV
This article is still very POV. Words like "unlawful" in the lead, and which are not substantiated by the reference (which contains comments made before they were charged) are questionable. Who has officially declared the arrest unlawful? The article is in need of a major cleanup. Harry the Dog WOOF  07:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The majority of POV was the result of recent edits and has been reverted. Still needs to be some cleanup though. Wayne (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits
I reverted the recent edits by a new editor 2lombok per WP:OR. A couple of the less problematic edits I left. Regarding the specific edits, starting at top of page: 1) the source says police 2) it is irrelevant what the contract price was 3) requires ref 4) it's in the ref so we cant delete because we think it is wrong 5) this change while possibly accurate was far less informative than the original 6) in the wrong section so I moved it and finally 7) "departed" is a weasel word, they were under house arrest so "fled" is correct grammar. I would advise 2lombok to familiarise himself with WP policies. Wayne (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wayne; For the sake of accuracy, when you say the Danes 'fled' Laos following their release, you are incorrect. They were pardoned and then released so there was no need for them to flee. The Australian Ambassador had this to say in countless interviews which you can research to be accurate.


 * The Danes were advised they were free to leave Laos and welcome to return at any time if they wished," Ref: http://articles.cnn.com/2001-11-07/world/australia.pardon_1_vientiane-laos-officials-reuters?_s=PM:asiapcf


 * The Australian Foreign Minister also reiterated that they were FREE to leave Laos. http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2001/fa165_01.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2lombok (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Wayne (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits required
Greetings,

I am Kay Danes, married to Kerry Danes, and the subject of this page. It has recently been brought to my attention that this page exists and I after reading the page, I can clearly see a number of inaccuracies ie - we went to court on the 28th June 2001 not the 13 June. I remember very distinctly as it was 2 days before my son's 8th birthday. Our appeal did not fail since we were never allowed to lodge one to begin with since the Foreign Minister of Laos decided we hadn't a case to answer. No one at the time had ever been able to submit an appeal to the supreme court of Laos. It was unheard of. The letter referring to my husband's appointment is also distorted. The letter was faxed by Jeppeson to Mary FLipse, GML's lawyer who in turn informed Kerry that he had been appointed a GML representative. This was completely illegal and Kerry declined the appointment as a conflict of interest. The following Wednesday, he and the DFDL lawyers went to a Government meeting and it was confirmed that the appointment was not legal and as a result, Mary Flipse organised for Julie Bruns (GML) to send her digital signature to undertake all future dealings which was accepted by the Laos Authorities.) The letter that Richard Hughes refers to is one that refers to a security report conducted in September 2000 (3 months prior to our detainment). This report was submitted to the Laos Mining Department under advise from DFDL Lawyers. What you have to understand is that the Laos Mining Department was not entirely corrupt. They were in fact working with the GML directors to resolve the issues of their concession. It was only Bounmaly Vilayvong who was corrupting business dealings. The Securicor Submission was used successfully as evidence and hence why the President of Laos overturned two requests from Vilayvong for nationalisation. Richard Hughes, like most journalists at the time wanting to make themselves seem like they knew what was going on, knew none of this as he was not allowed access to documentation and was, like all the other journalists, not allowed inside the country to see what problems were being faced by foreign investors. A number of which were being illegally nationalised but had the good sense to flee rather than fight a corrupt group of officials seeking to overthrow the present Government.

The major problem with this page appears to stem from the reliance of media reports from the time. This case was complex and for almost a year, we were not able to present our story to the media. So the media used whatever information they could gain, and given that Laos is a closed communist state, the information received came from the very people (secret police) that unlawfully detained us. We were at the time told this was happening but the Australian Government, being in negotiations with their counterparts, advised us not to respond (play out the case in the media) as it would undermine their efforts in securing our release. This to the detriment of our professional reputations.

At the end of the day however, the Australian Government, along with other foreign governments worked tirelessly to secure our release. This is not something that is offered to those who are considered guilty. My husband remained a serving member of the Australian Defence Force, contrary to media reports saying that he wasn't. Also, since this ordeal, he was promoted in rank and in security clearance. Had he been guilty of anything he would have been dishonourably discharged. He certainly wouldn't be given the highest security clearance level in our country!

I could go on and on about the inaccuracies of this page that is administered by those who haven't a clue what went on, and nor have ever had the decency to ask us for legal documentation or Government files that relate to our case, but I shall just have to accept, as I did ten years ago, that a terrible injustice was done and we can only choose NOT to read such ill-informed distortions about the most horrific incident in our lives, and in the lives of our children! I urge anyone reading this to regard the page as simply the unethical dribble that it is. I urge my children to try and distance yourself from the hurt that I know this page brings you. The main thing to remember is that the Australian Government believed in us enough to never give up!

Kay Danes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay and Kerry Danes (talk • contribs) 05:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome. I will try to answer your concerns.


