Talk:David Ferguson (impresario)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

November 2008

I am trying to add a section regarding David Ferguson's legal history in San Francisco. The section is being deleted. I am not interested in edit war. I hope someone will tell me why they keep deleting the section. Cassandrar (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

None of the contributors reverting my changes are responding to me. I'm going to lay back for a few hours and let the adminstrators take care of this. I'll place warnings but am going to stop reverting the article for now Cassandrar (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not block attempts to reverse edits made by CassandraR. Initial edits by CassandraR requesting further verification of facts were acceptable, and additional sourcing was provided to meet those demands. However the recent scourge of edits by CassandarR are clearly personal attacks aimed at discrediting Ferguson and the article. Aside from violating the spirit of the Wikipedia requirement to conduct edits in 'good faith,' the legality of these postings is under investigation. Though the legal cases may be of public record, the in fact include the access to home addresses, the posting such personal information online violates Wikipedia rules. In addition, CassandraR is most likely a disgruntled former associate of Ferguson and, is using the name 'CassandraR' to pose or impersonate a close current associate of Ferguson. This impersonation appears to little more than an attempt at sowing discord between Ferguson and the 'real' Cassandra. At the very least the efforts by 'CassandraR' violate Wikipedia's requirements for edits being conducted in 'good faith' and it is certainly questionable that CassandraR's edits are done with 'make-sure-your-hands-are-clean' advisement posted on Dori's User talk. DrJamesX (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

DrJamesX, Thanks for talking to me. I feel that my edits were conducted in good faith, and I welcome any investigation into public records. The citations you refer to are posted by the City and County of San Francisco. I did not see any home addresses listed in any of the documents online, but if you can point me to which ones contain those links, I will consider removing those specific one to protect anyone involved. However, I feel that the facts I have added are highly relevant to Mr. Ferguson's biography.

As far as conflict of interest goes, I'll admit to being personally acquainted with Mr. Ferguson. However, that accusation that I took the name of Cassandrar to sow discord is false. I will look into what it might take to change my user name. I have stated my conflict of interest and hope you will also if you have one.

As far as the additional sourcing as a result of my request for additional fact, I was not the only person who found them lacking. Dori, someone who I don't know, agreed.

This article promotes a particular view of Mr. Ferguson which is not shared by all. I am adding content, substantiated by citations, that back my statements up. I have been attempting to communicate with you and other editors of this article for quite a while now in good faith.

Do not revert my content again. Either change it to something more acceptable or ask me to do so. Cassandrar (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My current thoughts:

• The current state of this article is just a mess. Almost every time I look at one of the citations, I find that it doesn't back up what it's there to support. Or I just find a jpeg at the IFUC site. Or it's a book I don't have access to. Or it's not a reliable source. Or it's a Q&A with Ferguson where he's just being quoted verbatim. At this point, I don't trust any cite where I haven't read the source material.
• The article still needs a lot of cleanup. Too much of it is, "Ferguson once hung out with someone cool," followed by two paragraphs on the someone cool. Nice, but it's not about Ferguson.
• I think that both of you need to cool off a bit. Keeping COI (not to mention SPA) in mind, I'm wondering if either of you should be editing this article.
• I don't believe that a link to an external web site, when that web page contains valid, verifiable information, immediately counts as a BLP violation if that external site also includes someone's address. So long as the address itself isn't copied to WP, I don't think that there's a problem.
• So far as Cassandrar/Uwishiwazjohng's edits about the Avengers goes, I found it to be considerably better referenced than most of this article. However, if both of you agree that it shouldn't be in here, I'm fine with that.

Overall, how about we have more editing and references and less fuss? This article needs a lot of work yet. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dori

I agree with you on just about all points. Agree with you that I need to cool off on this page and I'm going to stop editing the article too, with the exception that I plan on getting better references for the Avengers sections and lots of opinions before I put it back. May be a while though. I'll monitor the changes to make sure I agree, but so far, I think you are doing a great job. I feel that despite the COI, I'm capable of keeping NPOV and so far your comments seem to back that up. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see that 'CassandraR' -- after hiding behind the persona of an associate of David Ferguson's for weeks -- now finds within himself the composure and probity to back out of fray. And it’s also mighty gracious of CassandraR (whoops, make that UwishIwasjohng) to admit to a COI when called upon it, yet making this admission only after inflicting severe and unwarranted damage upon what was once a legitimate article.

‘UwishIwasjohng' conveniently tries to deflect himself from the wreckage he created by insisting that some of his concerns/edits were valid. Well, of course, a few of the Wikipedian suggestions were valid. 'CassandraR's...er, Uwishiwasjohng's claim, on the other hand, that his intention was to improve the article is so hypocritical as to be laughable. All one needs to do is to look at the posting of the Legal Cases sections to see his intent. The links here direct the reader to cases, some of which do not have an outcome posted. Do we know whether the cases were dismissed? Later ruled in subject's favor, perhaps? For the cases in which an outcome IS posted, the rulings went in Ferguson’s favor. What can be gleaned from these unwarranted legal postings in Ferguson’s bio is ‘Uwishiwasjohng's’ intent: the mere presence of these cases is designed to instill in the reader an unfounded association of guilt concerning Ferguson. Planting that seed of doubt -- not presenting meaningful or genuinely challenging biographical information -- was the catalyst and motivation behind ‘UwishIwasjohng's 'contribution' to the article.

Not only is conflict of interest an issue. I can agree with the Wikipedians’ recommendation that the bio in question needed strengthening in some areas by offering additional sourcing. But ‘UwishIwasjohng' instead chose to recklessly doctor and, many cases, vandalize the article, even going so far as to remove a some valid articles and legitimate sources, which is a flagrant violation of Wikipedia vandalism rules.

And just to address any concerns of COI on my part. I'm not a 'sock puppet' or a 'meat puppet' (though if Kirkson asked me to join the band, I would seriously consider it). I'm not in the employ of Ferguson. I am an independent writer putting together a book on Ferguson and seek to maintain an appropriate professional distance from the subject. DrJamesX (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)DrJamesX (talk)

DrJamesX,

Per your accusations that I 'chose to recklessly doctor' the article, you may address these concerns with the person who actually made the edits. Please check the edit history and you will find that it was, in fact, not me who made the changes you don't like .

You, like I, have an WP:SPA, which is not necessarily a bad thing. But I find it hard to believe you aren't a WP:MEAT and you've given me no proof that you aren't. I had the courage to be honest about my WP:COI. I suggest you read the rules and be honest with yourself.

As far as my Legal history section goes, it is now public property, so feel free to modify it, adding whatever you feel is accurate and in accordance with the rules. You are asking me great questions. I encourage you to bring your critical eye not only to my material but to your own.

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Switchintoglide's changes to this article

I think that the SFist reference is better than the Angela Holm reference for two reasons: 1) it actually says what the article is saying 2) Angela Holm, who is referred to in the article as an executive in one of Ferguson's companies, probably has a WP:COI.

As the article evolves, I'm noticing more problems coming up but I'm going to wait until the dust settles a bit to identify those areas, since I know this is a work-in-progress. Overall, I think this is going in the right direction.

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should leave the current citation up and insert the one you are suggesting afterwards as a compromise. It does not hurt to have two sources for a quotation. The WP:COI of which you speak regarding Angela Holm does not seem relevant given that the article now says: "Ferguson calls himself..." or the like; it would be impossible to write a biography of a person without consulting his associates who may or may not have a WP:COI. As you have admitted COI yourself and still have input in the article, it would only be fair and appropriate that some of the commentary on Mr. Ferguson be from his other associates, don't you agree? As far as the legal history section, I cannot seem to read the rulings on the others because of the legal jargon. If you would care to, please feel free to summarize the rulings of each case in order to better represent Mr. Ferguson, I won't take them down; I can't promise anything about other editors. I have attempted to take out "Peacock Terms", would you please identify the sections about which you speak so I can have a look and improve the phrasing? I have taken down several unsubstantiated claims already today and improved some citations to the best of my abilities. I have also taken down some warnings that no longer apply and re-iterate what the other claims say to some degree or another. All in all, I think the article has vastly improved in quality.

[[Switchintoglide (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Switchintoglide/DrJamesX

I am attempting not to edit this article anymore, so I'm going to wait for the edits to slow before adding anything. I agree with your suggestion that two quotes would not hurt, so if you don't put up the SFist link, I may do so eventually. Per your Angela Holm comment, the point is well taken. I'll leave it for someone without a WP:COI to make a decision.

Thanks for soliciting my feedback on the sections that need improvement still. I'll get on that.

Per recent editions to Legal History

===I think you may mean "Additions"===Switchintoglide (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Switchintoglide recently made edits I oppose and I am going to revert them. The fact is that in the cases list, David Ferguson was the defendant. The fact is, as the documentation in the links show, that the nature of the cases are in many cases for the non-payment of services or loans. The fact is that Mr. Ferguson is currently being sued by two of his former attorneys for non-payment. The documentation shows that. There is no implied guilt. I will restore the section to what it was previously and change the wording slightly Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm very concerned as to how adamant you are about this legal history as a separate section. It seems obvious that the cases should be written about in the context of the article and not as a seperate heading. It appears to me that you are personally invested in painting a particular portrait of Mr. Ferguson that not all Wikipedians would hold. Are you personally affiliated with any of these lawsuits such as the John Gluck case? I saw the name in the earlier exchanges about the article and I think it may be time for you to admit that your COI goes a bit deeper that a personal acquaintance. Are you party to the any of cases about which you continually write?

Switchintoglide (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Per your accusations about who I am, please read WP:OUTING and WP:COI again carefully. I saw your comments on User_talk:Jreferee. I find it interesting that you are convinced that I'm a man. What gave you that idea?

Please read my above statement again and not that I never asked for your name. I asked if you are personally affiliated with any of the cases to gauge your COI and requested that you acknowledge that maybe you are more than an acquaintance of Mr. Ferguson. I didn't ask for your name. Switchintoglide (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we please get to editing the article without making this personal. You asked me to confirm or deny something about my person. Read the rule again. I understand you're new here and I also understand you think I'm singling you out. However, I'm not going to report you. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, the English Language does not have a gender neutral distinction, save "one", when writing I assume the subject is male until further clarification. "One" is too heavy and pretentious.

Switchintoglide (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just be honest with yourself. I find that admitting my mistakes is the best way for me to learn Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you need to doubt my honesty in this situation, if you want to "get to editing the article" you perhaps need to tone down the condescension and realise that you may have something to learn from your mistakes as well. I can tell you with complete honesty that in the context of this argument between you and DrJamesX, that was the impression I held of you; you also know it to be true that we are not speaking German here, so there is no "das" article, or "es" personal pronoun, our language has a dichotomic nature when it comes to gender. Not everything is a personal attack on you Sir/Ma'am, and not everything that other users say needs to be construed as some sort of Wikipedia crime. I'm also not looking for any sort of battle. Switchintoglide (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Per your statement about holding views of Mr. Ferguson that not all Wikipedians hold, look at the record. The fact is that the majority of people who have edited this article have WP:SPA. Of course there is nothing wrong with that but you can hardly call that a representative cross-section of Wikipedians. 64.175.34.225 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that I, like a lot of the other users who have come on, were offended by the brash legal history section at the bottom of the page when other articles don't have that similar distinction. Those cases need to be integrated and put in a context because on their own they cause the new reader (IE.Quotseeky and me) to feel like the author has an unfair agenda (hence the deletion). If you don't want to seem like you are doing these things for personal reasons, then I think that you should take into account how the reader sees the separate legal history section. I agree that they are relevant parts of a biography, but they beg for a context, that would be a fair way for you to assert your WP:NPOV Also, you should perhaps balance your editing patterns, not just flagging sections, but finding support for some of the assertions; in doing this your approach would not look so single-minded. Switchintoglide (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you'd like me to move the legal quotes into the article to give them more context and I'm happy to do so. I'm not sure where to put them though. Do you have any suggestions? 64.175.34.225 (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Put the IFUC cases under the IFUC heading and the CD Presents cases under the CD Presents heading etc. What Calendarwatcher said about summarizing the cases seems fair to me:

"[. . .] legality or legalism have nothing whatsoever to do with things, but standard editing and inclusion policies do. It is perfectly proper and WELL within policy, practice and guidelines to remove and/or summarise material [. . .]"

Switchintoglide (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal History IS Valid from Journalistic and Legal POV

I am new to wiki, and having a hard time understanding the proper formatting to add to this forum or post online using wiki, so I hope I have no procedural errors herein.

