Talk:Joshua Gardner/Archive1

message: See history and discussion at Duke of Cleveland. - Reaverdrop 00:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin

message: The following was commented in the article. I suppose it would better stay here in the talk page:
:Obviously a fraud, as Cleveland is an English title, while Crichton-Stuart is a Scottish surname. While the first creation was indeed for the mistress of a Stuart (Charles II of England), Gardner claimed to be the "Fifth Duke," which would point to a descendant of the Vane family, as the last (fourth) duke of Cleveland was Harry Powlett, 4th Duke of Cleveland, born Harry Vane. The family through collateral descendents still carries the title Baron Barnard. Moreover, there hasn't been a new non-royal dukedom created since the late nineteenth century, and there hasn't been a royal dukedom conferred on a Jacobite since 1725, and that creation was illegal. Furthermore, the Jacobite succession (which Gardner was claiming, given the surname Stuart) has since passed to the House of Wittelsbach, the deposed Kings of Bavaria. Therefore, he ought to have claimed the name Herzog von Bayern (see Franz, Duke of Bavaria).  Finally, new creations use their own numbering, so he would have been the first duke, not the fifth. This, ladies and gentlemen, is why vandalizing an article on the peerage is plain idiotic. (written by Mackensen)
This little essay is quite interesting. - Liberatore(T) 13:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only on Wikipedia... Madame Sosostris 15:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: What's with the "Warning" on "MySpace entry for the "Earl of Scooby" (WARNING: Site contains mature content.)". There doesn't seem to be anything "mature" there whatsoever. - Nunh-huh 00:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see anything worth warning users about. I'll remove the content disclaimer. — TheKMantalk 07:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they had in mind the animated GIF of a naked dancing man. The Witch 15:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning, Will Robinson 

message: It's interesting to note that this particular page was shot on CNN a few hours ago: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caspian_James_Crichton-Stuart_IV_%28Joshua_Adam_Gardner%29%2C_5th_Duke_of_Cleveland --AllyUnion (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also: Special:Undelete/Caspian_James_Crichton-Stuart_IV_%28Joshua_Adam_Gardner%29%2C_5th_Duke_of_Cleveland --AllyUnion (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, not being a role playing fiddler (that is, not an admin) I can't view that page :) (Note, my sarcasm does not apply to all admins, nor to a disdain for the rules, which I don't think are followed nearly enough around here). The Witch 10:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNN 