 * The article already does state that you went to court on 28 June. It says that 13 June was when the charges were laid.
 * Was an appeal contemplated? The sources mention an appeal was made. The sources mention an appeal was dropped. The one mention of failed may be an error. Perhaps this instance should also say dropped?
 * The letter is reported as per the source.
 * The problem is WP:V which requires that we report the statements made by reliable sources which includes newspapers etc, not the unsupported claims of Wikipedia editors even if their claims are true. The page is hardly unethical dribble as it is based on what the sources say. Accusing editors of having no decency, no clue and of adding ill-informed distortions is a violation of WP policies (see WP:NPA) and will only harden editors against co-operating with you. I have no doubt that this article contains inaccuracies, but we can not use what we know or believe, we can only work with the sources we have available. There is no vendetta or deliberate distortion by any editors and the article does after all support your innocence. If you can provide reliable published sources (not self published) for the claims we can make the changes in the article. If the legal documentation and Government files are online please direct the editors to them so they can be used. However, please remember that WP:COI and WP:NPOV policies apply especially to these sources. Wayne (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course we appealed their decision but it never went to the Supreme court because no one is acquitted once charged. The Laos Foreign Minister squashed it before it could be presented.

Sources?

The Lao prosecutor and those who had a part in torturing us during interrogation were also the very people sending media releases outside the country or through their communist state run newspaper. How can that be considered reliable sources. "we can only work with the sources we have available."

If a communist state source says you killed twenty people and you and your government know you didn't then how can it be a reliable source?

"If you can provide reliable published sources (not self published) for the claims we can make the changes in the article."

At the time of our detainment the media were not allowed into the country. they were not allowed anywhere near us or allowed to speak to anyone involved in our case. The Australian Government advised us not to engage the media. So this created a vacuumn. There was a great deal of pressure on the Australian media to 'get the scoop' 'get the story' 'sell more papers'. Even our own family didn't know what was going on and we weren't in a position to explain it or counter the propoganda that the communist regime was putting out... or the inaccuracies journalists and other commentators were reporting.

Legal documentation and Government files are not online. Why? Because there are over 20 boxes of them in my garage in storage and I haven't had time to scan and upload them all. I could get you a copy of the court transcript but what would be the point when the entire trial was a set up and did not allow for adversarial proceedings?

This is personal for me yes because it was my life stolen, my children's lives ruined and even ten years on, we are still trying to recover from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay and Kerry Danes (talk • contribs) 06:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I cant find anything in the article that implies you were guilty of anything. What are your main concerns, and you have to be specific. What is the article claiming you did that you did not do? Wayne (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well basically to address one point at a time. This reads like we had done something wrong and were later pardoned for it. No where does it mention that the trial was in a closed communist court; or that our lawyer had no prior warning that we were about to be taken to trial; or that the Australian Embassy was not informed of the trial; or that the trial did not allow adversarial proceedings (that you can't defend yourself or cross examine witnesses or even bring witnesses); that the trial verdict was pre-typed before the trial even began thereby the trial was unlawful.

It may well be fact; that we were taken to a trial and that we were convicted and ordered to pay compensation but it doesn't articulate the fact or the essence or even allude to the fact, that it was an unfair/unlawful trial, sentence and conviction. A play on words to some but it's our reputation. It affects negatively on our current lives and employment. It's the first paragraph that people read and then they think they know the rest and don't bother with reading further.

This is what irks me the most: "On 28 June 2001, the Danes were taken to the Laotian Municipal Court in Vientiane where they faced trial and were convicted of embezzlement, destruction of evidence and violation of Laotian tax regulations. They were sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation. On 6 November 2001 the Danes were pardoned by the President of Laos." Kay and Kerry Danes (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the first paragraph above, we do not need to include all the facts for the sake of clarity and article length. We can work out that it was a closed court from the text. Your lawyer having no prior notice or that the Australian Embassy was not notified, while relevant to you, is largely irrelevant to the article and casts no negativity on your person. The article is very clear regarding it not being an adversarial trial and mentions not being allowed to have witnesses and that theverdict was pre-typed. Regarding the trial being unlawful. Bear in mind that that Laos was not obligated to comply with International Law so was the trial legal under the Laotian system of the time? If not we need a reference from an expert in Laotian law that it was not. Laos did not ratify any International Laws or treaties until 2005 and did not implement any international treaty and human rights obligations until 2010 so the trial being illegal under International Law carries no weight. I will however try to reword the lead per your concerns. Wayne (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm splitting your post into sections and reformatting it a little so I can answer concerns more clearly.

As for the lie the Lao Government told about us being responsible for stolen gems; View this new evidence that proves we were innocent against gem theft for one.

(Go to 14:23 mins into video) where the owners of GML show you the evidence! Kay and Kerry Danes (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The article makes no claim that you stole the gems. In fact the article makes it clear you were being set up. Wayne (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"Before he fled Laos, Jeppesen appointed GML's security chief, Kerry Danes, to handle all GML's affairs."

As I've said already, this appointment was rejected by Kerry as a conflict of interest, and as well, by the Laos Government. DFDL Lawyer Mary Flipse got Julie Bruns to scan and email her signature to her office and that was used on all future business of GML. WE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR OPERATIONS!

"Kerry Danes also cosigned a letter from Jeppesen accusing members of the Laotian government of corruption. Reporter Richard Hughes was to say later "in 20–20 hindsight, we can safely state something that even Danes would now agree to – this was not a good move".[8]"

This is talking about a security report that was given to the Government in September 2000. You need to read the report: http://www.usp.com.au/fpss/security_report001.html and you will see that it is not accusing members of the Lao govt of corruption. It's accusing criminals of illegally mining at GML and reporting this to the Laos Govt!!!!! Richard Hughes never read the report. He just read something someone told him or wrote and then ran with it. Kay and Kerry Danes (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We have no reliable source to confirm that the two documents are one and the same. Wayne (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

US$50,000 in cash was found in her possession, the payroll for wages and other expenses for her Thailand security company.