When Mr. Ferguson's history states information which is missing citations and quotations, and some of that history has resulted in legal action, then it is especially pertinent, both from a legal and journalistic point of view. Perhaps other entries don't have extensive legal histories because they simply do not exist. Perhaps others conduct themselves in manners which do not result in legal disputes.

Much mentioned here has resulted in legal action both initiated by and more often, against Mr. Ferguson. In many cases, he has lost (and not just in San Francisco). I have dealt with and personally know many who have had dealings with Mr. Ferguson and that is why I believe it is very relevant to include the legal section.

I personally have a copy of a default judgment against Mr. Ferguson which is not mentioned here. It is too old to be online. It is one in which Mr. Ferguson is believed to have won. He lost it, but at least one defendant who won paid a large financial cost.

Many of the uncited claims on this page can be readily refuted by researching people quoted, online and print publications. However, it's harder to post those refutations than remove the uncited claims which already are posted.

I contacted some mentioned in this entry. Yesterday I started with a list of prominent people in the peace movement. I just received an email from Medea Benjamin and others who have NO knowledge whatsoever regarding David Ferguson. They are quite insistent they never contacted him re any media coordination against the Iraq War as stated in this article.

I've read so many various discussions about Mr. Ferguson on various Wikipedia discussion pages. What I have not read is if people have actually written to those mentioned in this entry, nor done any other research outside of quotes wherein Mr. Ferguson is being cited in the footnotes with earlier press interviews. This entry basically uses quotes from earlier interviews with Mr. Ferguson as substantiation. I believe that would never hold up in a court of law.

I have no agenda other than the truth. There's so much published, in print and online, so many willing to share another POV, with their own documentation, contracts, judgments, correspondence, photos and memories regarding Mr. Ferguson. So many are mentioned in this article, yet few quotes from them. The Avengers? The Sex Pistols? Warhol's people? The list goes on and on. If Ferguson did so much with these and others, why is his name missing in so many books, interviews or other sites detailing their histories? Why is it so often when his name or one of his various companies, it's usually not favorable?

I am shocked Wikipedia is making it so very difficult to post information without name-calling on both sides.

It's a shame, because those of you allowing these uncited or poorly cited "evidence" are doing a great disservice to the people who deserve the credit that Mr. Ferguson claims. Worse of all, there's a long history of people, from musicians, artists, donors, investors and others who, although they don't know each other, share a common, often difficult, painful story when dealing with Mr. Ferguson.

I don't have time to post all I've researched from a variety of people who know Mr. Ferguson well. I certainly don't want to be involved yet if it means my researched, cited information will be removed. I don't want to be subject to name-calling and told I'm violating rules. I am merely trying to figure out how to post factual information which is readily available to anyone with decent research skills and curiosity.

It's not "brash." From a legal POV, by the very fact Mr. Ferguson's history is made public, the door is open for a full history, which has to include his fans and detractors, his legal history, his whole history. IF someone just wanted to post a legal history page, it would lose meaning without context and could be seen as antagonistic, but certainly not illegal.

This page is about Mr. Ferguson and ALL cases are relevant. Why should one be removed and another allowed to be cited? Who is to determine relevancy? Who has that legal right to determine the relevancy re "I would take down the single ruling because it is simply not representative of all the cases"? Shouldn't that be up to the reader, to draw his or her own conclusions, based on all that is on this page, citations, etc? If a fan of Mr. Ferguson's, you might not feel a negative court case is representative, whereas a detractor might agree with that case. Who is to judge this?

Earlier, not sure if this discussion or another, an argument was made that because addresses were revealed in a cited legal page, that citation should be removed. That is in violation of American laws. Any time a legal action is initiated, certain information is made public or available to the public. That is why lawyers have to obtain court orders to seal records. If someone posted a private address online, that could be objectionable. But by merely linking to a court case which reveals an address or information should not be grounds to remove the link.

Our court system is about transparency to a certain degree. If you don't like what's revealed, take it to the judge and try to have the file closed to the public. Otherwise for a few dollars most of us have access to most every case filed. Ever.

Re: "As far as the legal history section, I cannot seem to read the rulings on the others because of the legal jargon. If you would care to, please feel free to summarize the rulings of each case in order to better represent Mr. Ferguson, I won't take them down; I can't promise anything about other editors."

Legally, it is not anyone's responsibility to summarize legal documents but it's quite improper to remove them when they go to the character of the man portrayed in this article. It might be considered censorship. This information is freely or inexpensively made available as part of the American legal system. IF any editors or writers remove these citations, they are suppressing free speech. I thought Mr. Ferguson was a fan of free speech, except when it pertains to him?

Sometimes paralegals and lawyers have different interpretations of legal documents. How can you expect those unschooled in legal documents to summarize them, especially because often not all the background information is posted online? Quite often information is only revealed during the course of case unfolding, following specific legal procedures. How can anyone expect someone to summarize all that, what is known and what is unknown?

It's quite sufficient to do the research to find and post all legal disputes dealing with the subject of this article. Let the reader make his/her conclusions. Or are you saying the writers and editors should tell the readers what to think?

If any editors or others remove these links, they are playing fast and loose with the truth and facts. Just because someone is involved in a legal dispute does not mean they are guilty.

The overall pattern of behavior -- being involved in numerous legal disputes -- is as important as the legal cases themselves. Please also be aware these are only San Francisco cases and only those online. I know for a fact there are more cases, but either they have not been cited or are not online.

How many of us know people involved in about two dozen legal cases (if you add in a few not cited)? This goes to character, whether Mr. Ferguson has been treated unfairly by others or created/caused his own legal disputes. That is up to the reader to conclude on his/her own, based on valid citations (and note the many missing or questionable citations).

To understand the big picture, readers could conduct additional research, readily available on the net (which includes online versions of recognizable publishers of books, magazines, newspapers and other periodicals) as well as read official online sites of many of the personalities mentioned in this article. As we have seen, often those citations and references are disputed and removed here.

Or do as I have done: contact those mentioned on this page. You'd be surprised how many will respond, often refuting what it here. It is hard to cite as this information is from emails, not other sites or publications.

Is there were a way to post emails and legal documents on Wikipedia?

Re about opinions that all Wikipedians hold: it's simple, that this is a place for fairness, for both sides of anything to be presented, with proper legal/journalistic citations. That's what I thought before I tried to inject cited, documented refutations of a few of the many statements made in the article. I was subjected to a series of notes which treated me like I was a stupid child. Well, live and learn. Have a nice day.

Damesmartypants (talk) 011:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Saying that '[l]egally, it is not anyone's responsibility to summarize legal documents but it's quite improper to remove them when they go to the character of the man portrayed in this article' is utterly irrelevant: legality or legalism have nothing whatsoever to do with things, but standard editing and inclusion policies do. It is perfectly proper and WELL within policy, practice and guidelines to remove and/or summarise material which is redundant, verbose, overly detailed and overly unbalanced. Once again, Wikipedia is NOT soapbox for some sort of crusade. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Flagged sections

I have deleted one of the flags about the "Bimbo's" quote, the page numbers were provided but it was flagged that they were not. I disagree with the implication that pages need to be cited down to the very line on which the evidence can be found in the primary source. Please focus on larger concepts and problems with the article and not questioning University yearbooks and the like--it seems incredibly petty that these little details would irk whomever keeps flagging them so much, especially since the information is very straightforward. Also, I noticed in the history that page numbers were provided and then deleted by another editor; don't delete relevant information and then complain about its absence! There are bigger issues, like the tone and the terminology that need to be fixed to make the article more neutral. Switchintoglide (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistaken {{pagenumbers}} flag. However, I assure you that as soon as you provide the page numbers for the remaining sources, I have every intention of looking them up and verifying them and, if they are not accurate, flagging them as such. Regarding your statement that you disagree with pages needing to be cited down for every line, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, verification for every statement is most certainly appropriate.

Regarding your complaint that another user deleted the page citation, I had no idea, nor do I have any control over that. It's unfortunate that happened to you. But that should make it easy to put them back ;-)

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(Un)Reliable Sources

On 25 November, I wrote:

The current state of this article is just a mess. Almost every time I look at one of the citations, I find that it doesn't back up what it's there to support. Or I just find a jpeg at the IFUC site. Or it's a book I don't have access to. Or it's not a reliable source. Or it's a Q&A with Ferguson where he's just being quoted verbatim. At this point, I don't trust any cite where I haven't read the source material.

On 4 December, User:Switchintoglide wrote:

Email admin@ifuc.org for inquiries about citations. I was interested in the work of Vaughn Bode and how he was affiliated with Ferguson and emailed a request for more information. I received a nice reply with information about the lecture catalogues and other wrk of the IFUC. I would say that this is "the likeliest way" I knew about these sources.

If you read WP's policies on reliable sources and verifiability, this may be the perfect example of something that is not a reliable source (in particular, regarding SPS and PRIMARY). As such, it needs to come out of the article.

Just some of the other problematic resources:

• A book by Barry Paris, Louise Brooks: A Biography (University of Minnesota Press; ISBN 978-0816637812), published in 2000, is claimed to support an event that took place on or after 2006.
• A book by Louise Brooks, Lulu in Hollywood: Expanded Edition (University of Minnesota Press; ISBN 978-0816637317), published in 2000, is claimed to support an event that took place on or after 2006.
• A book by James Card, Seductive Cinema: The Art of Silent Film (University of Minnesota Press; ISBN 978-0816633906), published in 1999, is claimed to support an event that took place on or after 2006.
• The article Rediscovered Punk Art at Art Basel, Miami from NY Arts, was written by Angela Holm. This article later mentions that Ms. Holm is an employee of David Ferguson.
• The only source for calling IFUC SF Guardian's 1998 Best Organization to Support Your Art winner is a JPG on the IFUC site.

and so on, and so on. How about we clean this article up with solid sources? If there aren't any, then let's remove the claims. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I must agree Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Melrosechoc Vandalism

Melrosechoc has chosen to remove the Legal History section without discussing it here and I have restored it.

Let me just say that it is certainly relevant that a man who claims to run a charitable organization has been named as a defendant 21 times in the last 18 years. That fact is not represented elsewhere. The reason why there are so many 'redundant' references is that other authors insisted that, despite the facts represented here and despite multiple outside opinions, that the section was somehow unbalanced. The original version had far fewer references.

You quoted User:CalenderWatcher but you seem to be missing his/her point, which is about WP:UNDUE. This article is currently terribly unbalanced. You removed the only section that presents another viewpoint. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not realize I need to report here before (some?) edits. And I also just realized this is my first time to express opinion on this article. The reason I quoted User:CalenderWatcher is that the section is indeed overly detailed and unbalanced as of itself; I beleive there are better ways to add such opinion instead of a blunt section, which did not work in the way you stated above, suggesting controvery instead, and ripped the article in to some extremes. You said it's the only section that presents another viewpoint. Wouldn't a article of neutral point be better than one with sections of different viewpoints? Wouldn't editing within the article and paragraphs contribute to a better state as a whole? I am not as erudite as many of you here, but these are my ideas on how to work this together. And I would not suggest bold aggressiveness when one is claiming cooperation with others. Please draw back your overweight accusations when you have not heard the other's opinions first.

Later I'll post my thoughts on citations too. It is indeed great that people are helping to filter less helpful ones from better ones; I'm feeling good about that. There are quite some in-constructive flags though. Melrosechoc (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to report anywhere, but you should tread lightly before removing whole sections just because you don't like them. That particular section has been subject of an edit war, which is why I warned you.

Again, I agree wholeheartedly with you that it is overly detailed but other users, specifically User:Switchintoglide, insisted. I personally think the specific cases should be left out, but User:Switchintoglide seems to want at least one of them there and, in my mind, it should be both or neither, not one or the other. The article is public property so do what you will within the rules.

As far as your accusation that I am making overweight accusations, I believe you objecting to the word vandalism. The word vandalism has a somewhat less charged meaning here at Wikipedia, in my opinion. What it means is that you removed some content without a sufficient reason. On Wikipedia, you need a really good reason to remove content. I didn't mean to offend you. It's just easier to say vandalism, and Wikipedians understand what you mean.