message: "Fraud" is a legal term with a specific meaning. We can write about "inaccurate content" which Gardner posted, but fraud is a determination for the courts to prove, not Wikipedia. There are a number of requirements to prove a claim of fraud, misrepresentation is just one of these requirements. If you're not going to link to a court case which finds Gardner guilty of fraud, please don't make this accusation in this article. There are plenty of terms for lying which carry no legal connotation.
Also if you're going to revert me, at least leave my style fixes in the article. I fixed a sentence which was written in the passive voice and was promptly reverted by User:The Witch. Rhobite 01:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you brought it up, I thought your style fix was unhelpful and contributed to an inaccurate spin, but that was only my opinion. The Witch 01:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The word fraudulent was used correctly, and it was never stated that Gardner was being charged with fraud. Also, I understand WP:NSR, but that page was shown on CNN, so it does has relevance in this article. "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important." "...the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia. If, in this framework, you link from an article to a Wikipedia page outside the main namespace, use external link style to allow the link to work also in a site with a copy of the main namespace content." (from WP:NSR). — TheKMantalk 01:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you insist that the AfD page should be linked from the article, I guess you could use an external link. Personally I don't see how linking to the AfD (which has one vote and conveys no information about Gardner) is useful, but go ahead if you like. I strongly believe the word "fraudulent" carries a negative connotation. There is simply no reason to use it instead of a more neutral term such as "incorrect". Furthermore, Gardner's behavior doesn't even meet your dictionary definition - it doesn't seem that he wrote the entry "in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain". Rhobite 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The mere use of a term with a legal meaning is problematic. Consider an article which states that someone "assaulted" someone else. Even though "assault" has its own meaning to laypeople, it's a specific legal term and I would shy away from using it unless absolutely necessary. Rhobite 01:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all respect, I do think the the dictionary definition does fit. He posted deceptive content to back up his claims, in order to gain access to a school. He was later arrested, accused of violating his parole and having unsupervised contact with minors. Personally, I don't think using the word "fraudulent" is that necessary, I just thought I should mention this. I do think we should replace "incorrect" with something like "deceitful" or "deceptive". — TheKMantalk 01:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're misunderstanding the case - there's no indication that he intended the entry to be read by the school or its students in order to support his claim to be royalty. He wrote the Wikipedia article several months before he attempted to gain entry to the school, and the entry even helped students find out his real name. I really doubt that he wanted the students to read the entry and find out his real name. I would also prefer it if we didn't ascribe intent to him. "Incorrect" is a neutral term for the information he posted to Wikipedia; "deceptive" makes a judgment about his intent. Rhobite 02:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like Rhobite's trying to give legal advice. Anyway the dictionary definition will suffice for an encyclopedia article, which is not a filing in a court case. Gardner's deceptive behavior does carry an extremely negative connotation, is widely documented (never mind admitted and apologized for by him in published interviews). I have my own notions as to why Rhobite's trying to spin this article and Wikipedia's role in the story (Gardner, the convicted, registered sex offender, or someone pretending to be him, did directly edit Wikipedia articles related to Gardner's fraud at the high school) but we don't have to go there if Rhobite doesn't want to. The Witch 01:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that I'm Gardner? I'm thoroughly confused. I am just trying to apply Wikipedia's NPOV policy here, along with WP:NSR and a few grammar fixes. Rhobite 02:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I never said or implied you were Gardner. Furthermore, I don't think your edits reflect NPoV, I think they represent a spin intended to mostly write Wikipedia out of the story. The Witch 02:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You think that I'm trying to write Wikipedia out of this story by correcting the spelling of the word "misspelled", eliminating passive voice, and replacing word "fraudulent"? Although I don't think it's relevant, I changed the AfD link to an extlink, so it is no longer a self-ref. Rhobite 02:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do (minus our difference in the spelling of mis-spelled, obviously). By the way passive voice is not always "bad" and I sincerely thought your fix was not only a spin designed to minimize WP's role in this, but was awkwardly worded. The Witch 02:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not my intention. I think you should try harder to assume good faith. My wording is not that great, but it's an improvement over the old sentence, which uses the passive voice twice ("posted ... by" and "was carried"). According to Raimes, "A general rule is to use the passive voice only when the doer or agent in your sentence is unknown or is unimportant or when you want to connect the topics of two clauses." Passive voice is one of my pet peeves, and it's unnecessary in nearly all encyclopedia articles. Rhobite 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of WP policy regarding good faith and your interpretation of the quoted passage from Raimes. The Witch 02:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with you. Gardner's fraudulent Wikipedia claim was carried for months on at least one mirror. It's still there by the way. The source was Wikipedia, like it or not. It's true that he put his true name in the content too, which the high school students used to uncover his status as a convicted and registered sex offender. The source was Wikipedia... and both ABC and CNN (qualified secondary sources) have reported that Wikipedia carried his fraudulent claims. The Witch 02:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you haven't actually disagreed. I haven't said that someone couldn't have been misinformed by information appearing in Wikipedia, but the fact (through sheer dumb luck) is that we know of no one who actually was. We know only of those who found Mr. Gardner's record through Wikipedia because of his use of his real name in editing the fake article. - Nunh-huh 03:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah but I'm sort of hinting at the wider issue this represents, ya know? Some people might feel threatened by it, others may quiely read and more or less agree but be afraid of becoming targets for that role-playing variety of admin who's ready to block someone for a week for copy-pasting the wrong dangling participle on the wrong page but whatever, Wikipedia's systemic problems are plain to see here. What if our friend Caspian hadn't left his real name in the WP entry? (I mean, he seems to have needed to link "Caspian" with "Joshua" and all that but what if?) How many more articles, the kind nobody cares about and nobody watches, are being used for this sort of social fraud? The Witch 03:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand your motivation, but I would suggest that your goals are not furthered by making inaccurate statements about what actually happened. - Nunh-huh 03:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading that again. I was asking questions and very specifically did not make any "inaccurate statements about what actually happened." Please try to avoid misrepresenting my remarks, thank you. The Witch 03:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't represented your remarks, so I can hardly have misrepresented them. - Nunh-huh 04:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, the wonted Wikipedian dodge. Humour, in the guise of one big happy community tittering along in good faith. Spare me, ok? Though I see you've edited Billie Burke so there must be something meed about you ;) The Witch 04:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not having heard the interview, but nonetheless venturing an opinion, I'd say "worked" is being used synonymously with "fooled people". I'm not sure why his aspirations are pertinent. He's an aspiring King of England, too, I think.  - Nunh-huh 03:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did he want to fool people? Something tells me he's not so brain dead that the registered sex offender thought he could take over Lizzie's public relations job after she exits stage left. I mean, he reported to the nearest police station as soon as his probation officer rang him up on his mobile phone. The Witch 03:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that there are lots of reasons, none of which can be any more than guesses. Wanting to feel important - or a dislike of feeling unimportant - would be right up there. There is plenty of "fake royalty" out there, and they have all sorts of motivations. - Nunh-huh 04:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that, perhaps I might interest you in considering the purchase of a tidy little web site, a Wikipedia mirror, you see, with high Google page rankings, higher even than Wikipedia sometimes and plenty of Google text ads on every copied, out of date and unvetted page... The Witch 04:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraud 

message: Wouldn't he be *styled* Duke of Cleveland? -Tim Rhymeless  (Er...let's shimmy) 22:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the refresher, Nunh-huh :) So... accordingly, I think he'd be styled Convicted and registered sex offender then, huh? Wyss 23:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he could be, but it would be on firmer ground if Her Majesty would say so in Letters Patent.... - Nunh-huh 15:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol. She seems to hand them out like party favours anyway... Wyss 16:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A question