It wasn't found. I was with the Australian Consul Louise Waugh and I disclosed to the police in front of her that I had cash in my possession. Saying it was found makes it sound the same as when they find drugs on drug traffickers! I disclosed it to them the same as I disclosed my bank details to them regarding the business I was operating. Hence why I was given my money back! Kay and Kerry Danes (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The ABC Australian documentary Australian Story covered this and from that program I quote Ted Tzovaras (your own lawyer):"They were searching for stolen sapphires. She didn't have any, of course. Instead, they found $US52,000 cash on her." The article is clear that the money was not illegally obtained and returned to you. Wayne (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Danes were sentenced to seven years imprisonment for embezzlement, destruction of evidence and tax evasion and fined $463,885 and 700 baht for the stolen property and $66,847 for the tax debt.

It makes no mention of WHAT the actual charges were for:

The Lao court convicted the Danes on the sole basis that Securicor staff moved State assets without first seeking permission from the Laos Government to move those assets. FALSE

The assets were not State owned at the time since the authorities hadn't seized control of Gem Mining Lao; Securicor was contractually obliged secure the assets of Gem Mining Lao; Securicor staff moved only office furniture and two computers belonging to Gem Mining Lao, at their request, and under advice from their respective lawyers to the security headquarters for storage; Six months later, all items were given to Laos authorities upon seizure of Gem Mining Laos; The Laos Authorities did not arrest the Danes at the time of seizure, nor did they make any complaint at the way in which the assets were secured.

The Lao court ruled that Securicor staff damaged the data when moving GML computers for storage. Yet the fact is that the data remained intact and a back up copy was stored at Securicor's headquarters; Securicor returned the computers at the request of Laos authorities upon seizure of Gem Mining Laos; Laos Authorities did not arrest the Danes at time of seizure, nor did they complain the computers were secured; Six months after the Danes arrest, Lao authorities claimed they used data from the same computers to convict, in absentia, the GML Directors of stealing their own assets; (this is in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2X_uFBBz-4&feature=player_embedded. Neither of the Danes were employees of Gem Mining Lao and had no involvement in its day to day operation.

The Lao Court ruled that it was entitled to collect revenue from Kay's Thai Consultancy.


 * Kay's consultancy was established in Thailand and operated external to Laos, outside the jurisdiction of Laos;
 * The Laos Government was not entitled to any revenue from a company outside its jurisdiction;
 * Taxes were rendered to Thailand and a full audit by KPMG chartered accountants refuted allegations of tax evasion;
 * Evidence submitted to a Thai court supported the Danes claim that taxes were paid appropriately;
 * Evidence to the Laos court proved the Danes paid tax for all income they derived in Laos as employees of Securicor;
 * Lao Securicor was audited during the Danes incarceration and was found to be fully compliant with Lao law.


 * That the Lao court ordered Kay Danes to pay US$66,847 as a fine on the charge of tax evasion for revenue her Thai consultancy generated in Thailand is a violation of International Law. A State cannot demand revenue outside their jurisdiction. (State Sponsored Extortion)


 * At the end of the court hearing, the Lao Court ordered the return of US$98,000 to the Danes, previously frozen in their Laos bank account, and US$52,000, the payroll for Kay Danes' Thai Subcontractors that had been seized at the Friendship Bridge at the time of her initial detainment. Kay and Kerry Danes (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll seek guidance on this part because it is basically a he said she said claim so how much detail do we provide? I can certainly mention the Thai connection and will do so. Wayne (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki article says: "Evidence presented at the trial included a contract signed by Jeppesen, allowing the couple to sell the company’s property because GML owed the Danes money (sapphires owned by GML can't be sold without government approval) but the main evidence was that the Danes had opened a bank account, allegedly under a false company name (DP Protection Service Co), and the amount in the account was close to the claimed value of the stolen Sapphires."

The letter is one Jeppesen kept inside his safe as it was discovered. It was never given to us and since we had no access to the safe, it was one written without our knowledge. The reason why he wrote the letter is because GML had to keep paying for security and eventually their funds would have dried up. They probably thought it would be okay for them to pay Lao Securicor's retainer by way of company assets. This of course is ludicrous. We were under instructions to withdraw our service if they did not pay according to the contract service agreement which was US$142 per month plus tax. The fact is, we did not know of the letter, nor did we ever sell anything belonging to GML; nor were we ever charged with anything in relation to the letter.

I did not open a bank account in a false name. It was opened in the name Kay and Kerry Danes at the Public Berhad bank in Laos. I had a consultancy in Thailand called DP Protection Service that operated in Thailand. KPMG audited my company in Thailand and found no wrong doing. They presented this fact to our lawyer but it was not ever considered (part of the 317pages of evidence) In a separate action involving another of my clients embroiled in a dispute with Thai mafia, the same evidence was submitted to the Thai court and was accepted. Hence the so called claim by the Laos Govt to the Thai court was rejected. The invoices matched the account and were cross matched to the service contract held by Ferrier Hodgson (my client in Thailand). The laos govt thought it convenient to try and say the two were related. They were working in with the Thai mafia boss who was trying to prevent Ferrier Hodgson from auditing his company. We have police records that show the Laos authorities flying to Thailand to meet up with the Thai mafia boss.

