m WPBIO banner fixes + cleanup (Task: 17) using AWB (8423) |
69.159.29.223 (talk) |
||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
------ |
------ |
||
Looks like Carrie is trying to sanitize his own past and remove anything he doesn't like whilst having another go at anyone with the surname "Tolkien" on his website. Is Wikipedia going to be party to this?! I vote to reinstate the details of the case and Carrie's past in relation to the Tolkien family. After all, it was all sourced and referenced. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=375906595 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=375909101 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=376062010 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=364985847 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=356641748 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=341525069 etc there are more if you view the page history. [[User:Dogdazed|Dogdazed]] ([[User talk:Dogdazed|talk]]) 17:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC) |
Looks like Carrie is trying to sanitize his own past and remove anything he doesn't like whilst having another go at anyone with the surname "Tolkien" on his website. Is Wikipedia going to be party to this?! I vote to reinstate the details of the case and Carrie's past in relation to the Tolkien family. After all, it was all sourced and referenced. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=375906595 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=375909101 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=376062010 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=364985847 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=356641748 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=341525069 etc there are more if you view the page history. [[User:Dogdazed|Dogdazed]] ([[User talk:Dogdazed|talk]]) 17:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
D.D.Grant: How interesting that someone has appropriated my twitter id "dogdazed" and even gone to the extent of adding an entry which paraphrases a note I make on my twitter profile! So this is the standard adhered to by Wikipedia and the "Solicitrs" with their commitment to legality! I wonder what IP address the entry can be traced to? In the meantime I will have my legal representatives look into this outrageous and blatant misrepresentation of me. |
|||
: '''Agree'''. IF the Carrie stuff were to be included at all, it should only be allowed in if balanced by material regarding Carrie's conduct in this matter. Either keep it out, or include it with counterpoise; otherwise it violates NPOV. [[User:Solicitr|Solicitr]] ([[User talk:Solicitr|talk]]) 16:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
: '''Agree'''. IF the Carrie stuff were to be included at all, it should only be allowed in if balanced by material regarding Carrie's conduct in this matter. Either keep it out, or include it with counterpoise; otherwise it violates NPOV. [[User:Solicitr|Solicitr]] ([[User talk:Solicitr|talk]]) 16:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:50, 6 February 2013
Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
Middle-earth Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Merge from Baillie Tolkien
Please merge relevant content, if any, from Baillie Tolkien per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baillie Tolkien. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:16Z
Necessary?
Wow. Is this page necessary? I mean, come on, the Tolkien family tree extended so far? --WongFeiHung 02:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- This was originally a template, and nominated for deletion. The rough consensus of that debate was that the information was worth having, but that it made no sense to include the family tree in every article about a member of the Tolkein family. Therefore it was moved from being a family tree template template into being an article which includes a family tree. —dgiestc 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I still think this is garbage. This article is absolutely pointless, trivial, useless. No one cares about the Tolkien family tree, no one knows who 3/4 of those people are --WongFeiHung 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I find it interesting. I don't know why, but that's how it is. I don't know why, but I think I can't be the only one. HustonJMarble 22:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Huston. Random note: Ruth Tolkien is apparently blind (and an excellent student)([1] - I'm assuming the girl mentioned is the same Ruth Tolkien, but the timing looks like it works out). The Jade Knight (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I still think this is garbage. This article is absolutely pointless, trivial, useless. No one cares about the Tolkien family tree, no one knows who 3/4 of those people are --WongFeiHung 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