Also, I'm looking forward to your comments about the citation flags since I put a lot of them there Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

IFUC Tax Status

'Ferguson-IFUC-IRS.pdf, IRS letter re IFUC tax-exempt status

I quote from this August 27, 2007 letter from the IRS, "We have no record of this organization having tax-emempt status under 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code." Damesmartypants 11:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

IFUC is not recognized by the IRS as a non-profit nor charitable org and lost recent $5,000 legal case. I wish someone would write or call the IRS. They will tell you on the phone and mail a letter verifying IFUC is not in their records! I did this in 2007 and they had NO records on IFUC! I wrote that if anyone could tell me how to post a jpg or pdf I would post the letter they sent me. SO stop accusing me of being on a soapbox when I have done my research!

Mr. Ferguson lost the recent case to attorney Peter Vestal for $5,000! Mr. Vestal called me personally and told me the most a business can get from an individual is $5,000, but Ferguson's legal bill was higher. I don't know why that's not updated. I still have the voice mail from Mr. Vestal who successfully sued Ferguson for non-payment of legal fees. I think the case was adjudicated Dec 2, 2008. Mr. Idell's is more complicated. I assume that's because he's not settling for $5,000, based on my research. They have a meeting in February, I believe.

I appreciate what Dori has done: checked citations and seen many don't hold up. I have tons of research refuting what is asserted on this page, but instead of allowing me to post it, I am accused of having an agenda. As I have repeatedly stated, I am only interested in telling the truth. IF I had the time, I would list them all and send to Dori, who seems to be the most active in pursuing verifying/refuting the information presented herein. It's not over yet, I will dig up this info. Not a threat, but I merely spent a few hours online and it's all there. The Avengers, Warhol, Sex Pistols, so much more, but I don't have time to yet again list it and be ignored. Happy holidays! User:Damesmartypants —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC).

I looked up the IFUC on GuideStar (http://www.guidestar.org, free registration required) and it said that the IFUC is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity, but is not required to file an annual return (Form 990) with the IRS because its income is less than $25,000. While that may say something about the IFUC as a successful venture, I wouldn't know what to say about it here. (and thanks for the vote of confidence!) Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco Weekly, December 26, 2006, "In Pen and Ink,": Entirely donor-funded, IFUC gets about $100,000 a year from various sources and "turns around and gives the money away as quickly as we can — as soon as the checks have cleared!" SF Weekly linked from IFUC's Newsroom link. Doesn't all that require a paper-trail, like filing returns? Damesmartypants 11:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On the advice of a friend, I checked out a few things. IFUC does not appear in Publication 78, which is a list of all 501(c)(3) organizations. There are some exceptions to this rule, and IFUC may fall within those. IFUC appears on the Business Master File with a status of 32, which, as far as I can tell, means that the IRS has been trying to get something from them for over two years. Upon calling the IRS, I learned that IFUC has not been a tax exempt organization since 2003, however, there's no published record of that. When I asked the agent why, she said that the information was public only if the organization had certain statuses but she could not tell me what those statuses are.

There are several terms here. Charitable organization, non-profit, tax-exempt. What seems to be almost clear in the article is that IFUC is no longer tax-exempt. From what I've read, a non-profit is not necessarily tax-exempt, nor is a charity always a non-profit. The original authors of this article call IFUC a non-profit alternative. I've asked for clarification and there still has been none. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand behind my research with the IRS, not a third-party organization. eBay and Mission Fish often stated IFUC was a non-profit, until emails to them resulted in his non-profit eBay certification being removed. I ONLY trust the government's records. I called and wrote CA State, and although IFUC was certified by CA state, he NEVER had meetings, open books, anything required to be in good status. The Federal gov, IRS, had NO records. Also note that he's changed it on his site.

As far as less than $25,000, well, he had many art shows that were cash at the door, cash at the bar, plenty of witnesses. It's hard to verify incoming or outgoing monies, due to lack of book-keeping. I love what someone wrote above, about asking HIM to verify what is said on this page. Perhaps someone here can obtain accurate book-keeping, as required by law for all non-profits. I am not being snarky, but it's a legit question. When was his last public meeting, who are or were on his board of directors? Has he followed any rules for state and fed non-profits since 1989?

Maybe because of all this controversy, his re-organization is very new, but he still needs the old books to be made public (at least that's my understanding from studying CA non-profit requirements). But that doesn't change the fact that for YEARS people made donations in the false belief they could take federal tax deductions. According to the IRS, they could not if they donated to IFUC and were audited.

It's beating a dead horse. I say go to the govt, but a third party says he's fine. And that is how Ferguson continues to do what he's done. It's hard to believe what some of us write unless you've been in SF or LA and know his history. Whatever. Good night. User: damesmartypants 01:34, 9 December 2008

Citation Removal

• [Shithead, page 83] contains no quotes from Tom Waits
• [292 of Darby Crash book is list of gigs, no mention of CD presents or Ferguson]
• [Brown] Neither page 15 nor 366 contain any discussion of Ferguson
• [Gram Parsons Book] contains references to Margaret on these pages but none to Ferguson. Couldn't view 422, 423 but search of text yields nothing for Ferguson Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also:

• The "Putting Punk in its Place" article doesn't mention anything about restoring any CD archives, nor does it mention Lucas or Skywalker Ranch, nor does the 2004 story say anything about finishing the restoration in 2008. Oh, and it also doesn't say that the PRO ever played The Avengers.
• The article used as a source for "Language of the Birds" didn't mention Ferguson or the IFUC.
• The Damage article doesn't contain that Johnny Rotten quote.

Dori (Talk • Contribs) 07:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Found this, Dori [1]

Yep, again: nothing there about CD Presents music. Yes, the PRO recorded at Skywalker (and there are better cites for that) but WP's article doesn't say anything about that. It does say that CD Presents archives are being restored, and I haven't seen any solid sources for that. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 07:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And more

• The article currently says that the "IFUC takes an intern and volunteer-grounded approach to business and non-profit management that has guided Ferguson's efforts to promote artists whose work frequently resists commercial categorization." The source for this is Vault Guide to Top Internships. However, what the Guide actually says is:

The Scoop

Since 1989, the Institute For Unpopular Culture (www.ifuc.org) has supported emerging artists and promoted artistic attempts to challenge the status quo. IFUC seks to lessen the financial disparity between subversive artists and those who cater to public taste and opinion in order to survive, and offers legal support to censored artists. Among its list of "unpopular" artists are Holly Hughes, Dan Das Mann and Julia "Butterfly" Hill, the environmental activist who famously lived in a tree to protest the desecration of Northern California forests. The Institute's latest project is the Punk Rock Orchestra, a fifty-plus piece classical orchestra that reinterprets classic punk tunes on symphonic instruments.

On the Job

Interns work closely with the small staff. Some particpate in graphic arts and promotion/marketing work. Interns perform research to support casework; assist artists; and participate in fundraising, promotion, graphic art, marketing, and administration.

or in other words, it says they hire interns—nothing about their business approach, or how that approach has guided Ferguson. Consequently, I'm reverting that edit and adding the {{fact}} tag back.

It's probably worth noting that virtually identical text can also be found in The Internship Bible and on the IFUC's about page—leading me to believe that it was written by the IFUC, so it's useless as a third-party source.

• I've also removed the citations whenever a {{Failed verification}} had been added afterwards, as that's the same as no source at all. Sources removed due to this are:
  • Meyer, David (2007). Twenty Thousand Roads: The Ballad of Gram Parsons and His Cosmic American Music. Villard. pp. 12, 419–423.
  • Brown, Elaine. A Taste of Power: A Black Woman's Story. Anchor Publishing, 1993. p. 15, p. 366.
  • Graham, Bill and Robert Greenfield (1992). Bill Graham Presents: My Life Inside Rock And Out. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0306813498 (I just looked this one up; Ferguson isn't mentioned in the index.)

Dori (Talk • Contribs) 04:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(later)

• And more {{Failed verification}} removals:
  • Truscott, Lucien K. "Inside the Hotel California." New Times, June 1977. Article on Gary Kellgren.
  • Gamson, Joshua (2005). The Fabulous Sylvester: The Legend, the Music, the 70s in San Francisco. New York: Henry Holt and Co. ISBN 0-8050-7250-0.
  • McKenna, Kristine. "Public Image vs. rotten crowd", Rolling Stone, June 25, 1980.
  • "Leaders Of The Pack" by Matt Munoz and Más Magazine staff. Más Magazine, Volume 2, Issue 54, 9-21–07.
  • Bolles, Don; Parfrey, Adam; Mullen, Brendan. Lexicon Devil: The Fast Times and Short Life of Darby Crash and the Germs. Feral House, 2002. p. 292.

As I've said previously, all the sources on this article have, in my experience, fallen into one of three categories:

• Sources that sound good but turn out to be bunk (in which case, I've removed them)
• Sources that sound good but I haven't been able to track down
• Sources that back up lawsuits (which WP:SPAs keep trying to remove)

The end result of this is that the article is now covered with {{fact}} templates and there's no sign that anyone has been or will be able to find supporting citations.

Due to this, I'm trying something new. If you look at Talk:David Ferguson (impresario)/workpage‎, you'll find a first draft of an article that only contains verified information from reliable sources. Anyone want to try working with that draft instead? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dori,

I fully endorse this move. I'm try to limit my contributions to reference checks, given the WP:COI and WP:SPA. I checked out your version and it seems to include almost all of the verifiable information. I noticed that the section on Mr. Ferguson's anti-war activity, which I actually did validate, wasn't included so I'll check to make sure that I've included the validation date.

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify that there are two mentions of anti-war activity in the Ferguson article. I was referring above to his Vietnam activity.

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2008

I just removed a paragraph that said:

Throughout the 80s, Ferguson would periodically cluster a number of singles of CD Presents' bands and release them as Rat Music for Rat People compilations, Vol. 1 (1982), Vol. 2 (1984), and Vol. 3 (1987). The first volume was a collection of songs recorded at CD Presents-sponsored concert shows. Needing a facility to fix these live recordings moved Ferguson toward building his own studio, thus marking his transition from live concert promotion and production to studio recording and the co-founding of a label to release the tracks.

Reason: I finally looked at discogs.com (the reference used) and found that it described Ferguson as "Folk and country producer and engineer, mentored by Jack Clement. Now best known for his work with Johnny Cash." Consequently, I don't think they can be considered a a reliable source. Without that source, the paragraph has no sources at all, and given that it's more about CD Presents than Ferguson, I figured it could be safely cut from here.

Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read below to see that the David Ferguson who worked with Johnny Cash is A DIFFERENT DAVID FERGUSON!

Damesmartypants (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)User:Damesmartypants

Citations using Discogs Restored

Edits by Dori removing the Discogs citations for the 3 Rat Music for Rat People links were unwarranted. The explanation that the discog links referenced a 'Folk and country producer..." are simply not correct. In fact, it appears that none of the 3 links (which Dori cited) were actually used, as each link clearly takes the viewer to a specific Discogs page, each page referring to a specific Rat Music compilation produced and released by CD Presents. DrJamesX (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)User:DrJamesX

Clearly, you did not read what I actually wrote above: in particular, the link "described Ferguson," where yes, it really does say he's a "Folk and country producer and engineer, mentored by Jack Clement. Now best known for his work with Johnny Cash." Honest. Go read it. At that point, you can either say it's all valid and add Ferguson's experience with Clement and Cash to the article, or (my preference) find a reliable source and put the discography back in. But until you do one or the other, you're adding material from a source where you're picking and choosing what you accept. Or in other words, we agree it's not a reliable source—so you adding it back to this article is vandalism. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WRONG DAVID FERGUSON! Discogs.com page "described Ferguson," is wrong wrong wrong. Check YOUR OWN WIKI PAGES: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Ferguson, born 1962. THIS Ferguson page states b/date 1947! The subject of this page is NOT TRAINED as an engineer nor producer! Also, IF this Ferguson had ANYTHING to do with Johnny Cash, wouldn't that have been emphasized in the exisiting text?

DrJamesX, you stated earlier you are writing a book. Wouldn't you know, based on that data presented, THIS Ferguson HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JOHNNY CASH? Why didn't YOU correct that mistake? You say you are objective, yet you let this misrepresentation stay? If you are writing a book, why didn't you consult with THE David Ferguson on THIS PAGE?

Don't Wikipedia editors need to pay attention to middle initials and birth dates? This goes to what was written about IFUC being non-profit or not, relying on a third party rather than checking with the government. Go to original sources, compare one Ferguson's actual accomplishments with another, check dates, check contents of pages. I truly thought Wikipedia was supposed to be so careful about details. People cannot merely do a cursory search because a site says it's so. Johnny Cash, he only wishes!

WHY ARE THESE ERRORS ALLOWED TO REMAIN and the info spreads through the net? IT IS UNETHICAL TO ATTRIBUTE ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO THIS DAVID FERGUSON which rightly belong to David R Ferguson. Why is this allowed?