There were never any sapphires stolen as articulated by the owners of GML. In the video it proves that the alleged stolen sapphires were not stolen at all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2X_uFBBz-4&feature=player_embedded (see the section at 14:23mins). They produce the so called stolen sapphires for you to see.

Kay and Kerry Danes (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can add mention that DP Protection Services was a real company but the rest is largely irrelevant because the article does not claim you did anything wrong and much of that information is not publicly available. I will make some changes to the article but not as many as you would like. I'll also seek advice regarding what Wikipedia can or can not say. Wayne (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

thank you for what you have been able to do here. I know it may be akin to splitting hairs. When we came home, we were offered quite a considerable sum of money to appear on a commercial network but chose to tell our story for free to the Australian Story (ABC). Unfortunately, even they got bits wrong and started the piece off by saying 'Kerry Danes was manager of a sapphire mine.....' and 'They found the cash on Kay...." these are such little mistakes in reporting but such small errors extensively change the story.... and we and our children have to live with it for as long as it remains in the public domain. I will be returning to Australia in Nov for a few months. Hopefully during this time I can scan some of the docs for you that may be relevant. Thank you again. Kay and Kerry Danes (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"The problem is WP:V which requires that we report the statements made by reliable sources which includes newspapers etc". That's "verifiability not truth", which we got rid of because it was causing problems like that. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Caution Suggested
I have viewed the edit history of this page for interest. What I found was a series of edits by named editors, whose only edits were to this page. They edited this page over a period, and then never edited again. Their edits were extremely positive, from a Kay and Kerry Danes POV.

It would be interesting to see the IP addresses of these editors.

What is lacking from this article is the Laotian perspective. Because most of the edits have been made by those positioned to be likely to support the perspective heavily pushed by Kay Danes in particular, the article lacks balance.

I refer to these news group entries to demonstrate that there is very much an alternative view point http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.laos/browse_thread/thread/bc2fc4eaeb2f693b/f68660ec7ea32453 http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.laos/2006-02/msg01054.html

I also refer to a previous dispute which referred to Kay Danes and Wikipedia edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Australians_in_international_prisons&diff=24934445&oldid=24227584

I urge caution here. 106.187.42.62 (talk), 14:16, 3 December 2012
 * Most of the edits in question have been modified or reverted so their impact is minimal. What is here is what the sources support. A Laotian perspective is difficult due to lack of Lao sources. I'd be happy to include any found if they can be determined to be reliable. Wayne (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a fair comment, but the gradual chipping away has over the years has significantly changed the balance of the article. This seems to be continuing. I suspect you will find those IPs to be interesting.


 * There are various examples I could cite. I note for instance that "a senior Lao official said the Government was prepared to release the couple and a release should by no means be viewed as a pardon" was removed, citing the reason that there was no source for this. Two points here. First, there is certainly a reference to the non-pardon, which is The Courier Mail, August 11, 2001 (copy here http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/a-journalists-life-2). Secondly, the fine remains in situ, which is very strange if there was a pardon (and note there is no reference to the fine being revoked). The subsequent massaging does not negate this, and I suggest in any case that it really needed a Laotian reference to have reasonably been deleted.


 * A fuller quote is "The official said it was up to Australia how the release was handled, but it must be made clear that their release, if it eventuated, would not constitute a formal pardon. Both the fine and the compensation would have to be paid as a prerequisite to their freedom."


 * This is just one example.


 * I hope you can understand my concern. 106.187.42.62 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The examples of missing information you cite are still in the article. An explanation of why the fine remains in situ despite a pardon is also covered: "The Laotian Government... consider the compensation a civil matter separate from the criminal charges...[and] has since condemned the couple for failing to meet the terms of their pardon, claiming the Danes failed to pay the fines." Read the section "Aftermath." Wayne (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Do they really consider that to be civil? The citation for that sentence is a 404, but in any case, it was on the FPSS website (Kay Danes of the FPSS - http://www.foreignprisoners.com/fpss-bio-kdanes.html)! One's own org is hardly a credible citation, I think you will agree. Could I suggest that Lao has a different opinion, which is why there is no Laotian citation? The last such reference I found stated clearly as I quoted, with smoke and mirrors via hidden notes taking its place.


 * Perhaps this serves as another example of why I am concerned about the long term editing of this article. Have you checked the IP addresses by the way. 106.187.42.62 (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps positive edits reflect the truth. Did you ever think of that. The Laotians clearly aren't interested in pursuing my husband and I, hence the Presidential Pardon or do you just read a newspaper and consider every word to be gospel?

You refer to groups that are made up of people who have had their families jailed by Laotian officials for simply wanting freedom. Do you expect them to say a kind word about anyone, including me, for going to Congress and testifying about the torture they inflict on people in their prisons? Are you seriously saying that the Courier Mail Newspaper is a reliable source? That's hilarious. You do realise don't you that neither my husband or I gave interviews or were given the right of reply to what was reported in the 'news'. Niether did the Australian Government seeking our release divulge information to media because they were in negotiations with the Lao Government, a) to ensure we weren't killed at the time; b) to secure our release by whatever means they could, so long as it didn't compromise our integrity; and c) as a matter of privacy, they respected the fact that it was a case that could destroy the 50 year bilateral relationship.

