User:Filll/AGF Challenge: Wife-Report that the subject coauthored books with his wife


 * 1) The fact that the email contradicts the autobiography suggests it is a hoax. Go with the facts. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Naerii 02:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Based on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR, and without violating WP:BIO, coauthorship should be reported. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Facts > AGF, unfortunately. Anthøny 01:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) *Dan T.* (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Not a real choice here, but still difficult to handle. One of the reasons for the respect I have for our OTRS volunteers. Dorftrottel (warn) 00:47, April 13, 2008
 * 9) In the face of evidence, especially unambiguous evidence, I see no reason to bow to demands. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Phew. This answer looks popular! Carcharoth (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) It isn't our place to evaluate the validity of legal threats on an individual basis. OTRS volunteers will pass it on to those in the Foundation who can do so. If WP:OFFICE determines its a problem, they will let us know and we back off. -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Just because there are liars out there, does not mean we are forced to report what they demand. - Mark 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) WP:CITE WP:V Alexfusco5 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) I check the verifiable sources. I edit according to those.  Any legal threat gets reported to  ANI for admins to look at.  I'd politely welcome the editor, and ask them to contribute to the article talk page -pointing out coi etc.  Dan Beale-Cocks  22:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) AGF is not a suicide pact. Overwhelming weight of verifiable sources says that they coauthored books. We therefore make sure that the sentence notes that he coauthored 10 and solo authored 10. If he continues to issue legal threats, we block him and have him contact legal-en on OTRS (where he will promptly be told to piss off in nice and gentle terms). &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  23:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) As above *2 facts are facts, never bow to legal pressureFelixmeister (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) And not forgetting the indefinite block for as long as there is legal action underway or any threats of that nature. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) After asking him if he has any published sources to that effect. But most analogous cases here are very much less clear cut & obvious than this one.. DGG (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) I would assume the wording was unclear and explain the situation to the complaining user. If the persisted and made it clear they really wanted proper credit to be denied, I would ignore them.  Mango juice talk 03:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Teach the controversy. Ask the subject for a reliable source ref and if provided, include that as well as the coauthor info. ++Lar: t/c 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) I'm sure OTRS has developed some good ways of politely telling such people "no". Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Emails can be faked; For now, report what the reliable sources say and encourage emailer to provide a reliable source in response. Also, did anyone check with the publishers? Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) However, there certainly should be a response from OTRS to the subject about a need to verify his claim via a reliable source. -- Levine2112 discuss  18:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) No court in the Union would accept such a suit. All hail Section 230. Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Of course. Fram (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Could there be any doubt?Gimme danger (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) I would hope the books were notable enough to have ISBNs and that the ISBN system identifies the author. I would also check Library of Congress and/or COPAC, depending on whether the books were published in the USA, UK or elsewhere, and even on Amazon. I would take the case to the reliable sources noticeboard. I'd try to stay firm but polite throughout. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Wikipedia must be factually accurate. If we have a reliable source to say he did, he did in the eyes of WP.  George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help 12:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Easy choice. Neıl  ☎  16:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Definately if thats what all the references dictate.--Kumioko (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Politely, of course. · AndonicO Engage. 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Assuming the sources were credible. Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Reliable sources win the day. Kelly  hi! 19:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) I enjoyed reading the responses above. However, any question to which the answers come out 32-0-0 probably doesn't need to be a question in future surveys, per SNOW. :) - Dan (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) --Dial (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) If WP:NOR is to have any meaning (or, for that matter, WP:NPOV or WP:V). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Verifiable facts relevant to the article subject should be reported. That's a no-brainer. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Easy decision --God Save the South (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) -- Simple <font color="Grey">Paradox   16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) Sounds right. Mackan79 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) Provided the author is actually notable. JMiall  ₰  20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 42) GlassCobra 16:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 43) --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 44) Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 45) Verifiable facts are verifiable DigitalC (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 46) And probably block him for WP:NLT. sho  y  15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 47) -- <font color="#CC5500">RC-0722 <font color="#0000FF">247.5/<font color="#FF0000">1  21:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 48) Truth is truth. ---G.T.N. (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 49) Presumably the article would report the reputable sources (including his autobio) that alleged he wrote some of those books with his wife. Since he himself wrote that prior, I see nothing wrong with stating the facts of what he had earlier claimed.  --C S (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 50) No brainer Tt 225 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 51) Verifiability is not always cut and dry, but unusual claims should be strongly documented --AkselGerner (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 52) Yilloslime (t) 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 53) i think this one is a no-brainer. The writer wrote that his wife was coauthor before, so i don't see how that should be removed. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 54) So long as "more than a dozen reliable sources" do in fact, meet WP:SOURCES (which I would want to verify, since reliability is a matter of judgment and debate), this one's pretty clear, and a lawsuit would have no basis. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 55) Stifle (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 56) Mynameisnotpj (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 57) Kevin Baastalk 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC) WP:VERIFY.