Damesmartypants (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)User:Damesmartypants

All,

It is pretty clear to me after visiting it that that the Discogs.com page is not a reliable source and must not be used in the article. The source confuses David R. Ferguson and David H. Ferguson. If you click on David Ferguson's name in the link, it presents a discography that combines the work of David H. and David R. They are very certainly two different people. David H. Ferguson is not a trained producer.

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

DrJamesX, Please read again the definition of WP:SYN and explain on this page what original conclusion you think this Legal History section comes to. It is my opinion that the Legal History section is the best cited and most factual section in the article, though I am happy to work with you to modify it so that it is better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwishiwazjohng (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate it if you ceased to accuse me of being DrJamesX, I think you and I both know that the sockpuppetry case was closed without action. Furthermore, the original research in the article was in conclusions drawn about cases, such as the xerox case, where the papers were not necessarily closed and could go on to settle out of court. Also, the xerox case was listed as "Ferguson's biggest financial loss" when the case was in fact launched against the IFUC. It seems as though the IFUC and CD Presents are relevant to Ferguson's Bio when it comes to legal history, but in term of the rest of the article, the sections are "misleading". Switchintoglide (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Switchintoglide,

I made a mistake. I make them. I apologize. But while we're on the subject, I would appreciate it if you stopped accusing me of being petty and holding a grudge. Perhaps we can negotiate.

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rfc: Inclusion Policies, specifically, legal history in a BLP

Note to those coming in due to the RFC—the current issues on this article are:

• WP:SPA editors who aren't familiar with WP style
• text being added without citations
• citations being added that don't actually back up the text
• citations from unreliable sources
• the one section that has citations being removed as it's not 100% positive about Ferguson

Due to all of the above, I've tried to start a project to take a different approach on this article, starting off with what is actually cited. That's over at Talk:David_Ferguson_(impresario)/workpage, and I'd like to see comments there as well. Thanks! Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: please do not move other people's comments. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen other articles where a legal history section was created, and I am wondering how relevant and appropriate it is to add such a section to a BLP. Here are the articles of some of the people and bands that have worked with Ferguson, and none of them include a Legal History section: D.O.A. (band), Lydia Lunch, Minimal man, and Iggy Pop. Stylistically, in terms of a person's biography, legal disputes over lawyer fees, Xerox copy machine leases, small claims (under $1000) from disgruntled former associates don't seem to be relevant to the larger picture. There is no legal history on David Bowie's page, on RCA Records page, on Leslie Ann Jones' page, on Bill Graham (promoter)'s page nor on UNICEF's page.

Maybe you should look around a little more? Here are some articles with similar sections:

• Snoop Dogg#Legal issues
• James Brown#Legal issues
• Tupac Shakur#Legal issues
• Busta Rhymes#Legal issues
• Jamie Foxx#Legal issues
• Mickey Mouse#Legal issues

okay, maybe I shouldn't have included that last one... Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Those legal issues are for crimes like theft, drug possession, and assault, not for a negotiation of lawyers fees and Xerox leases. There is a marked difference between the sections that those links direct to and the legal history in Ferguson's biography if you read both.Switchintoglide (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Any way you look at at it, whether the Biography is from the perspective of artist, record label, recording engineer, promoter/impresario, or charity,

A WP biography isn't from any of those perspectives. It's from the perspective of the public. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

there isn't a precedent for including legal history in Wikipedia articles in this fashion,

Sure there is. See above. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"...[I]n this fashion" of course meaning when it is not for crimes like the ones listed in the articles above. Small claims court case does not equate to drug possession. Switchintoglide (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay then

• Anna Nicole Smith#Inheritance Court Cases
• Dead Kennedys#1990s: Legal conflicts
• Jefferson Airplane#Jefferson Starship / Starship
• Huey Lewis#Ghostbusters suit
• George Harrison#All Things Must Pass

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

and I'm of the opinion that the section does not conform to Wikipedia's rules and standards about BLP.

And that would be your opinion. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How many of the people listed above have had legal history?

Entirely irrelevant. See Other Stuff Exists. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Many would have negotiated with their lawyers about fees or had to make $500 petty payouts in court, but in terms of a cultural impact, how is that relevant to the Bio of a public figure? The reality of working in the record industry is that litigation happens, and an example of appropriate inclusion is the small section about a management dispute from Queen's A Night at the Opera (Queen album); the song Death on Two Legs actually had a real public impact, and in that case it was relevant for the public to know the history of the litigation which inspired the song, however, even a dispute so large as the one between Queen and Norman Sheffield did not merit an entire section.

Again, see Other Stuff Exists. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Guilty until proven innocent" attitude shouldn't hold here on Wikipedia, what if these cases were settled out of court and Wikipedia only includes half of the story? It's extremely biased to include cases in which the final, out of court settlement is not included as well (if applicable). And since the documents for an out of court settlement are not made public, neither should the cases be posted in the Wikipedia article because the sources have a limit in showing the entire history. Nevermind the fact that a suit over a xerox lease makes for boring reading.

I think this falls under I don't like it. Personally, I think that all the {{fact}} tags show an extremely biased picture, but that's my opinion. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to leave a comment and vote on the inclusion of the legal history, please sign below with a # symbol, your vote (include/exclude) and four tildes. Thanks! Switchintoglide (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Under what policy are we having a vote? Since when does WP have voting? This is exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned SPA editors without much WP experience, above. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There are surveys going on that have a similar process (I am invited to the BLP protection one every day on my page), where you leave a name, a comment and a vote. It seems a fair way to gauge the public opinion, as you pointed out that the article is written from the public perspective. I am trying to help with dispute resolution in order for a consensus to be reached because no one seems to be happy with the state of the article now. Switchintoglide (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There are only 3 of us here who hold the contrarian view. This would certainly be a slam dunk for the 20 plus people with WP:SPA who have contributed to the article and have had only glowing things to say about Ferguson. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am concerned with the Self-published sources regulations being so stringent; why is a self-published source assumed to be irrelevant? On Andy Warhol's page and on Lou Reed's page, there are self published sources: Warhol, Andy (1975). The philosophy of Andy Warhol: from A to B and back again. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. ISBN 0-15-189050-1. OCLC 1121125. and Lou Reed - Walk on the Wild Side: The Stories Behind the Songs, Chris Roberts and Lou Reed, 2004, Hal Leonard, ISBN 0634080326.

Sigh... Self-published does not mean self-authored. Andy Warhol is not Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Lou Reed is not Hal Leonard. And a self-published source isn't assumed to be irrelevant; it's assumed to be biased. See Self-published and other questionable sources Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Somehow on Ferguson's page, an article that was written by a former staff member was taken down, surely a draconian measure given that other public figures are able to be use self-published sources or include articles and books written by associates. Switchintoglide (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"[F]ormer staff member"? Got a cite for that? According to the article, she's a current employee of Ferguson's, and I haven't seen anything published to the contrary. If you've got one, please add it—this article desperately needs more cited facts. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the author was working for New York Arts Magazine, which as far as I know, is not under Ferguson's jurisdiction. If she wrote that story and a reputable magazine published and edited it, then why is it not a valid source? NY Arts magazine would have vetted anything heretical. If she was writing the article for that magazine, then for that time it was essentially her employer. Is she listed as staff on IFUC.org? It's fine to have both sources in the article, but why favour one?Switchintoglide (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The founder of wikipedia says it best: "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." The fact that you keep on instisting that on using this source, which is WP:PRIMARY at best given that's it's author is named in the article as an employee of the subject tells me that you have no other citations for these statements, which makes them flimsy and not appropriate for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwishiwazjohng (talk • contribs) 05:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While it's not something that can be used in an article, I can say from my experience and that of all of the freelance writers I know: writing an article for a magazine does not make you an employee of that magazine. And particularly not when the magazine in question says that you're an employee of someone else. And "heretical" isn't the question; the issue is bias. I don't know how much fact-checking NY Arts does, but as an overall publishing industry concept, if a magazine mentions that you're an employee of someone, they don't have to check to see if you're padding his résumé. In fact, including that piece of info means that it's assumed that it is being padded. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 08:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are losing sight of the aim here. We are trying to write a NPOV biography of a living person in 1500 words or less. We should be thinking about how to improve the article and make it say more about whatever it is that makes him notable. Including a whole raft of petty court claims over photo-copier leases does not improve the article, it does not speak to what made the man notable. Many companies have a special budget specifically for dealing with just these sort of petty claims so that they can just write the cheque and get on with something more relevant. I think you guys should consider doing the same. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

More Failed Verification

• Holly Woodlawn Bio - I speed read this book, so I can't be certain since no page references were given but I'm comfortable failing this reference. Holly Woodlawn spent most of his/her life in New York. There were a brief 2 paragraphs about Ms. Woodlawn's trip to San Francisco, which was started at the request of an unnamed producer. Regardless of who this actually is, David Ferguson's name doesn't appear in this book.

(I addressed this issue below, in the Do Your Own Research? section. I spoke with several people who agreed with the main page stating it was Mr. Ferguson. Doesn't seem to be adversarial, but what the public thinks. Perhaps should stay in the book? Just asking, trying to figure out the rules of the game.) --Damesmartypants (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unknown Legends of Rock and Roll - Not going to get rid of it but there must be something less obscure that proves the that Avengers opened for the Sex Pistols at Winterland. This is a famous show. Can't we get a better quote?

(for more quotes, see section on Proof Ferguson Did Not Manage Avengers At Time Of Sex Pistols Nor Got Them On The Bill. Sorry I don't know how to hyperlink it. )

Unknown Legends of Rock ‘n ‘Roll by Richie Unterberger, contributor Lenny Kaye, 1998, Back Beat Books, ISBN 0879305347. pg 255: “But punk was much less of clichéd genre in 1977, when the Avengers attracted the attention of the Sex Pistol’s American tour manager, Rory Johnston, who got them an opening slot for the Pistols’ notorious show at Winterland in San Francisco on January 14, 1978."

WHY would someone use a citation which can be Googled, found on Google books, which REFUTES the claim he managed them at this time. This is detailed elsewhere on this page, but the claim is found on Mr. Ferguson's OWN official site. San Francisco Chronicle/Gate listed on IFUC.org's newsroom page.

Where is the logic? Is it an assumption no one will find the book and the public will just accept any claim as fact? Why isn't everyone researching before posting? --Damesmartypants (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fucked Up and Photcopied. Beautiful book. It mostly pictures with some text, none of it about CD Presents or Ferguson. There are posters of Wierdos, Avengers, Dils, and D.O.A. shows (I didn't see any Go-Gos) but it doesn't prove what the cite is claiming, that Ferguson/CD Presents arranged shows for these bands

On a bright note, I was able to verify that the Vaughn Bode cartoon was very clearly dedicated "to David Ferguson". If only all cites in this article were that good. We don't know for sure that this is our David Ferguson but I'm willing to give the authors the benefit of the doubt.

And with that, all of the citations in this article have been cross-checked, with the exception of the Miami Hurricane, which I will shortly be ordering via interlibrary loan. If anyone in the know wants to save me the trouble and flag the citations if they don't back up the claim the allege to support, I'd greatly appreciate it. I will now be marking the article with my findings. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

COI

Switchintoglide

I see that you have marked the article with WP:COI. This is an issue if there is a neutrality problem with the article. Please let me know where you have problems with the article's neutrality and let's work together to clean it up. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Buried Treasure v. Frontier Records

DrJamesX, Do not remove text again because you feel it needs additional citation. Simply mark it as needing additional citation

However, the citation provided is found both in Westlaw and PACER. The citation on it was checked by legal librarians. It should need no additional backing. You may check it yourself on PACER, which is the website of US Federal District and Supreme Court cases and is available to the public to search for a nominal fee (something like 4 cents a search). Or if you are really looking to avoid fees, you can go to your local law library. They are certain to have it available.

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on Buried Treasure case vs. BMG / Frontier Records / Avengers

Edits made in Legal History section re: 1994 case in which Buried Treasure, Inc. sued Frontier Records and various members of the Avengers in federal district court. The Avengers are not listed as a party that received any damages. Clarification of the citation is needed as a substantial window of time in the case record is evident; a 2 1/2 year gap exists between what the secondary source lists as a Termination Date (11/1/1994) and a May 1997 change of attorney request filed on behalf of Buried Treasure. Perhaps the case was appealed, but that cannot be concluded from the secondary source used as citation. No final judgment or ruling was posted on the final date of May 29, 1997. The information provided by the secondary source is significantly incomplete and therefore unreliable as to the ultimate outcome of the case. This uncertainty needed to be noted when including this particular case in the Legal History. 75.61.65.134 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Please refer to the attached pdf Judgment which has stood for 15 years. Plus Frontier Records has sold the formerly disputed Avengers recordings for 15 years. How do you define uncertainty vs Judgment for Defendants, wherein Mr. Ferguson LOST?