The Presidential Pardon in Laos was unprecedented. As negotiated between the two States (Australia-Laos), it is a mechanism of enabling a prisoner to be released from a conviction and any disabilities that attach as a result of the conviction, where there is no legal process available that would otherwise lead to a reversal of a conviction. We were not expelled or extradited or transferred under any Prisoner Transfer Agreement which would, in those circumstances, mean that the convictions would remain in effect. WE were granted a full Presidential Pardon and invited to return to Laos at any time. As stated by an Australian Government official in 2006, "if there was any doubt whatsoever of the Danes innocence, the Australian government would have been obliged to utilise extradition proceedings."

The Foreign Prisoner Support Service is owned by Mr. Anthony Fox. It is his website and upon my release from Laos, I contributed information about prison conditions and treatment. All of which has been verified by other prisoners who were independantly interviewed by their respective Governments and Amnesty International.

What I find so interesting is that you pursue me with such vigor and don't seem to have any consideration to the fact that a communist state detained not only us, but thousands of others, and yet you wish to cite them as credible. Why is it not good enough for you that the Australian government recognised our innocence and acted accordingly. Are you so into conspiracy theories that you will not be content until you have got your own way regardless of the truth or repercussions on the lives of others? Why indeed is there a wiki page about me and my husband anyway? Surely there are other people more interesting? Why your pursuit of us and not other other prisoners? Kay and Kerry Danes (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the source and objective of the earlier edits are clear to most observers.


 * Also noteable from your comments is your apparent effort to distance yourself from the FPSS website, as though a mere contributor. However, references throughout the website, such as this one www.foreignprisoners.com/member-profiles.html, suggest a more fundamental position. That website is clearly not an appropriate reference source for this article, Ms Danes.


 * I also support the objectives of Wikipedia, and find your allegation that I am engaging in some sort of pursuit to be rather bizarre. My pursuit is to improve the accuracy of the article.


 * With that in mind, your version of events appears to contradict that of the Laos government. Their official statement, for example, dated 5 September 2002, makes interesting reading.


 * Released Australian Couple Slanders Government


 * Vientiane Times


 * Lao authorities have issued a statement to clarify once again the truth about the trial of Australian couple, Kerry and Kay Danes. The couple have slandered the Lao Government back home after they were released from prison on November 7, 2001.


 * The statement condemned the couple for failing to meet the terms of their pardon. "The Danes have broken their promise to the Lao Government," the statement said.


 * Kerry Arthur Danes, 42 and Kay Francis Danes, 33 were arrested by the Lao authorities after they had been found stealing 167 items of configuration sapphires and 3.2 kg of finished sapphires.


 * The People’s Court of Vientiane municipality sentenced the couple to seven years imprisonment, but the couple were given a pardon by the Lao Government after 10 months in prison. Kerry Danes was the Managing Director of the Lao Securicor company who received the right from President of the Gem Mining Laos Company (GML) to look after the security of the company while Kay Danes was then the manager of the company.


 * The authorities found hard evidence to arrest the couple. One piece of evidence was a contract signed by the President of Gem Mining, allowing the couple to sell the company’s property because the president owed the couple money. According to court officials the company had no right to sell the sapphires unless the sapphires were approved by Lao authorities.


 * Another piece of evidence to indicate that the Danes had sold the property was a money transfer to the couple via the bank. The couple opened the bank account under a false company name, the DP Protection Service Co. The property lost was equal in value to the amount of money transferred to the Danes via the false company.


 * According to the statement, the Danes had to pay US$ 463,885 and 700 baht for the stolen property to the plaintiff and US$ 66,847 for their avoidance of the country’s tax regime. The Danes and their lawyer had no reasonable objections towards the court’s questions. They only asked the court to reduce the punishment, saying they did not know the law properly.


 * On September 27, the Australian Ambassador to the Lao PDR signed a note stating that the Australian Government would make sure that the Danes pay the fines. On October 4, 2001 the Danes signed the bail form in front of the court in acceptance of the court’s verdict. In a letter to the Lao authorities, the Danes promised to pay all the fines, respect the law of the Lao PDR, accept the court’s verdict, be satisfied with the care received during the detention, cause no troubles for the court of Lao PDR, and be grateful for the Lao Government’s help. The couple agreed to initially pay US$ 152,000 and promised to pay the remainder in periodical sums of US$ 94,500 on February 7, May 7, August 7 and November 7 this year.


 * In a letter to Lao authorities dated October 8, 2001 and another letter asking for pardon, the Danes promised to pay the fine.


 * The Danes have not paid the fine. Instead they have embarked upon a campaign against the Lao Government, appearing in an episode of the Australian ABC television current affairs programme ‘Australian Story’ screened in March this year to falsify their actions in Laos.


 * The couple tried to link their background with a scene of prisoners in Phontong prison. Is it useful to criticise the Lao Government and UNDP and raise the concerns of Amnesty International as a humanitarian issue?


 * "Anyone who knows the Danes’ background and the issue will laugh at them," the statement stressed.


 * The statement also said Kerry and Kay Danes had received good care and facilities both during the detention for investigation and after the court’s verdict. The couple was allowed to meet consul officials every week and had a telephone to contact their family.