What an embarrassing page. "A number of other members are notable in their own right." Not if you read wp:notable they aren't for the most part. Greg Locock (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- The page is expanding a little bit too far, I agree. Would you have constructive suggestions as to what to do? Some sort of family tree is useful, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. People can then go elsewhere for the full family tree. For what it is worth, I think Christopher Tolkien and Tim Tolkien pass WP:NOTABLE. I agree with your PROD of Simon Tolkien, and will redirect it to here. Possibly that should happen for Arthur Tolkien as well (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Tolkien). I'm still ambivalent about Edith Tolkien. Carcharoth (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I find it interesting to some degree; both with respect to how it sheds light on J.R.R. Tolkien's life, and because of the fact that several of the other members are arguably notable in their own rights. However, the graph does extend far further than it should. Information about toddlers recently born to non-notable descendants is best saved for personal family pages, not WP. On this WP page, the tree should be limited in extent to notables and their immediate families.Undomelin (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This "article" was painful to look at and worse to read through. I see no point in keeping:
- Arthur Tolkien
- Mabel Tolkien
- Edith Tolkien
- Baillie Tolkien
- Simon Tolkien
That leave only J.R.R. T., Christopher T. and Tim T. Each of these could easily be referenced in J. R. R. Tolkien. Finally, the family tree does not belong here at all. Which results in the ENTIRE article being deleted.War (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Additions
Edited in Christopher's 2nd and 3rd grandchildren, Dmitri and Samuel Solicitr 15:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Query- User:83.197.65.27 removed these entries. The ISP is French; if the removal was made for privacy reasons by a member of the Tolkien family that's fine, but I'd hope that could be stated. Solicitr (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Untrue statements about Chris Carrie in Royd Baker entry
The Royd Baker entry contains the following:
"Christopher Carrie, previously accused of attempting to extort money from the Tolkien family[1], and accused of trying to blackmail John Tolkien"[2]
Both the claim 1. that Mr. Carrie was accused of attempting to extort money from John Tolkien and 2. that Mr. Carrie was accused of trying to blackmail John Tolkien are without any basis of fact whatever. They are merely inventions on the part of Royd Baker who has a specific axe to grind against Mr. Carrie and indeed with anyone who has been a victim of the pedophile assaults of John Tolkien in his childhood.
A check of the Poynter link will show that the item accusing Mr. Carrie of "attempting to extort money" was submitted by - Mr. Carrie! The other link meant to support the accusation of blackmail contains nothing but blog chatter, and indeed Royd Baker cannot put anything more substantial about since there is nothing there to put.
I have deleted the untrue remarks on two occasion but they have been re-inserted by Royd Baker who has in addition had the temerity to accuse me of "vandalizing" the page.
I would note the question raised by another editor as to the necessity of even including people such as Royd Baker in this page but would add that if Royd Baker is to appear here it would be far more the case that an extensive treatment of Father John Tolkien should be added. (I am working on a page for Father John Tolkien in any case).
I expect Royd Baker will be along shortly to delete this page also. --Ddgrant (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- You might expect legal action as well. Fr John Tolkien may be dead, but any publication of Carrie's foul "book" would give rise to defamation claims on the part of several living members of the Tolkien family. Solicitr (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The publication of Mr. Carrie's book is neither in my power nor of any interest to me. [ BLP REDEACTED ].
We now know of course (April 2010) that the Archbishop of Birmingham of the time has in fact [been accused of failing to expose pedophilia][3] and this is consistent with all the other evidence being advanced as the Church finds itself no longer able to suppress the facts. That's apart from the fact of the complainents in the "double digits" who came forward to the West Midlands Police and whose evidence led the Crown Prosecution Service to make the determination that Tolkien would not be prosecuted since it was not in the "public interest" given his health. The CPS website makes it absolutely clear that consideration of the public interest only arises when the evidentiary test has led to the conclusion of a high liklihood of conviction should the case be brought to trial.
Yet another victim of Tolkien's predations has also come forward to the BBC in the meantime: [PAUL BANKES, 54, NEWCASTLE UNDER LYME, UK][4]--Ddgrant (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- "That's apart from the fact of the complainents in the "double digits" who came forward" Completely unconnected, of course, to the fact that they were accusing a senile old man who couldn't defend himself, and just coincidentally was a member of a very wealthy family. Solicitr (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This of course is one of the standard tactics that the Catholic Church tried in the early days, the idea that the complainants were lying for money. All serious observers now agree that it was an utterly immoral and scurrilous attempt on the part of the Church to denigrate the complainants. Only the the completely naive or barefaced liars advance this excuse today.