--Damesmartypants (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm not part of any group ganging up here (I wish I knew the identities of others posting here!). I don't know the identity of others here, but I reach out, write emails and copious online research. But if you are a punk fan or participant, the various issues between CD Presents/Buried Treasure/David Ferguson vs the Avengers and Frontier and Dangerhouse are well-known. But remember, I did not open the door, I didn't post the original text here. The original text flies in the face of what many of us experienced and read for years.

re:

There are only 3 of us here who hold the contrarian view. This would certainly be a slam dunk for the 20 plus people with WP:SPA who have contributed to the article and have had only glowing things to say about Ferguson. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I received a threatening letter from a Wiki editor, accusing me of making "libellous" (yes, it was misspelled) statements the VERY first time I ever posted anything. That certainly could scare off people who have less than "glowing things to say about Ferguson." Those who know him, know he has "hired" [UNPAID] interns who come to his defense. Many who know him don't want to deal with him again. That is one reason the Avengers and Lisa Fancher are not in contact with him.

To say only 3 hold contrarian view is misleading. IF Wikipedia TRULY cares or reflects what the public thinks or public opinion, let's cast a wider net and ask people (musicians, artists, donors, investors, former interns, former landlords, fans of the bands he's dealt with, punk fans, legit non-profits, etc) from San Francisco to LA to Canada (DOA, the Subhumans and others) Canada what they think of him. I just had to respond to this misleading statement. --Damesmartypants (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Avengers Claims Re Unpaid Royalties

I am stunned re the main page, very confusing paragraph, which somehow infers because the Avengers haven't sued Mr. Ferguson, their claims are baseless. It still co-mingles the separate case Frontier Records. I stated that the major involvement of the Avengers was Mr. Ferguson fighting Frontier, Dangerhouse and BMG over who had the rights to release the Avengers recordings. The Avengers lead singer, Penelope Houston, provided a contract which resulted in Mr. Ferguson losing the case. Why are people insisting on co-mingling these two issues?

The worst part are the current footnote number 24, preceded by several letters of the alphabet, which refers back to the Avengers/Frontier paragraph! A citation listed several times in the same paragraph which does not refer to an outside document, but the same paragraph. What is going on? --Damesmartypants (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Buried Treasure vs Frontier Records and BMG Judgment for Defendants

This referred PDF makes clear only BMG and Frontier were awarded legal costs. Penelope Houston and other Avengers have stated in several online interviews that the band did not get ROYALTIES from recordings that Mr. Ferguson distributed.

Two separate issues are being co-mingled here: that specific court case and a separate issue, Penelope and other Avengers' statements about no royalties from recordings. Penelope told me she'd be touring in Germany or somewhere and see their records, but had no report, accounting nor payments from Mr. Ferguson. She also told me others have seen their records, so she has an idea of what is out there from her experience, and fans, but not Mr. Ferguson. I provided a link to contact her at the bottom of this entry.

The article states no evidence shows the Avengers ever sued Mr. Ferguson for unpaid royalties. Just because the Avengers didn't initiate legal action does not mean there's no grounds for a lawsuit.

Penelope Houston knows Lisa Fancher never received her legal fees after prevailing in a lawsuit Mr. Ferguson initiated. Why would Penelope or any of the Avengers sue a man, knowing their chances of payment might be slim to none? Or if they felt they could recover money, it takes money and time to file a lawsuit and see it to its end. Plus there's issues about statutes of limitation and Laches or losing the right to legal action because too much time has passed.

Finally, do you know the private correspondence sent between Mr. Ferguson's attorney(s) and the Avengers and their attorneys or themselves regarding payment? You cannot dismiss their claims merely due to lack of legal action known to the public.

Google search term: avengers "cd presents" ferguson owes money never paid. Penelope Houston interview "How did the CD Presents compilation album happen?" "I moved to England, and before I left the country--this was in '81, '82--Danny [Furious], who was the drummer, was living in San Francisco trying to ask me for any tapes I had or photos. I called up Ferguson's. I said, "You've put all this stuff [out], you haven't even asked me. And you haven't given me money, you haven't sent me any contract." He said, "Oh, yeah, come on in." I was visiting, actually, I hadn't moved back. I called and called and called. I tried to contact him from the U.K., where I was living. I went to his house, and as soon as I was there on his door, somebody said, "Oh, I have some contracts for you to sign now!" So he gave me a small advance. That was the last money that I ever saw from him. It came out as a CD after that. Of all the CDs that have sold of that record, I've seen zero royalties.

"It would have been great if somebody might take it upon themselves to wrest the rights from CD Presents, because they really don't exist as a lab3el anymore. They can sell the rights. Since he hasn't paid the band their royalties or their publishing...at one point I got together with Jimmy and Greg [Westermark], and we went and saw a lawyer. Danny was living in Sweden. To see what we could do to get back the publishing. The contract that was signed was so horribly written that not only did we get nothing, not only that we didn't get the pittance that was accorded to us on the contract, but you couldn't take it to court, it had to be settled in arbitration or something like that. The lawyers just looked at it and said, "This is fucked." We didn't have the money to throw at it. I keep hoping that someday some label will decide to write them a letter and see what they're willing to do. In the meantime, we haven't gotten anything. The last time we saw any money from them was over ten years ago. I don't know what it really sold."--Damesmartypants (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Buried Treasure VS Frontier Records and BMB: "Uncertain?" Claim re Judgment

Buried Treasure vs Frontier Records and BMG Judgment for Defendants

To say the final ruling of Buried Treasure vs Frontier and Dangerhouse re "uncertainty" might be legally objectionable. Where is the appeal? Why can Frontier continue to sell the Avengers recordings? Where is the money due from Mr. Ferguson for Lisa Fancher's legal fees?

I contacted Ms. Fancher after reading and posting the original version of this text. She asked what is the statute of limitations (S/O/L) to file an appeal? She thought appeals need to be filed in a timely manner. I searched Google for variations of these keywords "what is statute of limitations for filing appeal ninth district court." I found several court cases which specifically stated one year S/O/L. This information appeared on the Google pages. I downloaded various PDFs or perused the HTML versions. These were criminal cases. Do you think S/O/L is the same for civil as criminal: one year? I also called the court, 415-355-8000, but only got a recording.

Here again Laches plays a part. Our legal system insists on closure, as set forth in court procedural rulings and legislation. People can't have a threat of an adjudicated case reopened indefinitely in the future. Cases take a long time, but only if motions are filed in a timely manner. Laches is "sitting on rights." Can someone file an appeal in Federal Court after three years?

Anyone can file an appeal, but winning on appeal is harder than trying a case the first time. Saying the outcome is one of "uncertainty" is taking the Ted Stevens approach. When the former Republican senator from Alaska was convicted at the end of 2008, he told news reporters he was not convicted, because he planned to appeal. The news spread online and on cable news, and he was vilified for insisting he was innocent.

ALL verdicts or judgments stand until or if they are overturned. Just because Ted Stevens and David Ferguson don't believe they lost their cases doesn't make it so. Judgments against them stand.

There are two grounds for appeal: evidentiary or procedural. Mr. Ferguson's claim that Frontier did not have the right to distribute the Dangerhouse Avengers recordings was tossed out when Penelope Houston provided the original signed contract. Usually summary judgments are made when the evidence is compelling. So what were the procedural grounds for filing an appeal?

Secondly, courts do not automatically hear appeals. How many people imprisoned with DNA evidence which surfaces later which might exonerate them, but are still in prison?

The court examines appeals under much more scrutiny than initial lawsuits. They have the right to deny a hearing. If an appeal were filed, what was the outcome? If the defendant, Ms. Fancher, didn't respond, then why wasn’t a new judgment made one way or the other? Lack of response is not a slam dunk win for the Plaintiff, Mr. Ferguson.

An appeal is nothing more than a piece of paper, signifying nothing, unless there is a rare reversal of the judgment. --Damesmartypants (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Buried Treasure Vs Frontier Records And BMG: Original Judgment Against Buried Treasure

Buried Treasure vs Frontier Records and BMG Judgment for Defendants

Buried Treasure, aka David Ferguson, claimed both Dangerhouse and Frontier Records did not have the legal right to distribute Avengers recordings. Dangerhouse were the first to produce the Avengers, in 1977, prior to their association with David Ferguson, according to these sources (more below): Good bad Music for bad, bad Times! and Punknet77 - Avengers" "Their very first recordings were from Dangerhouse: "We are the One / I Belive in Me // Car Crash (Dangerhouse Records SFD-400) -77."

Ms. Fancher of Frontier Records and David Brown of Dangerhouse subsequently created a contract so Frontier Records could distribute those Dangerhouse produced Avengers songs in a compilation, released in 1992-93. Dangerhouse, V1, Avengers song, "We are the One," track 7 and Dangerhouse, Vol. 2: Give Me A Little Pain! EXPLICIT LYRICS ORIGINAL RECORDING REISSUED, Avengers, "Car Crash," track 12.

Mr. Ferguson sued to stop the release of the Avengers songs within these compilations. However, lead singer Penelope Houston provided the original contract between the Avengers and Dangerhouse regarding these recordings. Therefore the defendants won on a motion summary judgment because the case is groundless.

The PROOF that Ferguson LOST is the FACT the Avengers songs are still sold on the two compilations. Ms. Fancher informed me if she lost, those songs would have been forcibly removed. As she asked me, "If I lost, then why are the songs still in the compilation, still being sold?"

Prevailing Plaintiff, Ms. Lisa Fancher of Frontier Records, never received the monetary judgment awarded her, which was supposed to cover her attorney fees. She continues to pay her attorney fees incurred to win the original motion summary judgment.

Proof Ferguson Did Not Manage Avengers At Time Of Sex Pistols Nor Got Them On The Bill

San Francisco Chronicle/Gate listed on IFUC.org's newsroom page (Stronger than having it here, it's his OFFICIAL SITE IFUC newsroom page. With links that IF followed, offers a lot of information and direction to finding out the validity of some information posted here.)

"Ferguson finds unconventional fits him just right," Lord Martine, Friday, March 29, 2002. Ferguson: "But the real spark to that was when the Sex Pistols played here in 1978. "A band that I was managing, the Avengers, was selected to open for them."

John Savage's "England's Dreaming" is considered THE Bible of British punk history. His and statements from others prove Rory Johnston was responsible for getting the Avengers as an opening act of the Sex Pistols, NOT David Ferguson. "The evening opened with sets by the Nuns and the Avengers, a local band, managed by Rory Johnston, whose single 'Car Crash', a fine restatement of the 'To Fast to Live' ethos, had just been released."

Unknown Legends of Rock ‘n ‘Roll by Richie Unterberger, contributor Lenny Kaye, 1998, Back Beat Books, ISBN 0879305347. pg 255: “But punk was much less of clichéd genre in 1977, when the Avengers attracted the attention of the Sex Pistol’s American tour manager, Rory Johnston, who got them an opening slot for the Pistols’ notorious show at Winterland in San Francisco on January 14, 1978. Sex Pistols guitarist Steve Jones ended up producing a four-song EP by the group.

The Avengers – Payback trakMARX: "How did you get to support The Sex Pistols & what memories do you have of the Winterland Ballroom on that fateful night?" Penelope: " We’d met the US tour manager for the Pistols, Rory Johnston and he got us the support slot for the bill."

Avengers, Danny Furious, drummer online refutations of his legal standing about how Mr. Ferguson gained rights to some Avenger's work. "I found out later that this english guy named RORY JOHNSTON who worked for MALCOLM McLAREN and was co-ordinating the pistols U.S. tour from L.A had seen us play at the Whisky a go go and it was he, and not howie fuckin' klein who actually insisted we open for the Pistols or we'd never have gotten the gig." "Did you compile the album relesed by CD Presents in 1983?" "David Fergusson approached me after I moved back to San Francisco. Sometime in 81 or 82 I don't remember, and asked me if we could put out an AVENGERS album."