 * "The condition of the prison was considered good and suitable in the current social and economic development condition of the country," the statement said. The Lao authorities asked what further news stories the couple may fabricate to cover their offence. Another question is how the couple will react after they receive a further court order and a claim for debt payment from the Lao authorities via the Australian Embassy in Vientiane.


 * That is formal statement by a government, Ms Danes. Could I suggest to other editors that this is referenced in the main article? 106.187.42.62 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The source was redacted previously, with Jimbo's urging of careful consideration before restoring any content (or sources?). At any rate, the cite is archived here, no need to self-publish (wait a minute for the archive to load):

Before proceeding any further, I think it's time someone verify via OTRS or other reliable means that we are in fact communicating with the subject and not another person. We could then note, as to further discussion, that the subject has no objection to including above content for a use that falls within WP:BLP guidelines. Otherwise, I agree it's a formal governmental statement about a living person, and it sheds light on what is obviously a relevant point of view, even for purposes of contrast. I consider Laos governmental statements on the same scale as those of the subject: both are interested parties, but their respective statements are helpful in describing the tenor of the situation. We should treat the press release above with the same regard as statements in interviews on ABC, also redacted. They're clearly one-sided but they can be objectively useful per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 00:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree to a large extent with your comments, and appreciate the identification of an online version of that statement.


 * Perhaps it is worth looking at this from the perspective of the current inclusion in the article of "On 6 November 2001 the Danes were pardoned by the President of Laos". But the Laos government statement indicates that this was not a pardon in the sense of absolving guilt, as it lays out evidence and so forth. Perhaps this should be made a little clearer. I notice too that it also makes further allegations, which are serious, and which are not referenced in the article. 106.187.42.62 (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The government of Laos is not a reliable source and any accusations made by it don't belong in the article except to show that the government made accusations, and even then, the references need to be made very carefully to avoid implying that their accusations are truthful. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Prejudice against a nation's government isn't helpful. Their position is formal, clear, and sourced, and is certainly relevant to the article. I suggest that the nature of the word "pardon" should be made clear. As it was the government actually granting it, their definition should surely hold. 106.187.42.62 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that a government isn't a reliable source isn't prejudice, it's pointing out that a government isn't a reliable source. Reliable sources are supposed to have a reputation for accuracy; dictatorships that control the media inherently lack that. Ken Arromdee (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to take Ken's comment too far; it's best in these discussions to ignore generalities instead of jump on them. Dictatorships can, no doubt, publish truthful and verifiable content. That's not to say the piece in question is such an example. It does make clear the government's contentions, which are categorically relevant and worthy of some mention. That said, the source in question should be accorded the same WP:WEIGHT of any official government release on a living person: reportable for the claim itself, and generally noteworthy as it pertains to the Danes' notability. Reliability and POV of the source itself isn't a problem because we don't have to report the statements as The Truth in prose, but rather as having been stated. This is where I think Ken and I share common ground, and where I think consensus probably rests. Whether a reader takes the government position is up to the reader; meanwhile, it's abundantly possible to use the source for the value and weight of its claims without the spectre of reading like a government shill. JFHJr (㊟) 03:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily disagree with that, but as it stands, the article simply uses the word "pardon", as though that was that. It wasn't, because the Laos government's statement makes it clear it wasn't. What I have suggested is that the article should at least explain this, so that the reader does not misinterpret what they meant by "pardon". Bear in mind that they are the party who gave the pardon, so their definition is somewhat central.


 * The allegations of unpaid fines are another issue. Personally, I would have thought that such serious allegations against an individual, from a government, are worthy of reference? 106.187.42.62 (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Issues raised by subject
According to the Lao Law...

Article 117. Principle of International Cooperation in Criminal Proceedings

International cooperation in criminal proceedings between the competent organisation conducting criminal proceedings in the Lao PDR and competent organs of foreign countries shall comply with principles of respect for the independence, territorial sovereignty of the States, non-interference in the domestic affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and be consistent with the Constitution of Lao PDR and the fundamental principles of international law.

Article 45. Circumstances Conducive to the Exemption of Penalties

Punishments shall be lifted in the following circumstances:

·     Death of the offender;

·     Expiry of the time limit for execution of the court’s decision;

·     Grant of pardon to the offender.

Kay and Kerry Danes (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What's the issue? JFHJr (㊟) 23:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
I am posting here a reminder that all participants in this discussion should read our Biographies of Living Persons policy and remember that this policy, and the underpinning ethos of human dignity which underlies it, take precedence over the policy on WP:COI. I advise the subjects of the article, and all interested editors, to work together thoughtfully to reach consensus here on the talk page before including any of the contested material back into the article.

Wikipedia entries should be the output of a process of thoughtful editorial judgment. Merely appearing in a reliable source can be insufficient, particularly when those sources are old, contested, tangential, and when we have good reasons to doubt them. A simple objection from the subject of an article, too, can be insufficient. But when there is a biographical issue at stake, we should proceed slowly and with a love of truth in our hearts. There is no deadline to finish the article; there is a deadline of NOW to make sure that it doesn't malign the subjects unfairly in the least.

