Talk:Arthur Kemp

The link I posted in "External Links" is by an amateur Portuguese historian with the same academic credentials in this field as Arthur Kemp.

It would appear that Mr Kemp is currently in the midst of an extensive rewrite of his own biographic article.. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

encyclopedic notability

Even as a published author, I'm not feel'n it. and may propose this for deletion in a couple of days. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

The sources used mostly don't seem to be reliable sources. I removed a few things that were clearly not good sources, marked a few places that need sources.

Mr. Kemps blog and books are only good for his opinion and response to things, not as facts for the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[PA by USer:Arthur Kemp removed. See his talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)]

after looking a bit more at splc, I'm inclined to remove the whole section as unverifiable. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum to either bash or promote anyone. I also put a note at the reliable sources noticeboard, hopefully some regular there has already investigated the reliability of the splc. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

also please sign your posts with four (4) tilde's (~), or the signature button (next to the red circle ignore wikiformatting button at the top of the edit box). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the SPLC section is completely inverifiable, and, as I have said before, an obvious personal attack, based on completely made-up and invented alleagtions which have no basis in truth whatsoever. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable?

According to Gnews hits, it might appear so.[1] However, Arthur Kemp should not be editing his own biography, and if he continues to edit war here, he should be blocked from editing. The article itself is quite poor right now, but I think it would almost certainly survive an AfD. SDJ 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

hmm, yeah. I guess so. Likely that stuff will take the article to places the subject will object to. Have to be a bit later though, to check out the newsbank articles. Hopefully, Mr. Kemp doesn't do something to get blocked in the mean time. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If no one else cleans this mess of an article up, I may do it myself. As you say, Kemp may not like where the reliable sources take it though, so I'm not real anxious to dive in right now. SDJ 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable sources? All that will show is what I posted originally.

Once again, I want to highlight was happened here:

1. An anonymous poster made a Wiki entry on myself, quoting an utterly unprovable and unsubstantiated pack of lies;

2. I edited the entry, using references, pointing out the huge number of serious factual errors (starting with simple stuff such as getting my birth date wrong -- so much for the 'facts' being quoted)

3. My comments then get rejected because it is my 'point of view.'

I find it bizarre that anyone can post any lie they want to about somebody else, and then where the subject says 'no, that is not true' then his comment gets made out to be the 'bad' one. Amazing.

Let me give one example (there are many. many more). The original article said that I was an international 'contact' with the NPD in Germany. Now, I have never been to a NPD meeting, know no-one in that group and have never had anything to do with it.

Now, my comment to that effect gets marked up as needing 'citation' -- how on earth do I 'prove' that something never happened, when there are no references to it, precisely because it did not happen.

I hope you will see that this is fundamentally unfair, and I will not, under any circumstances, stand by while outright lies are published. You are free to say anything that is true -- or even repeat lies others have made, but if you do the latter, you MUST allow me right of refutation. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Quote: "An anonymous poster.." Not true; the original editor was quite properly named as Utinomen (talk), a nom de plume no doubt, but not anonymous. Emeraude (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, .....and other stuff

I have reported this article, as well as Mr Kemp, on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, as well as trying to bring an Admin's attention to Mr Kemp's continued actions. In addition, due to Mr Kemp's above reference to someone as a member of a certain defunct German political party of questionable refute, I posted an attack warning template on his user talk page.Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also reported the original biased article, which consisted of nothing but a pack of lies based on a single report from the well-known extremist leftist SPLC, whose "facts" were so utterly wrong that they could not even get my year of birth right.

As for 'calling someone a nazi' -- anyone reading that entry I made could see that reference purely as an example of how, according to these 'rules', anyone could write anything about anybody else, anonymously, and then when that subject objected, his comments are deleted because it is his 'point of view.'