message: I appreciate the effort that the editors on this article have taken.  As of this comment (per the signature date stamp) the article looks good.  It's well referenced and presents Joshua Gardner in an NPOV manner.  The conviction is relevant, as is the background information provided.  The article strikes a fine balance where it conveys the facts of the case along with the appropriate level of ambiguity.  This might have been a sexual predator seeking new victims or a not very bright young man on a desperate quest for respect.  Either way his behavior was out of line and that high school has a fine set of student journalists.  There might remain a little fine tuning - I'm not an expert here - but I'd like to congratulate the editors here on a fine job. Regards, Durova 07:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: Ive replaced the improper ref tags with template ref tags. HTML tags made the article impossible to use, and bolstered Wyss desire to keep it as it is. Now it can be edited. -Ste|vertigo 08:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: Done. Please check links to see they match up. Note that in-article external ref links typically belong at the end of a sentence, not in the middle. Placing them at the end of a paragraph is preferable, and makes editing around them easier. And thats what wiki is all about isnt it? -Ste|vertigo 09:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth be told, I agree that it could be equivalent but I also have serious reservations stemming from "coerced or forced." I sincerely think we need a citation from a secondary source before using the term "statutory rape" or saying he was actually convicted for having underage sex. Something else may have happened which aggravated things to the point where he was arrested. I'm not a lawyer, but here in Europe, people aren't usually arrested for underage sex with 14 year olds unless some other sort of abuse (uhm, like coercion or force, or abuse of authority) was involved. Wyss 20:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. That makes sense, though I would be more deferential to using the statutory term. In the United States the terms forced or coerced can in fact have a rather banal meaning - any statutory rape can be considered forced or coerced if in fact the state does not consider the underage participant to be capable of acting on their own free will and judgement. In Europe things are a bit more relaxed simply because the culture has been around much longer, and any definition of 'coercion' is not abused by using it abiguously. In the U.S., the puritannical element still tries to hold on to its minor statutes and issues, even when it represents a diminished respect for the free will. In fact, the AOC issue is at the centre of the free will issue ; evangelical conservatives may consider too much freedom to be dangerous to the soul. Its hard to disagree with either view, except to say that laws will reflects any inconsistencies within the different levels of social government. - Ste|vertigo 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a citation which mentions the connection between the age of consent in Minnesota and Mr Gardner's troubles there, thanks. Wyss 20:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have to say thats inferrable at the encyclopedic level. If we are to rely on citations, then we must rely on news sources, which may be limited or incomplete. I prefer to make a distinction between news stories and facts --they are two different things, just as newsworthiness and encyclopedicality are different things. If you say 'we cant do research outside of the given sources,' and 'we cant use more precise language than the ambiguous language used in the Minnessota law,' then my assertion that this article is indeed lacking the necessary importance to exist is substantiated tremendously --even if the teenagers at AFD prefer to see it as a 'how Wikipedia helps the world,' and 'what great sleuths we are' story. -Ste|vertigo 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That wasn't a revert. I re-wrote over your re-write trying to keep intact as much of what you'd done as I thought I could. We disagree about my writing. You're the one, by the bye, who mis-conjugated verbs and let slip other sloppy mistakes though I only bring it up because this is the second time you've accused me of poor writing. I don't think it's my writing though, I think you believe and want to have the article reflect a PoV the age of consent laws in Minnesota are unfair to misunderstood 22 year old imposters like Mr Gardner. If my edits to the article were contributing to a spin you liked, I don't think you'd have much complaint about my writing, thanks. Wyss 20:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Sorry. I must mention that the term 'impostor' is imprecise. He claimed to be someonewho in fact did not exist, that's misrepresentation, not impersonation. Impersonation in the united States is a crime only when its about someone in a position of authority. A duke of England would have less authority than the groundskeeper, and therefore there is no issue of impersonation. -Ste|vertigo 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite 

message: The Minnesota statute defining 4th degree criminal sex conduct that I could find is here: .  It looks consistent with a typical case of an 18 yo dating a 14 or 15 yo and having consensual sex.  The "coercion" is because the crime is statutory rape and rape is coercive by definition (i.e. minors can't give legal consent even if they want to).  So I think the perp's explanation should be included in the article. 06:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does seem to be what an AP journalist hinted at but without a direct citation from a reliable secondary source using the term statutory rape in connection with the original conviction, that term shouldn't appear in the article. Wyss 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th degree criminal sex conduct 

message: Something is still wrong; this reads like it was taken from a newspaper article (especially the sentence "As part of the deception Gardner posted a fake article about his persona on Wikipedia, a freely editable encyclopedia."). Ardric47 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article sounds like it was lifted from a newspaper, though the "Wikipedia, a freely editable encyclopedia" line sounded a bit too adlike or whatever so I've tweaked that paragraph. Wyss 19:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Rewrite?