I read through the version which was here, before removing most of it temporarily. It was badly written to the point that the reader could barely understand the story. It was written in such a way that the reader was led to believe or suspect the guilt of Kerry and Kay Danes before finally realizing how the story ended. Wikipedia is not a suspense novel where the truth is to be sprung on us in a dramatic fashion near the end - we need to know front and center the core facts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Please publish or at least self-publish your response
Nobody wants Wikipedia to repeat lies by a regime that only lets its own side be told. (And I should note that even the U.S. has seen games played with gag orders and one-sided "leaking" by prosecutors) But the bottom line is we need something to cite for each point you want to make if we're going to get all the facts out. I would love to cite your beautifully written statement above. But "somebody logged on our site and said she was Kay Danes" doesn't cut it - it's not an acceptable, verified mechanism for showing we've done an interview with the person we think we did. Hoaxes do happen around here. If you can arrange to have a published response which we can point to, even if it is only an official website that we know represents your own opinions that you could set up in a few hours, then we can at least start saying how you responded (though our WP:BLP policy prohibits using these to back negative statements about other persons). Of course, actual news articles detailing the railroading is better. Cutting back an article the way Jimbo Wales has done is a stopgap measure, but ultimately the best way (for us, with our encyclopedic objective, which admittedly is more interested in how Laos works than how you feel) to deal with false allegations that have been widely reported in the press is to go through them one by one, and present refuting sources that show they are false, until the situation is as clear as it can be. Wnt (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Case in point...the Danes have claimed torture, and I would imagine based on the typical conditions in some prisons (including those in the U.S.), the mere act of being imprisoned in such a place would be tantamount to torture, but the Loatian government isn't going to admit this issue, nor is their non-free press. We must have reliable secondary sources for our information. The fact that the Australian Foreign Minister intervened seems say alot about their innocence...--MONGO 19:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I urge against self-publication. WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred, especially regarding claims that might fall within WP:BLPSPS; it's not about truth, but reliability, verifiability, and neutral representation of sources. One archived source in support of the term "torture" includes the following, per its title, and per its references to "violent" treatment of the Danes in custody: ; there's also, though that information likely came from the subject herself. More commentary in reliable sources would, I believe, make the case for certain language so that the subject doesn't have to. JFHJr (㊟) 01:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think a self-published update on their status could be useful. Remember that Wikipedia has all kinds of arcane and sometimes overbearingly interpreted rules about "WP:SYNTH" and "WP:COATRACK" (The second isn't even a rule but some editors use it very effectively to squash discussion of anything they don't want people to hear about).  We as editors can't just stuff a bunch of random references about Laos and torture and lack of judicial independence into an article based on our own personal feelings and guesswork.  However, we can say that "the Danes vehemently denied the prosecutors' allegations, citing X and Y and Z, calling attention to practices like A and B and C", so long as we have so much as a blog posting about the issue that we can use to say that we're following their argument and not making one up on our own. Wnt (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a touchy matter since the Laotian Government isn't going to admit to torture and the Australian Government isn't going to outright say that happened either. I believe there is good cause here to have the article deleted, even though the Danes are very marginally notable, their notability isn't significant enough that the lack of an article on them (which will never likely be able to tell the true story) is going to hurt the pedia and our efforts to be all inclusive. I am strongly in favor of doing no harm in this particular situation.--MONGO 03:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think they are marginally notable? This was very big in Australia as shown by the government involvement and reporting. Why does WP:HARM apply? The article made it clear that the charges were false and that the Danes were innocent and poorly treated. Why do you think an article will never be able to tell the truth? Kay Danes disputed very few facts, many of which were minor and were corrected or can be corrected using Dane's book. The main complaints were legal points. Wayne (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that there are different kinds of "harm" Wikipedia could consider. If we think only of avoiding any unpleasantness, then we don't provide a resource for people who might be considering operations in Laos to use to get a feeling for what kinds of things to look out for, nor for activists to use when some current event comes up that they want to use for political reasons, etc.  We have rejected applying WP:HARM as policy in favor of neutral scholarship, but if we did apply it, we would need at least to use some imagination. Wnt (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I sympathize with your position. But I disagree with your conclusion on deletion; the following links show the subjects surpass WP:GNG and probably also WP:BASIC. See WP:VICTIM for reasons your concerns might be overcome in WP:BLP policy. As for meeting general criteria, here's a list of the links, sorted according to my own arbitrary reasoning:
 * 1)  Note: this source is somewhat reliable for its repeated statement that everyone charged of anything in Laos had been found guilty to date of publication. Its ultimate source remains unclear, however; it might be reporting on common knowledge.
 * 1)  Note: this source is somewhat reliable for its repeated statement that everyone charged of anything in Laos had been found guilty to date of publication. Its ultimate source remains unclear, however; it might be reporting on common knowledge.
 * 1)  Note: this source is somewhat reliable for its repeated statement that everyone charged of anything in Laos had been found guilty to date of publication. Its ultimate source remains unclear, however; it might be reporting on common knowledge.
 * 1)  Note: this source is somewhat reliable for its repeated statement that everyone charged of anything in Laos had been found guilty to date of publication. Its ultimate source remains unclear, however; it might be reporting on common knowledge.
 * 1)  Note: this source is somewhat reliable for its repeated statement that everyone charged of anything in Laos had been found guilty to date of publication. Its ultimate source remains unclear, however; it might be reporting on common knowledge.
 * 1)  Note: this source is somewhat reliable for its repeated statement that everyone charged of anything in Laos had been found guilty to date of publication. Its ultimate source remains unclear, however; it might be reporting on common knowledge.
 * 1)  Note: this source is somewhat reliable for its repeated statement that everyone charged of anything in Laos had been found guilty to date of publication. Its ultimate source remains unclear, however; it might be reporting on common knowledge.