It was in that sense, and that sense alone, that the remark was made, and it is OBVIOUS from the context what was meant. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again the entry has been edited by another anonymous user repeating the lies from the SPLC (which itself heavily edited its own article on me after first claiming that I actually live in a room in the National Alliance's chairman's house -- which so was so unbelievable that not even they could continue with such an outrageously hilarious lie) and subjectively accusing me of all sorts of things.

As I said before, if you want to keep this article repeating SPLC lies, then you are under an obligation to allow me the right to refute it. If someone makes up a story about me, I have the right to refute it. Common sense and fair play demand it.

Arthur Kemp (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing, removal of sources, etc.

I do not have this page on my watchlist, but I noticed that the attempt I made to reincorporate some of the information from the Southern Poverty Law Center was removed. There was a note about this on WP:RSN to which I responded. I'm fairly certain the version that was reverted is better than the current version, so I'm going to revert back. However, if someone would like to explain exactly why we must remove any and all mentions of SPLC, please be my guest. I will note that the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. It could be that the SPLC is totally lying (I doubt it, but anyway). That doesn't matter to Wikipedia as long as it is properly attributed to them and it is clear to the reader that it is their accusation.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is not 'removing any reference' to the SPLC, but simply allowing me the chance to refute their subjective, and for the greatest part, invented allegations. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuous Removal of Refutations

All I have asked for is the right to equally refute allegations made against me. Please desist from removing these refutations. Arthur Kemp (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop editing the page per WP:COI. Your claim is in the appropriate section, and the claim is well referenced by a wp:rs. The fact you work for the BNP doesn't strengthen your denial. Verbal chat 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you reveal your subjectivity in the matter. As I have said repeatedly, I have not asked for the deletion of the allegations, merely equal space for refutation thereof.

I find it peculiar that you yourself put in my refutation at the bottom of the article, along with the SPLC claims, and then later add the SPLC claims once again, in the introduction, but this time seem intent on leaving out my denial. Why is that? What is your motive? Arthur Kemp (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't say "he has denied these allegations" because you haven't done. You must do it outside wikipedia and then cite where you denied them, otehrwise is constitues original thought which is not allwoed on wikipedia.--Patton^t/c 18:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• The fact is, if you continue editing in this manner, you will be blocked. This article isn't meant for a debate on your character. It's meant to be an accurate representation of what reliable sources say about you. SDJ 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

AK, you have a COI here, and are going to get into trouble if you persist (however, you are very welcome to continue adding stuff to the talk page). That said, I think I'm on your side for the moment, on two grounds.

1. The SPLC says Arthur Kemp, a South African intelligence official in the era of apartheid, has been trying to resuscitate the neo-Nazi National Alliance in the United States. If we believe the SPLC, why aren't we reporting its claim that AK was an Int Off?
2. Why are people removing [2] the assertion that he has denied the allegations of being a WS? AK *is* a RS for his own opinions, and I think he's made it pretty clear that he does deny these allegations (no? maybe no - AK, could you clarify this please?). I don't even see why this is controversial - just about everyone except out-and-out racists would deny that.

Oh, and note: you haven't *refuted* the allegations: you have *denied* them, a very different thing.

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Pat

I have removed all unsourced statements and removed an unreliable source. Arthur Kemp you are to stop editing your own article or you will be blocked. You have already crossed over into edit warring, but I am not going to block as you are a new editor and obviously confused about how Wikipedia works. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this [3] somewhat unnecessary? Its a non-controversial fact, and appears to be a good source for it anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the BNP aren't generally a RS, I think for the name of their web editors we can trust them. I also think the two sentences I added to the lead summarised the article content ok. Verbal chat 19:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure guys, that's fine if you wish to add whatever back in etc. I didn't check who added it, just did a quick sweep over of all the stuff that seemed unreliable etc. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"knowing" people who were found guilty

Is the allegation he "knew" people who were found guilty of a crime actually proper in a BLP? Is there a possibility of "guilt by association" inherent in such a claim, no matter how it is cited? Collect (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)