Talk:Norman Golb

Raphael Golb

Should be something about how his son was convicted in a court of law for conducting a campaign of spam and harrassment against the "enemies" of his father's theories[1]... AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That information keeps being inserted and then removed by "interested parties" with higher editing privileges, wikipedia editors are so "neutral" don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.197.89 (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors: this junk should be removed from this article. It was originally inserted by one of the parties involved in the Raphael Golb prosecution. The appeal of the case, incidentally, is still pending. The moral consequences for Wikipedia are enormous. I have done my best to make the insert more neutral, but it should be deleted in its entirety and the article should be blocked in a form without it. If Norman Golb's adversaries wish to use his son's legal problems to smear the father, they should simply create a Wikipedia page on the Raphael Golb prosecution. Polo244 (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As this is the biography of the father, not the son, it is completely inappropriate to dwell on the son's legal problems here. This is a violation of our core content policy WP:BLP and I have removed it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It was replaced by a writer - I removed it again as I agree with you and the complainant - www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2014/May14 - this also is old news, the complainant reports it is all cleared - wiki should not be reporting legal documents of a primary nature so outdated - go create Raphael Golb - Mosfetfaser (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The son's legal woes are directly related to his father's work. This is not a case of a son doing something illegal, which I would agree it does not belong here. But in this case, the son did something illegal in relation to his father's work as an historian. So, we have to include a mention. Check the sources, and you will see what I mean: all the sources refers to his father's work. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

But the issue is nothing at all to do with the father and this is his story - I also don't support you using a fifteen month legal primary doc - the current status of which is disputed, have you anything up to date regarding this issue? Mosfetfaser (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

2013 New York Times article: [2], and a few others: [3], [4], [5], [6]. This was a controversy about Raphael Glob, not just his son. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

No seeing any reports that the father had any involvement in this at all. Mosfetfaser (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the father had an active involvement. But the father's work was at the center on this controversy as reported by sources. That's what counts, not our opinion. The notability of the subject is what makes this article possible in WP, and this controversy about his work is part of that notability. The fact that the the main actor of these crimes was his son, is not what's relevant. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

So perhaps write a separate story about that controversy, however it has nothing to do with this persons actions I also note that the 'crimes' seems there is a retrial in progress and his convictions have been reverted? Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Polo244 (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)From the documentation at http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/ it is clear that there is currently a motion pending for reargument concerning the remaining charges based on constitutional grounds. The real reason for wanting to keep the info about Raphael Golb's "legal woes" in this article seems quite transparent, particularly in view of the way the material had been presented. I would again reiterate that the authors of the insert need merely open a Wikipedia article about the Raphael Golb trial. I would also recommend that they wait until final legal decisions have been rendered by all appellate courts and then do their best to reflect all perspectives on the case so as to avoid any potential legal controversy.Polo244 (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norman Golb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050915230009/http://home.uchicago.edu:80/~ngolb/ to http://home.uchicago.edu/~ngolb/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)