Penelope Houston stated "Our first record came out on Dangerhouse . . . The first three songs that came out were paid for by Dangerhouse . . . We played with the Sex Pistols. They had a publishing company, Glitterhouse, that Malcolm McLaren owned. They opened an office in L.A. And we'd play L.A. a lot of the time, we were pretty popular there. The guy that was running it in L.A., Rory, was also their tour manager for the U.S. He always wanted to manage us. He was really interested in signing us to the publishing company. That was around the time everything just blew up for the Sex Pistols. We did get to play that show [with the Sex Pistols in San Francisco], and we did meet them.

If the editors or anyone wish to substantiate statements from either Lisa Fancher or Penelope Houston, here are the links to their website contact forms: Penelope Houston's contact page and Lisa Fancher's contact page. Damesmartypants (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Damesmartypants

75.61.65.134 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Damesmartypants,

The links to the pdf documents you have provided don't work for me. Please correct them.

You bring up an interesting point. The article doesn't say that Ferguson managed the Avengers during the time the opened for the Sex Pistols, simply that he managed them and that they opened for the Sex Pistols. Since this is not an article about the Avengers, the text about them opening for the Sex Pistols is misleading and should probably be removed Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted the Buried Treasure vs Frontier Records summary judgment PDF awhile ago. I have repeatedly asked for help re coding. An honest coding error (I am not a coder!). I looked at coding from the main page and followed it, and now both the Buried Treasure default judgment which he lost and the IRS letter re no records of IFUC being tax exempt should work.

Re the Avengers and managing: Mr. Ferguson has stated in other print and online sources, some of which I cited, that he managed the Avengers at the time of the Sex Pistols show and was responsible for them being on the bill.

Although this Wikipedia article doesn't detail the relationship between Mr. Ferguson, the Avengers and the Sex Pistols, his OFFICIAL page has links to various print and online publications in which he claims managing them in Jan, 1978. Research on the net (which I have cited herein) indicates the band states it's later. Information should be consistent, either he did or didn't manage the Avengers at the time of the Pistols show.

San Francisco Chronicle/Gate listed on IFUC.org's newsroom page His OFFICIAL SITE IFUC newsroom page. With links that IF followed, offers a lot of information and direction to finding out the validity of some information posted here. In fact, much of what I have cited here began with HIS OWN WORDS in interviews. I merely noted names, dates, venues and tried to find verification. You can see the results herein.

--Damesmartypants (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Although he did not expressly state that here, just implied, it goes to his character and questions some of his accomplishments. Over and over again there are "glowing" reports and statements. It's very difficult to prove the inacurracies or at least prove the fact not all the public agrees with the main page. The problem is lack of citations on both sides. Not everyone has posted refutations of what has been posted. Therefore, when I can show a consistent pattern of behavior that Mr. Ferguson states things which others refute, those items that neither side can cite could be taken in a different light.

For example, there's nothing online, in print, in the film, proving Mr. Ferguson had ANYTHING to do with Penelope Spheeris and her "Decline of Western Civilization."So whom to believe: those who say he had nothing to do with her film or those who let the current text stand on the front page?

If some contributors can show that he makes a habit of claims that are not substantiated and are refuted by authorities, (whether the Ninth District Court, the IRS, published book authors,and the people he talks about), then perhaps other "accomplishments" are also sketchy regarding their validity.

He doesn't say he managed the Go-Go's here, but has stated that elsewhere. I have a list of official Go-Go's sites I've been compiling by merely Googling them. He has played fast and loose regarding some of his "accomplishments." No research has indicated his involvement with the Go-Go's at all.

Therefore, I am establishing the foundation for scrutinizing some of the "glowing things" vs those who are spending HOURS on the net researching and refuting just one statement. There is a lot to research here because so much is allowed to remain which is uncited.

The burden of proof is not on those who post the main page or glowing things here, but those who actually spend the time researching, online and off, to verify the validity or prove false statements presented both on the main page and the discussion page.

I don't understand why the standards are held higher if someone has a 'contrarian' statments when in fact most of the research, by contributors and Wiki editors, Dori in particular, prove Mr. Ferguson's history, statments and citations cannot be verified in many cases. Too much information is missing, and that which exists which going outside his inner circle (those currently working with him, for money or not) often contradicts what he has said or what has been posted by his 'admirers.'

I don't like the idea of two camps: for or against Mr. Ferguson. The issue is public perception based on reality of the people and events presented in the main and discussion pages (as I understand Dori's explanation. If I am wrong, please correct me. I am trying to follow the rules). It's about accurate citations and RESEARCH before posting. Let the public make up its own mind based on thorough research and citations.

My citations have not resulted in anything but my continually having to defend them and little is changed on the main page. That does not make for a balanced discussion here. Every time I want to post more research, with citations, I spend as much time defending what I've already cited. And the original text remains the same. What is up with that?

It's not an "interesting point" about the Avengers. It goes to the heart of this page. What did Mr. Ferguson do or not do? If he claims he worked with the Avengers and Go-Go's, in what capacity and when? SO easy to Google either Avengers or Go-Go's and never find his name on any page other than to refute what has been stated on Ferguson's main page.

Yet this easily refutable information been allowed to be posted and replicated throughout the net for many months. The main issue which bothers and motivates me is by allowing Mr. Ferguson to claim actions he did not do, it takes away the credit for the actual manager, whether Rory Johnston and the Avengers or Ginger Canzoneri and the Go-Go's or the actual person who booked shows for filming of "Decline," which was the director, Penelope Spheeris.

It's about giving credit where credit is due. That's my main motivation. It's not to be contrary, but if Mr. Ferguson is making claims that rightly belong to others, then how can Wikipedia allow this? Avengers, Go-Go's and Decline fans more than likely are not even aware of this page. And if they find it, if they post something, are they going to be accused of being "contrarian" and hammered for no citations when the original post has few verifiable citations? Few have the time and motivation to learn how to format this correctly. We can see issues I've had posting and even figuring out how to links and sign my name here.

It is standard for rock managers, promoters and producers to be able to list specific dates, venues, at least the month, the year, the venue, or some witnesses, provide some substantiating data. When did he do what he said he did? There is so much online and in books that EVERYONE should be doing their own research before they post. Otherwise they open the door to people like myself to do their research. It's not interesting, it's laborious but it's on point. It's also why I am now sharing my Google terms, so anyone can replicate my path.

I wonder why ALL CONTRIBUTORS and EDITORS aren't held to the same standards? --Damesmartypants (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

PACER court documentation link provided for Buried Treasure Inc. vs. BMG / Frontier Records

Citation was requested for earlier edit that focused attention on incomplete court documentation for case of Buried Treasure vs. BMG / Frontier Records. The same source, PACER PSC USCOURTS, that was used as the initial citation to validate the inclusion of the Buried Treasure vs. BMG case, also verifies each point in the passage at which a 'citation needed' flag was inserted. Included the link to the PACER site though registration is needed to view the case documentation ( https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl?714268577081429-L_566_0-1) DrJamesX (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

DrJamesX,

The citation you provided had two problems

1. It required a login. Please see wiki policy

2. You amended my original citation which refers to a specific case. You are referring to different documents and you need to provide the correct legal citations for them. Do not modify my citation, thereby rendering it inaccurate.

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Do Your Own Research?

“ The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three.

” — Wikipedia Policy on Verifiability

Could we please stop all talk about "go contact so-and-so" or "it's generally known by insiders" or similar language? If you want to do that kind of writing, go start a blog. That's not what WP is about. If you have any questions, read the above quotation again, and follow the links.

How about we instead start discussing when would be a good cutoff for deleting all the stuff for which no one can find a cite? Or alternately, we could start editing the workpage I set up a few weeks ago. Right now, this article is still a disaster area. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 10:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dori, I don't understand why you need to start another page (although your new page is far more accurate and not as objectionable as the existing front page). But what about the legal issues? That's really what this page pivots around. The legal cases cited aren't even all the legal issues (they only cover those online and in San Francisco). Some who know Ferguson can't understand why these cases are being removed from the text and only in footnotes or diminished in relevancy. Those who glow over Ferguson think it's boring to mention Ferguson was found to owe Xerox over $123,000. Others feel that's extremely relevant to his "philanthropic" endeavors. What are the guidelines as set by Wikipedia?

People I've contacted feel legal cases are intrinsically related to the character of a person and his businesses. Those other cited as having legal cases listed in Wikipedia were mostly MAJOR personalities or companies. Minor entertainment companies and managers are not involved in as many legal cases. Usually not for evictions, non-payment of equipment, legal services or default judgments against them as is the case here. At least not from what I've researched.

Why are unverifiable statements and those without any citations allowed to stand for many months on the FRONT page? During my research (I have far more information than I've posted, but it takes time to organize and format it) NO ONE even knew this discussion page exists. The original main page has been replicated throughout the web. At what point does someone do something other than say it's a disaster area and allow it to stand? One of the reasons I haven't been as proactive posting refutations to many statements results in status quo, very little changes. A few citations are removed, but the bulk of the text remains as is, without citations. Doesn't really encourage more than 3 contradictory points of view nor input from whomever we are.

Thank you Dori because you seem to be the most active researching citations. But I don't know how so much ambiguous and uncited claims remain on the main page.

Damesmartypants 11:052, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dori,

I feel your work page is probably the best place to work on getting rid of the unverifiable facts. I'm hesitant to contribute owing to my WP:COI. I don't want the integrity of your article to be assailable because I contributed. I support your efforts and will continue to verify citations and contribute to my section. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where to put all this. There's so much looping around here. I do want to address the issue of doing your own research because I agree with it IF the original posters and those who constantly defend Mr. Ferguson without substantiation are held to the SAME standards as those who present information with links.

The biggest issue is statements are made about Mr. Ferguson which cannot be proven one way or the other. There simply are no online or print references from third parties to substantiate the majority of what appears on the main page. As I understand, Dori stated, self-published (or quoting Mr. Ferguson himself in an interview) or interviews with people in Mr. Ferguson's employ [paid or not, interns, writers, co-workers] are not objective.

The downside is many people who have been affiliated one way or another with Mr. Ferguson are not stating publicly their relationship nor the outcome. Now I just wrote someting that cannot be verified. See what I mean? But if you click on the artist's links on Mr. Ferguson's IFUC or contact people mentioned herein, you might get emails or phone calls, as I have received. (but many artists have been removed, so you could dig into all the [2] news links and find those who had a falling out and why, as I have done and not posted yet, sometimes because of these verification issues). Should we post email replies refuting the posted statements? But you shouldn't post email addresses due to spammers, so how do you verify it? Or a phone call?

I think if you can't verify BOTH sides, don't use it! No matter whether it's pro or con, good or bad.

Re Holly Woodlawn: I can understand why she didn't mention the San Francisco manager by name. Most publishers won't let you do that because of libel laws, particulary in conjunction with that story about the Chinese mafia. But I spoke with people from San Francisco and they confirmed that was indeed Mr. Ferguson. That is how he obtained Andy Warhol's contact info (years after alledgely working with him). And that Warhol never called him back, despite repeated calls from Ferguson. That refutes any alledged friendship or agreement between them, as stated elsewhere and clearly implied here. But I can't verify it to Wikipedia's requirements.

I am merely stating the issues I'm running into and why it's best to remove any statement that give rise to these kinds of controversies.

Re the Avengers and managing: Mr. Ferguson has stated in other print and online sources, some of which I cited, that he managed the Avengers at the time of the Sex Pistols show and was responsible for them being on the bill.

Although he did not expressly state that here, just implied, it goes to his character and questions some of his accomplishments. Over and over again there are "glowing" reports and statements. It's very difficult to prove the inacurracies or at least prove the fact not all the public agrees with the main page. The problem is lack of citations on both sides. Not everyone has posted refutations of what has been posted. Therefore, when I can show a consistent pattern of behavior that Mr. Ferguson states things which others refute, those items that neither side can cite could be taken in a different light.

For example, I've found nothing online, in print, in the film, proving Mr. Ferguson had ANYTHING to do with Penelope Spheeris and her "Decline of Western Civilization."So whom to believe: those who say he had nothing to do with her film or those who let the current text stand on the front page?

If some contributors can show that he makes a habit of claims that are not substantiated and are refuted by authorities, (whether the Ninth District Court, the IRS, published book authors,and the people he talks about), then perhaps other "accomplishments" are also sketchy regarding their validity.

He doesn't say he managed the Go-Go's here, but has stated that elsewhere. I have a list of official Go-Go's sites I've been compiling by merely Googling them. He has played fast and loose regarding some of his "accomplishments." No research has indicated his involvement with the Go-Go's at all.