 * 58) Ensure that the text is accurate compared with reliable sources. Pfainuk talk 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 59) SKS2K6 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 60) --BirdKr (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 61) Only possible option. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 62) You don't change an article over one email. That's not right ~ American  Eagle  02:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 63) Certainly list the wife as co-author. Especially if WP can site the publisher or an official listing @ the library of Congress--Adam in MO Talk 05:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 64) Even if the man in the email thinks he is correct, presumably after some argument/divorce or some other complication, the truth cannot deny the wife authorship Jdrewitt (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 65) Verifiability, not truth. Sceptre (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 66) Can't exactly sue for something that is correct.... <font face="Courier New"> Micro <font face="Lucida Console"><font color="#B22222">c h i p   <font color="#00880">08 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 67) Also specify which books were co-authored. Abide by WP:V and WP:RS, avoid WP:OR, and adhere to WP:BIO when doing so. -- Shruti14 t c s 23:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 68) And cite it to some authoritative source, eg the publisher or the catalogue of a major world library. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 69) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 70) I see no other choice than to go with what the sources say. Let him take it up with them first. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 71) We cannot change information because someone is threatening to sue Wikipedia. If there are sources, taped interviews, etc. that have him stating he cowrote the books, then that's the information that should be reported. <font face="Ravie"><font color="#ff0000">D <font color="#ff6600">u <font color="#009900">s <font color="#0000ff">t <font color="#6600cc">i complain/compliment 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 72) Report what we know. We don't "know" he co-authored. What we do know is "X said Y" - reliable sources state. So we say "X wrote a number of books, some as sole author and others co-authored with his wife.[CITE]". The cite should link to a reliable source, or two if contentious, for the statement, such as the book's ISBN entry or publishers blurb. FT2 (Talk 11:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 73) We're private editors. What do we care if they sue Wikipedia ; ) j/k  -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 07:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 74) Yes, honesty come first.  Preceeding signed by: Bnaur Talk 02:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 75) Explain to the author about verifiability, which sources are used in the article and ask if he is aware of any similar sources where he's been listed as sole author. Double-check the references and ISBN data; consider revising the statement to attribute our source for mentioning his wife as co-author. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 17:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 76) This has nothing to do with AGF at all. csloat (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 77) We can only go about reporting things that are verifiable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 78) It is neither ethical nor appropriate for a reference volume to relate information that they know to be incorrect. --Duneflower, resident weirdo (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 79) Wotapalaver (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 80) Joelster (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 81) Trishm (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC) How could it be otherwise? Saying wife only is a lie, deleting the biography is an overreaction, no harm done if information is publically and freely availalbe
 * 82) T. Anthony
 * 83) --Prosfilaes (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 84) If many reliable sources, including a website and an autobiography written by the person and presumably the books themselves, state that some books were co-authored by the wife, then clearly Wikipedia should say so as well. The described legal threat, which may or may not be from the person, cannot overturn Wikipedia policy. Imaginary Pi Slicer (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 85) It seems ethically right to report what we know to be true, and surely with all the documentation you mentioned, Wikipedia would be immune to any legal liability. DiderotWasRight (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 86) Difficult question, but we go with facts here. <font face="Lucida Handwriting" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 87) We don't take sides in disputes, we consider the appropriateness of sources and content.  We should report that he has listed his wife as coauthor of 10 books, but has made recent statements to the contrary, assuming both assertions are supported by reliable sources.  We should also reply to him diplomatically, explicitly offering to reference his current view on authorship within the article and pointing him to sources reporting he and his wife as coauthors.  --SSBohio 20:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 88) LaraLove   |Talk|  18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 89) WP is about verifiability, not about "the truth". --Iamzork (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 90) The covers of the respective books seem to answer the question. If he makes a big enough public stink about it that gets significant press coverage, then one might also mention that Husband disputes that his wife co-wrote the books with him, in spite of the fact they are listed on the books as co-authors.  