Talk:Peter Rodney Llewellyn

Potentially libellous material
Reference to police source is not sufficient evidence. Serious allegations must be supported by evidence proved in a court of law. See policy on biographies of living people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Tree (talk • contribs) 09:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, the material is supported by a reference to a reliable third party source and is therefore acceptable. There's only one source cited in the article, but see also here and here. Perhaps all three articles should have been referenced in the article, but at the time I thought that this might be overkill. In short, I think that material should stay, although it could be rewritten in a fashion that could clarify that there was no trial or conviction.--Koppas (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Koppas on this one. The section in question reads "Allegations of Fraud" and I don't see that as libelous. The source cited is acceptable. Perhaps you would be willing to rewrite the article with newly provided sources. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this entry.

 * Allegations of Fraud are seriously defamatory and Wikipedia should not take these lightly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a gossip sheet. In law, repeating an unfounded allegation creates a liability as great as in the original publication. It is not possible for Wikipedia and its contributors to hide behind a newspaper on the supposition that the newspaper has checked its facts. Whereas a local newspaper edition published in Pittsburgh ten years ago may not be worth suing, Wikipedia certainly might.
 * It cannot be assumed that only US law will apply to defamatory content. British law can also be invoked given that the person subject to the defamation is British and the allegations appear on the famous Wikipedia which is a website popular in Britain.
 * The reason for this person appearing here is due to a single event which caught the international headlines a decade ago. The economics of the Mir space mission is obscure. It is questionable whether or not this should give rise to sufficient notability to justify a biographical entry on Wikipedia. BLP1E
 * Where is the evidence that the Mir episode (if it happened) was actually a fraud rather than a mistake or neither of these? The Wikipedia policy is to cover the event not the person - this article appears to breach that policy.
 * There is far too much private data. What is the point of including the birthdate? What is the proof that this is the date of birth? There is a Wikipedia policy that presumes privacy.
 * Even if any of the allegations were true, and nobody has any evidence of this, and no convictions have been cited, these matters happened a long time ago. Is someone never to obtain the chance to rebuild their life? In most countries, the public record of convictions cannot be quoted after a few years. Why does Wikipedia not adopt this common sense and humane approach on a far more scanty evidence base?
 * There is no suggestion that there has been any other allegation of fraud subsequently to the episodes mentioned in the article. Is this the mark of a conman? We are not talking about a Madoff who has admitted a massive fraud which has been going on for decades. Is a conman someone who has carried out a proven fraud - and perhaps continues to do so? Or is a conman someone against whom allegations were made a decade ago? It is difficult to accept that the latter scenario falls within the scope.


 * This article should be deleted. Could someone please place it on the Biographies of Living Persons/ Noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Tree (talk • contribs) 22:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting legitimate sources in the article regarding the allegations does not create a situation involving libel. It has been suggested above that you rewrite or assist in rewriting the article rather than deleting a sourced portion which you find objectionable. Perhaps you can find sources regarding the lack of a trial or conviction that would balance the information about the allegations and create a more well rounded article. In the meantime, I will be replacing the properly sourced allegations. I hope you'll work with the other editors of the article to achieve a consensus. Thanks -- Rydra Wong (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Riposte

The problem for Wikipedia is that the claim is libellous. It is not a defence in law to claim that the Pittsburgh newspaper is a legitimate source. You need to support your contention which runs counter to the advice posted here. You are asking to prove a negative which is not possible. The basic point is that there is a presumption of innocence. It is for you to show that the allegations are well founded. The article is in no way balanced because it uses old, uncorroborated sources. The notion that the article can become well rounded assumes that there is some substance to the article, which is disputed. Until this matter is resolved on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN Biographies of Living Persons/ Noticeboard. BLPN] there should be no more references to allegations of fraud. Paul Tree (talk)


 * The entry on BPLN didn't generate much discussion, but the suggestion that the article be deleted or redirected seems reasonable to me. Since Peter Rodney Llewellyn only really meets notability guidelines for his attempted spaceflight, my preference would be to redirect to this section of the Mir article. Deletion would be my second choice, but I have no objections to it.--Koppas (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been just over a week and since there have been no objections, I'm going to redirect the article.--Koppas (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)