Therefore, I am establishing the foundation for scrutinizing some of the "glowing things" vs those who are spending HOURS on the net researching and refuting just one statement. There is a lot to research here because so much is allowed to remain which is uncited.

The burden of proof is not on those who post the main page or glowing things here, but those who actually spend the time researching, online and off, to verify the validity or prove false statements presented both on the main page and the discussion page.

I don't understand why the standards are held higher if someone has a 'contrarian' statments when in fact most of the research, by contributors and Wiki editors, Dori in particular, prove Mr. Ferguson's history, statments and citations cannot be verified in many cases. Too much information is missing, and that which exists which going outside his inner circle (those currently working with him, for money or not) often contradicts what he has said or what has been posted by his 'admirers.'

I don't like the idea of two camps: for or against Mr. Ferguson. The issue is public perception based on reality of the people and events presented in the main and discussion pages (as I understand Dori's explanation. If I am wrong, please correct me. I am trying to follow the rules). It's about accurate citations and RESEARCH before posting. Let the public make up its own mind based on thorough research and citations.

My citations have not resulted in anything but my continually having to defend them and little is changed on the main page. That does not make for a balanced discussion here. Every time I want to post more research, with citations, I spend as much time defending what I've already cited. And the original text remains the same. What is up with that?

It's not an "interesting point" about the Avengers. It goes to the heart of this page. What did Mr. Ferguson do or not do and when? Claims are made he managed the Avengers and produced shows with the Go-Go's, so where's the verification? So easy to Google either Avengers or Go-Go's BEFORE posting to verify the information as relayed by those who merely take Mr. Ferguson at his word.

You can't have it both ways: he managed the Avengers and mentioned the Pistols, so the inference is he managed at the time of the Pistols show. Yet if you click on HIS site's links (cited elsewhere herein), he clearly stated to various San Francisco papers that he did indeed manage at the time of the Pistols. He has done the same re the Go-Go's. He has stated, in the press and online, he managed them. Yet I found refutations of all that through a basic Google search. However, I have not posted the Go-Go's links yet because I spent five hours posting on the validity of what has been posted. (not sure where to post it, what category herein?)

Yet this easily refutable information been allowed to be posted and replicated throughout the net for many months. The main issue which bothers and motivates me is by allowing Mr. Ferguson to claim actions he did not do, it takes away the credit for the actual manager, whether Rory Johnston and the Avengers or Ginger Canzoneri and the Go-Go's or the actual person who booked shows for filming of "Decline," which was the director, Penelope Spheeris. (I know I am missing citations, but you can either have this discussion or more citations. But when I post citations, I end up having to defend them, which is what I am doing now. I planned on posting citations today, not spend an hour or two defending that which I have posted.)

It's about giving credit where credit is due. That's my main motivation. It's not to be contrary, but if Mr. Ferguson is making claims that rightly belong to others, then how can Wikipedia allow this? Avengers, Go-Go's and Decline fans more than likely are not even aware of this page. And if they find it, if they post something, are they going to be accused of being "contrarian" and hammered for no citations when the original post has few verifiable citations? Few have the time and motivation to learn how to format this correctly. We can see issues I've had posting, figuring out how to link and sign my name here.

It is standard for rock managers, promoters and producers to be able to list specific dates, venues, at least the month, the year, the venue, or some witnesses, provide some substantiating data. When did he do what he said he did? There is so much online and in books that EVERYONE should be doing their own research before they post. Otherwise they open the door to people like myself to do their research. It's not interesting, it's laborious but it's on point. It's also why I am now sharing my Google terms, so anyone can replicate my path.

I wonder why ALL CONTRIBUTORS and EDITORS aren't held to the same standards? --Damesmartypants (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Buried Treasure Inc. Court Documentation

The case history documentation that shows an 11/1/1994 ruling against Buried Treasure, Inc. also reveals a 2 1/2 year gap followed by a group legal filings in May 1997, with the final filing date listed as May 29, 1997.

The entire court documentation is listed at PACER, which is a source that 'uwishiwasjohng' himself recommended that the wiki reader use for further corroboration of the case history (see 'uwishiwasjohng's January 16 entry above). But now 'uwishiwasjohng' is challenging the veracity of PACER as a viable source when he finds that it inconveniences him.

'uwishiwasjohng' is incorrect in suggesting that I assumed or concluded that Ferguson appealed the case. Instead, I contend it is not possible determine what happened between the 11/1/94 ruling and the filing for change of attorney (May 1997). Perhaps an appeal was made; perhaps not, though it does beg the question as to why Buried Treasure would file a change of attorney request on a case that was supposedly 'terminated' 2 1/2 years before. Nor is any final ruling associated with the case's final filing date of May 29, 1997.

'UwishIwasjohng's' point about how different assumptions could be applied when reviewing the case documentation only bear out the uncertainty of the secondary source used as the basis for including this case in Legal History. Therefore, the text in the article noting the uncertainty of the outcome most certainly should remain in place...or, all references to the case need to be taken down. DrJamesX (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

THE JUDGMENT STANDS. I don't even know who is saying what, but some are playing fast and loose with LEGAL JUDGMENTS. I posted the judgment and until or if anyone can post any REVISED ADJUDICATION or REVERSAL, the JUDGMENT AGAINST Buried Treasure aka Mr. Ferguson vs Frontier Records STANDS.

Didn't you read what I wrote above about the "Ted Stevens" line and how it was vilified on ALL the news? That's the stand taken when casting any doubt or "uncertainty" about a VERDICT. In Stevens' case, he has the right to appeal, but he's guilty until or if the verdict overturned. In Mr. Ferguson's case, unless anyone can produce an updated legal verdict, he lost. Game over.

ON what grounds is this true: "the text in the article noting the uncertainty of the outcome most certainly should remain in place"? IT'S ADJUDICATED. IT'S OVER. HE LOST. MOVE ON!

NO UNCERTAINTY. When is this issue going to be resolved?

IF there were ANY legal question, ANY UNCERTAINTY, Ms. Fancher could not today be selling the Avengers recordings on two CDs from Frontier Records, available from Amazon, as I cited and linked above, 15 years after the FINAL judgment.

Mr. Ferguson sued and LOST. Speak to an disinterested attorney, one not representing any party in this case, and they will tell you: Ferguson lost. He couldn't prove his claims. Slam dunk, it's over.

By burying or removing or casting doubt on this case, the result prejudices people towards Mr. Ferguson and against Ms. Fancher and Ms. Houston, who provided the LEGAL CONTRACT which proved Ms. Fancher HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE THE AVENGERS RECORDINGS. You are opening a Pandora's Box for potential litigation by others because you are misrepresenting the fact they prevailed and Mr. Ferguson lost. Do you want to go there?

I believe these statements contradict Wikipedia's requirements. No one can debate the validity of a FEDERAL LEGAL JUDGMENT on the grounds it is "uncertain" when all evidence PROVES it resolved against Mr. Ferguson.

--Damesmartypants (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

DrJames/Damesmartypants

My point is simply this; Until you can substantiate your claim with a published citation, you cannot use it in a Wikipedia article. What DrJamesX is saying in this article has two problems

1. He continues to use the 10/24/994 document to refer to an 11/01/1994 document, an 05/1997 document, and a page that simply lists the events in the court history.

2. He states a conclusion, based on looking at a gap in activity, that is his opinion and that he hasn't substantiated with a second opinion

Here is the difference between what I've written and what James has written. What I wrote is taken from a Decision, and not just any decision, but a Summary Judgement. What James wrote is based on other court documents that were filed that are not decisions. Decisions are important. They are the basis of our legal system. If you can find another decision regarding this case, please post it. As Damesmartypants says, it's one thing to file change an attorney, another to file an appeal, yet another to have it heard, and still yet another to have a decision overturned. I only see evidence of the first. If you're going to say something, it's up to you to prove it Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Go-Gos and Mr. Ferguson's Claims He Managed Them

I don't know where to insert this, but Mr. Ferguson has claimed online and in print that he managed the Go-Go's. I merely Googled Go-Gos David Ferguson Ginger Canzoneri. I never found ONE reference to Mr. Ferguson, but many official and witness sites and books, all verifying Ginger Canzoneri was their first manager, who took them to England, who got them signed.

It is a great disservice to make a claim that rightfully belongs to Ms. Canzoneri's perseverance and vision, which enabled the Go-Go's rose to fame. Yet Mr. Ferguson has repeatedly stated he managed them, just like he managed the Avengers earlier than he did.

San Francisco Chronicle/Gate or sfgate.com listed on IFUC.org's newsroom page (Stronger than having it here, it's his OFFICIAL SITE IFUC newsroom page. With links that IF followed, offers a lot of information and direction to finding out the validity of some information posted here.)

"Ferguson finds unconventional fits him just right," Lord Martine, Friday, March 29, 2002.

Ferguson: At the time, I was also managing a band from Los Angeles who was having a terrible time getting signed. You might have heard of them -- the Go-Go's.

Q: Of course. A: But as soon as they went to England and performed with the Specials, they got signed there.

PDF What is the Punk Rock Orchestra html version: What is the Punk Rock Orchestra HTML version Mr. Ferguson repeats quote about managing the Go-Go's. I can't download and post it in Wikipedia due to potential copyright issues.

Go-Go's Female Management "The Go-Go's were the most popular all-female band to emerge from the punk/new wave explosion of the late '70s and early '80s, becoming one of the first commercially successful female groups that wasn't controlled by male producers or managers."

GO-GO'S BIOGRAPHY from their record company. They headed into a studio and recorded five songs as a demo. From this, their manager, Ginger Canzoneri, managed to get them booked on a UK tour as an opening act for two-tone trendsetters Madness and The Specials. These two bands were able to convince their label, Stiff Records, to release a single of "We Got The Beat" (with "How Much More" as the b-side) . . . Back in the States and undaunted by their lack of a record deal, Go-Go's participated in an industry showcase at LA's famed Starwood in 1979 -- a concert where label reps see and hear a large number of unsigned bands. It was here that I.R.S. honcho Miles Copeland first heard the girls. But it would be a year before he officially signed them."

The Go-Go's Notebook written by the Go-Go's drummer, Gina. April 16, 2008. Drumming Up Business. June 23, 1979 Gina Schock officially becomes the drummer for the Go-Go’s. Around this time the GoGos also got a new manager - Ginger Canzoneri. Ginger was working at CBS Records at the times. Ginger started doing some artwork for the Go-Go’s and later doing other business stuff."

" Ginger's LA history Go-Go's Vacation cover artist Mick Haggerty discusses being friends with Ginger back in Masque days." [circa 1978-79]

Posh Boy More Ginger's LA history. 1979 The Crowd play their first show, at Wood Sound in Monrovia, opening for the Flyboys and the Go-Gos with a large HB contingent on hand. At this time, Posh Boy was a close associate of the Go-Go's: he put them together with their manager Ginger Canzoneri who re-styled them away from their spiky hair into gay-glo chic."

Ginger art directed for several Posh Boy releases. The Go-Go's manager, a college-trained graphic artist, Ginger, also created fliers for CD Productions and David Ferguson!! Due to copyright issues, I am hesitant to research and post those. I believe she created his New Wave 1980 and PIL posters.

Cinderella's Big Score Margot refers to the "Go-Go's diet" manager Ginger Canzoneri" [put the girls on].

gogos.com for further verification. --Damesmartypants (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Damesmartypants,

Again, I believe what you are pointing is not a contradiction in facts. In the provided citations, Ferguson doesn't claim to have managed the Go-Gos during their UK tour but sometime before. It could be assumed that Ferguson claims to have been their manager before Ginger Canzoneri. If there were a cite that showed that he wasn't, perhaps that would put a question mark on this Lord Martine article. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Buried Treasure Inc. Court Documentation

As stated before the same court documentation that shows a ruling against Buried Treasure shows an unexplained 2 1/2 year gap after which a change of attorney is filed. The onus is on 'uwishijohng' to provide an online link to a court document showing that the ruling against Buried Treasure was in fact the final judgment; otherwise cherry picking a single document from within the overall scope of the case is an unreliable and possibly misleading tactic and very possibly mischaracterizes the legal history in question.

Again, 'uwishijohng' recommendeded PACER for corroboration of the case history. A review of PACER corroborated the aforementioned unexplained 2 1/2 year gap and resulting confusion as to the case's ultimate outcome. Perhaps it would be of benefit to have 'uwishijohng' inform users where he got this document since he now claims that PACER is not a valid source of court documentation for Wiki purposes. Or, again post an link to the document.