I hope you'd consider this smattering of coverage as you go through WP:BEFORE. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What should I be reading?
I've just purchased Standing Ground by Kay Danes. What else should I be reading to help me understand this case?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Link removal
I find it worrying that [my] link was removed by an editor. It presents some serious info which is core to this discussion and which I believe needs attention. Yet within hours it was deleted. I see no defamation in there and I see no abuse. I see a lot of extracts including from Wiki, which are worthy of further research. If this is censored, well, I just give up. 158.255.208.121 (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * An editor named MONGO is repeatedly deleting and censoring [my] edit. There is no defamation or smear here at all. The document linked to presents extracts from Wikipedia, and other identified valid sources. It presents information, not opinion or allegation. Please view directly to confirm this.


 * Yet this editor deletes it immediately, every time it appears. This is particularly worrying as the main parts of the document itself identify potential problems with the editing of this article! Yet this is being censored. Debate is being prevented on these serious matters.


 * Please stop censoring this, and allow other contributors to view for themselves and discuss. 103.6.84.37 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is MONGO deleting discussion? The anon has asked a legitimate question. WP:SPS does not apply as the link he posted is not being used for content. I'm not even sure if BLP applies as the link is to a critique of an organisation. Where it's content is related to Wikipedia articles, it is basically a statement of facts regarding what is discussed on Wikipedias talk pages. WP:BLP states "edits about groups... must be judged on a case-by-case basis." If MONGO feels the link is a BLP violation he should answer the anon and justify the deletion by explaining exactly what is in the link that is a problem. Wayne (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just reverted the IP's attempts to insert that weblink again, and will continue to do so in accordance with the BLP policy. Its a self-published webpage that is hardly a reliable source in any article and definitely not anywhere in articlespace or the talkpage of a biography of a living person. One would think after your tenure here you might have some clue about our policies.--MONGO 21:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. The paper critiques the FPSS and it's associates as reliable sources and I believe this is what the anon is getting at. I'm not bothered that it's deleted, I'm bothered that you are failing to assume good faith and rejecting the anons questions out of hand. Maybe if you fully explained why you are deleting the link he wouldn't persist in arguing. As I said, WP:SPS does not neccessarily apply. You would be better arguing that the paper can't be attributed because it's author is anonomous, basically making the paper a blog. Wayne (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * He can't even argue that, because it simply presents facts, nothing else. If they were copied and pasted here it would be the same, but it would take the whole page. It isn't being cited as an authority on anything. It simply collates data which is important to this discussion.


 * I don't like to point this out, but he does seem to have a position, which is being applied. This is flagrant censorship. He is determined to stop debate on this. This is why he won't even present a reason.


 * I will repeat again, as the paper covers patterns of editing on this article, it is extremely worrying that he is seeking to censor it. This needs to be addressed. 202.9.68.10 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the paper again, which MONGO is so desperate to omit from the discussion: [redacted]
 * Censorship isn't pretty, whatever the motive.  202.9.68.10 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No censorship at all...I've redacted the link. It a self-published weblink full of innuendo and misrepresentations and you need to read up on our policies regarding reliable sources....as if that needs an explanations...a self published webpage is not a reliable source. One that slanders the subject of a biography as that weblink does is a severe BLP policy issue....read our policies....read the banner at the top of this page.--MONGO 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't slander anyone and it doesn't defame anyone. It presents information in the form of what are active links to active pages on credible and recognized websites. MONGO'S zealousness in seeking to discredit the delivery method of that information is worrying.


 * What should matter here is that the information within it is useful to the discussion of this article. But MONGO doesn't want to discuss the information within it. He or she wants to prevent that information even being seen, and he does so by making his claims against the paper itself, totally ignoring that its contents are what matter here.


 * The paper is a collection of information. Its existence prevents all that material having to swamp this page. That is obvious, but it is fact which is ignored. Do you want be to copy and paste all those pages?


 * The heated language used by MONGO, his zealous reaction to the appearance of the paper, are worrying. Please direct to the appropriate place to raise these concerns. 103.6.84.37 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The link again to the information being desperately censored, including information about the long term editing of this article
 * Final warning: I am going to revert any effort to reinsert that link again anywhere on this page...under the BLP policy, it isn't permissible to post potentially libelous material and it must be removed immediately.--MONGO 17:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree the link to the "paper" in question belongs neither in the article as a source nor on this talk page. The amateurish web publication fails WP:IRS as a threshold issue, and is a fine example of WP:FRINGE. The fact that the self-publication covers and references Wikipedia's ongoings is indicative of its merit as a source. I've sectioned off this topic, as it has little to do now with what Jimbo asked originally. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed with MONGO, Jimbo, and JFHJr. The link and inclusion violates numerous policies as well as  a basic understanding of human decency.  Stop adding nonsense to push a POV at the expense of the well-reasoned BLP policy. --DHeyward (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Signatures
Please don't change the ip addresses in old signatures, or try to sign with some address other than your own. It's deceptive, it doesn't work, and it disrupts the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 23:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)