BrownHornet21 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 91) Justallofthem (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 92) skeptical scientist (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 93) Kla22374 (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 94) In this example truth (accepting the premise)  'Suppose someone has coauthored 10 books with their wife.'  and verifiability are on the same side here. — Axel147 (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 95) Agree with everyone else here: Book records are usually accurate. If they are incorrect, encourage author to say so via other medium (if author has not already), and perhaps, if the controversy garners/garnered enough WP:RS coverage, include it in article. The second pillar applies here as much as anywhere else. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 96) There are reliable sources that contradict this person. One man threatening to sue is not going to override Wiki's policies and the truth written over reliable sources. What Iamzork said is also correct. Wiki's not going to bend to one person's claims. That would essentially destroy wikipedia's goal of publishing verifiable facts. <font face="Gill Sans MT">I<font color="#9CBCC9">c  eUnshattered  [ t ] 19:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 97) Oppose because WP:RS is a subordinate of OTRS. Well too bad, I like RS better. ;-) <font face="Segoe Print" color="#6B4226">Pie is good  <font face="Segoe Script" color="#78AB46"> (Apple is the best)  23:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 98) --<font face="Bauhaus 93" color="black" size="3">Giants27 <font color="#FFC12D">T <font color="#FFC12D">C  20:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 99) --  Chzz  ►  11:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 100) Gotta go with the facts.  Ono pearls  (t/c) 06:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 101) Go with reliable sources; if we have a reliable source that disputes this then find consensus on how to present the new information. The lawsuit gets vectored to the foundation.  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 102) <font face="Georgia"><sup style="color: #3B5323;">The <font color="#8B0000;">GRAND <sub style="color: #660198;">Rans <small style="color: #FF6103;">✫Speak to Me!✫  00:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 103) The facts speak for themselves. Strombollii (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 104) The facts first. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  12:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 105) I agree. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 19:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 106) Facts are facts, and removing it would be considered censorship, of which Wikipedia is not. GB 86 05:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 107) I could sue as many people as I wanted saying that they were wrong, the earth is flat. It would most likely be dismissed as frivolous. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>Allmightyduck &#xF8FF;</B> </SPAN> <FONT SIZE="1">What did I do wrong?</FONT> 15:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 108) I would reply to the author pointing them to WP:SOURCE, WP:REF as well as WP:UNDUE and list some of the past quotes which stated co-authorship. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 109) I think you have to reply to the email that the only available sources say that the wife has been a coauthor for some of these works. If they wish to set the record straight, they need to do an interview with a reputable media body in which they say so unambiguously. Once that article is published, then they can come in an edit the Wikipedia article, and add the new interview as a source for that claim. Explain that most likely the article will still make some mention of the fact that at one time, the wife was listed as a coauthor, but that the author has more recently said otherwise. VanIsaacWS<sup style="margin-left:-2.9ex">contribs 08:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 110) <font face="Vivaldi" color="red" size="4px">Suraj <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" color="blue" size="4px"> T  09:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 111) Just do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 112) I would interview the author asking how the wife contributed to the book, and why he states her as the co-author. If the interview goes well, I would simply edit the page to state that his wife co-authored with the book. Amandaaa99 (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 113) Is this emailer really So-and-so? Or is So-in-so crazy? DUH.  Eman <font color="#6643d1">235 / talk  04:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 114) It depends on the "tone" of the email (lascivious, sarcastic, melancholy) Marcos12 (talk)
 * 115) I'd inform the author about WP:V and WP:RS and that Wikipedia has to go off of these policies, and ask them to work with me to somehow find or create a reliable source that lists the wife as not having been an author if they want it excluded. Origamiteⓣⓒ 06:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 116) I'd trust the sources first; unless this author could provide publically available proof that his wife indeed did not co-author the book(s) in question. So he would have to PROVE IT first. Then I'd follow all associated policies and procedures depending on his proof or lack thereof. Melody Concertotalk 02:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 117) Doubtlessly, unless the downfall of Wikipedia has begun.  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 14:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 118) Of course.  J  947 ( c ) (m)   07:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 119) It goes without saying, although if the article is unclear you can make it clearer about which are which!  &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  22:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)