If you object to any users referring to the same court documentation to call in to question the eventual outcome, then I recommend taking down any and all references to the Buried Treasure, Inc. vs. Frontier Records/ Avengers/ BMG case because, once again, the court documentation you are sourcing is potentially erroneous, misleading. DrJamesX (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

--

Then clearly the way to resolve this is to take out entirely the case regarding Buried Treasure Inc. I am referring the to same overall court documentation to which you draw from. IT WAS YOU who cited / recommended using the password protected PACER website which you now so conveniently argue is not valid. Again, the documentation that shows the ruling against Buried Treasure Inc. is only part of the overall case history which is posted in its entirety on PACER. You browbeat me for hypothesizing as to what occurred during an undocumented gap of significant proportions. In essence, you prove my point, I hypothesize because the overall documentation from which you cherry picked the ruling is incomplete and inconclusive and therefore the initial entry for the case is misleading. Can't be clearer than that. Either take down the case or put up an online link that takes the user directly to your document. That document should automatically reference other rulings / stages of the court case. Again, it will reference a curious and unexplained 2 1/2 year gap and a 'Date of Final Ruling' of May 29, 1997. Unless those May 1997 mileposts are explained, your entry is really not substantiated.

DrJamesX (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

You aren't getting this. I understand that you are using my citation. I have no problem with that if you use it correctly. This issue I have is that my document is from 10/21/1994. Yours are from 11/01/1994 onward. You can't use mine to prove what you are saying because it doesn't back up what you are saying. It's impossible. It was written before the events in your statements occurred. A citation has to back up what you are saying. It's not just "related" fact. It IS the fact. James, just provide the citation for these documents to which you are referring, making sure of course that the document states exactly what you state it does, otherwise I will mark it. It's simple.

Regarding the "gap" of which you speak, you are going to have a difficult time using this. You will need to find a source that refers to the gap in history in this case. My guess is that there is none and you will not be able to refer to it. Why? Because there is no published source for it. Damesmartypants above has referred alot to this. She cannot publish things she wants to in the article because she has no source. I have a few of these myself.

Regarding password protection, what I allege is not valid is the list you refer to. If you provided proper citations for your documents, those would be valid. My link is valid because I use proper citation. I spent a long time trying to figure out how to do it. Look, I don't make the rules. You provided many links to books which I went and looked up in the public library. I went to a law library to look up my citation. Those are all valid and they aren't available on the web. Check out the external link policy on Wiki. I could be wrong about your list. Maybe you can use it. But when you use it, all you can say is that the list shows that there is no activity between X and Y dates. You can't hypothesize about why.

Above, you use the word "hypothesize" and admit to doing so. You can't do this on Wikipedia. They call it original research WP:OR and it's not allowed. If you have any published evidence that my statement is somehow incorrect or incomplete, provide it. But don't provide the citation I added. It simply doesn't back up your statements. It backs up mine. Please read it. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Damesmartypants Document - Buried Treasure vs. BMG / Frontier Records

I reviewed the pdf file of the Buried Treasure vs. BMG / Frontier Records case, as posted above on January 27 by 'DameSmartyPants' and found that the document was, remarkably...unsigned. UNSIGNED. Can't those resorting to desperate measures to discredit Ferguson at least make reviewing the validity of a court document somewhat of a challenge. That this document was used to reinforce 'uwishijohng's inclusion of the case in his Legal History section is baffling. Unsigned. Incredible.

Because the document is unsigned and not stamped or certified by the court, it is not a proper document. It is further evidence of the incompleteness of the court record as found in the available sources used for citation. Needless to say, the document proves nothing about the ultimate outcome of the case.

Please see Judgment_(law) and summary judgment. Uwishiwazjohng(talk) 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As demonstrated by the two citations included the article's reference section...

-Buried Treasure, Inc. V. Frontier Records, BMG Music, The Avengers, et al., C93 3246 EFL (N.D.Cal May 22, 1997). -Buried Treasure, Inc. V. Frontier Records, BMG Music, The Avengers, et al., C93 3246 EFL (N.D.Cal May 29, 1997)

...court documentation for this case turns up in May 1997. A May 29, 1997 'Date of Final Filing' shows that the citation used by 'uwishiwasjohng' (*Buried Treasure, Inc. V. Frontier Records, BMG Music, The Avengers, et al., C93 3246 EFL (N.D.Cal October 21, 1994) was not the final ruling or activity on the case. And its not hypothesizing to conclude that a court clerk would have rejected any filings made in May 1997 on a case closed in 1994.

I have not made the same assumptions you have about what a court clerk would do. I do not understand the inner workings of the court sufficiently to know what a court clerk might or might not do and when certain documents can be filed in which jurisdictions. And the case was not closed, it was dismissed. See Litigation. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This entry for the Buried Treasure vs. BMG / Frontier Records case must be removed in its entirety. Its inclusion compromises the integrity of the article by casting a unwarranted assumption of guilt on Ferguson / Buried Treasure Inc. DrJamesX (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

Again, please see Judgment_(law) paying particular attention to the second paragraph which talks about entry of judgment. When you are done, go back to that search you did on PACER and look at the events in the case, paying particular attention to the notice filed on 11/11/1994 and entered on 11/14/1994. That notice is an entry of judgment.

Here is what you can say about this, and you will need to provide the correct citation for it. "In May of 1997, Mr. Ferguson changed his lawyer in this case." That's it. That's the ambiguity. There is nothing else. If there is, prove it. Otherwise, please stop trying to pass off your opinion as fact Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Using the court documents themselves is generally not considered the proper sourcing for Wikipedia. They are primary sources and what we should be using as references are third party analysis and commentary and explanation based on those primary sources. Start looking for these. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed Legal History Section in its entirety

Based on The Red Pen of Doom's ruling, the entire Legal History section was taken down.

Using the court documents themselves is generally not considered the proper sourcing for Wikipedia. They are primary sources and what we should be using as references are third party analysis and commentary and explanation based on those primary sources. Start looking for these. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think he was talking to you, DrJames --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No third party commentary or analysis has been produced for cases which another Wiki admin (Ed Johnston) deemed frivolous when he reviewed and dismissed a bogus sock puppetry claim submitted by 'Uwishiwasjohng':

This report is quite implausible. All I see is that David Ferguson (impresario) has been the scene of many disputes; that there seem to be COI-affected editors here and there, that there are WP:UNDUE weight questions about how much to emphasize his legal troubles (an ongoing penalty of $10.85 a day is unlikely to deserve space in the article, and in fact the whole Legal section appears to be small potatoes); there is quite a lot of indignation and there are people who write at great length. Geolocating the various IPs, which anyone can do, shows that there are editors from New York City, from Stanford University, and from Montreal Canada. It is hardly credible that User:DrJamesX is the controlling mastermind of such a diverse empire. I see nothing that merits even a Request for Checkuser. There could be some policy violations in the editing of the article, but I encourage the users to open an article WP:RFC if they want to bring in outsiders to help with a specific question. In my opinion, the sockpuppet report should be closed. I'll let it rest for a day or two to see if any other comments come in. There is also quite a bit of good-faith editing going on, and a lot of people who are trying to do the right thing, although they hold very different views of what that might be. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)(see Jan 1 entry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DrJamesX):

Yes, I wasn't as prepared as I should have been for that report. I've learned and will spend more time and effort on such things the next time. I decided not to pursue this since many of the editors were bowing out at time but if this sort of thing happens again I will pursue it again in a more organized manner

But regardless, EdJohnston seems to be missing to point. Lots of small potatoes might be the equivalent of one large potato. I agree the section was far too large and trival. See my proposal below --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Another admin CalenderWatcher also challenged the 'soapbox' nature of the Legal History section and efforts by some users who consistently blocked attempts to remove the Legal History section:

"Saying that '[l]egally, it is not anyone's responsibility to summarize legal documents but it's quite improper to remove them when they go to the character of the man portrayed in this article' is utterly irrelevant: legality or legalism have nothing whatsoever to do with things, but standard editing and inclusion policies do. It is perfectly proper and WELL within policy, practice and guidelines to remove and/or summarise material which is redundant, verbose, overly detailed and overly unbalanced. Once again, Wikipedia is NOT soapbox for some sort of crusade. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If my memory serves me well, this was in response to User:Damesmartypants decision to place quite a bit of unsourced material into the article but also seemed to refer to what was happening in the rest of the article at the time, which was that it was unbalanced in favor of subject and had large amounts of redundant, verbose and unsourced material. I believe CalendarWatcher was talking to all of us. Placed in context, this quote doesn't support your argument --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

'Cottonshirt' also questioned the relevancy of including this Legal History section:

I think we are losing sight of the aim here. We are trying to write a NPOV biography of a living person in 1500 words or less. We should be thinking about how to improve the article and make it say more about whatever it is that makes him notable. Including a whole raft of petty court claims over photo-copier leases does not improve the article, it does not speak to what made the man notable. Many companies have a special budget specifically for dealing with just these sort of petty claims so that they can just write the cheque and get on with something more relevant. I think you guys should consider doing the same. Cottonshirt (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There now exists administrative rulings to remove the Legal History section.

I will wait until User:TheRedPenOfDoom comes back, and I hope s/he does. Perhaps I will get an education as to why I am wrong to include my section. Perhaps I will not. --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DrJamesX (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX

I dont think you can quite claim "administrative rulings". Wikipedia works by consensus interpretations of the policies that we as a community have agreed that we will use as the basis for creating an online encyclopedia.

I do think that you can state that there appears to be a number of editors that strongly question / oppose the inclusion of the legal history section as it existed and that the opposition is based on generally applied interpretations of our policies. Therefore, those wishing to include the material need to make a better case for including such material, perhaps in a different manner, and should make their case by showing how the inclusion is supported by our policies and guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this, as a general rule of thumb: this article should contain information from reliable verifiable secondary sources. And nothing else.

What this means: Nothing where a link to a court case is the only source. Nothing about Andy Warhol. Nothing about Buried Treasure. Nothing about Holly Woodlawn. Unless you can find actual sources (and please do!).

Any chance of this? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just want to speak up for myself here. I never wanted to add more than a sentence or two about Ferguson's legal history. People asked that I provide more evidence, so I did. I don't think it deserves any more than small mention in the article. I do think it ought to be mentioned. Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal History Section For Comment

I am inviting User:TheRedPenOfDoom and User:Cottonshirt back to make specific comments on the section as it stood before its removal. I am doing this because, based on my reading, I am not convinced that either of them intended everything to be removed. I will comment below and I encourage all editors to weigh in but please do so in an organized fashion and properly indent using the colon character

Deletion Proposal

Editors,

I am now in partial agreement with DrJamesX and convinced that my contributions to the Legal History Section as it stood may violate WP:SYN,WP:V and WP:OR. I am proposing we delete the article and the discussion and start over from where it article stands. As proposed by User:DoriSmith, we should only use reliable secondary sources in this article, which means the Legal History section should not be restored until better sources can be found -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DoriSmith stated that I am not requesting deletion but Oversight and I agree. I'll be working on this. No need to respond to the deletion request --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable and verifiable secondary sources is not my proposal—they are what WP requires.

My own opinion: I think that House of Tudor and Ferguson finds unconventional fits him just right don't meet the criteria, and so, should not be used. And once you've taken those out, you've got pretty much nothing left.

While you can't {{prod}} this article to get rid of the history (which you want, for some reason), I wouldn't object to putting it up for WP:AFD. After all, as WP:BIO says, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." If we can't find significant coverage, then WP shouldn't have an article on him at all. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I will fully support you. Having spent my day reading wikipedia policy, my stomach full of crow, I have come to the same conclusion but I fear I have lost alot of credibility so I wouldn't start such a thing but I have your back if there's anything I can do.

It's bound to be controversial here, but I would suggest folding what little is left after removing SF Weekly and East Bay Express references into CD Presents which actually might be notable. That article is also not in good shape either, though -- Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I started a thread about Alternative News Weeklies such as SF Weekly and East Bay Express here. User:Yiloslime seems to think we can use the articles if we preface it with something like, "David Ferguson told the SF Weekly he worked with .... ". What is the consensus here? Given that stipulation, much of the language in the article will need to change and some of it may be awkward, because every time an alternative weekly source is used, it will need to prefaced, and that will start to get clumsy.

I propose that the entire paragraph about Vaughn Bode be removed. No adequate citations have been provided other than a cartoon that is dedication to someone named David Ferguson. I gave the authors the benefit of the doubt but I'm afraid this just doesn't comply with WP:RS --Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2