The "senile old man" was of course perfectly healthy in 1994 when the first complaint, as far as we know, was made to the West Midlands Police. No action was taken on this complaint; no reason has ever been given. It was only when the West Midlands Police learned that a newspaper was pursuing the matter in 2000 that a any action was taken.
We shall have to wait until the Birmingham Archdiocese are forced to reveal what it knows to a UK Public Inquiry to discover what other complaints were made prior to 1994. If the history that has been revealed in other jurisdictions is anything to go by we may expect these to be many.
In the meantime one hopes the comments on here defending Tolkien and attacking his victims is not the usual ethical standard of the fans of J.R.R.Tolkien. --Ddgrant (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- I actually know a little something about the law. In particular I know perfectly well that prosecutors always claim that any charge they bring has "a high likelihood of success"- even when their case is spun from fluff and horsefeathers. After all, as they say, a prosecutor can get ham sandwich indicted if he wants to.
- Even a non-lawyer ought to be familiar with the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." John Tolkien never had his day in court, and is not able to gainsay the accusers who have come out of the woodwork since the (above discredited) newspaper story engineered by Carrie. The combination of the Peter Jackson films and the Catholic child-abuse scandal have, after all, created the perfect environment for a feeding frenzy.
- You say "Only the the completely naive or barefaced liars advance this excuse today." To the contrary: far from being "completely naive", my legal career has made me wholeheartedly cynical, and accordingly never accept at face value the tales of complainants or the grandstanding of prosecutors. Are you suggesting that, since the Church and the Brum archdiocese covered up or denied some cases of abuse, therefore every single claim of abuse must be accepted as true? That nobody is jumping on the gravy train for fun and profit? Please. Only the "completely naive" would buy that.Solicitr (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- For the reference, the Royd Baker entry does not contain anything (anymore). De728631 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
You introduce the link to the Press Complaints Commission with a great flourish, implying that you have just unveiled the critical piece of evidence in support of your contention that Tolkien was innocent and implying that the PCC decision[6] supports your contention. It does no such thing and in fact doesn't even have any bearing on the question. It seems your "legal career" has hardly served you well in your ability to read the simplest documentation since the Press Complaints Commission decision clearly states, and I quote from an email I received on April 27 2010 from the PCC: "the PCC made clear in its ruling on the complaint from the Tolkien family that it was not its task to come to a decision on “the veracity of the serious allegations levelled against Father Tolkien”." Thus your introduction of the link to the PCC decision has neither relevance to the question of Tolkien's guilt, nor, it follows does it "discredit" any question of guilt raised in the the newspaper article. The PCC were not considering such matters, period. Further your charge that the Sunday Mercury article[7] was "engineered by Carrie" is completely without foundation in fact and there isn't a shred of evidence that you, (so concerned as you are for the maintenance of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"), or anyone else can muster to support the contention). It seems your claim to "know a little something about the law" is to be taken literally.
It is odd, if the indication of your pseudonym Solicitr that you practice law in the UK is valid, that you appear to be oblivious to the status and role of the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK. Your remarks about prosecutors appear to reference the US legal system. But anyway the actual status of the CPS in the UK is that the Police and others are often displeased and consider that the CPS have a too high standard of evidence and reject too many cases that the Police consider should proceed. This is entirely different to the US situation, all the more especially given that the Prosecutor is most often, if not always, an elected role in US society. It seems the remarks you make about prosecutors are more likely to refer to the US situation. It certainly suggests strongly that you are not familiar with the way things work in UK. So one must conclude that you in fact know very little about the law, or that you don't in fact practice in the UK and are not in fact a Solicitor at all.
The old cliche about being "innocent until proven guilty" is also irrelevant here. Someone who is deceased can no longer be innocent or guilty. His life and works have now entered the realm of historical research. It is of no relevance whatever that he is no longer around to speak. This research will no doubt continue to the extent that the investigation into the whole crisis of the Catholic Church in the matter of pedophilia continues. It will probably also continue in one or another form in the world of Tolkien scholarship. These avenues of inquiry will run whatever course they run. No amount of non sequitors about being "innocent until proven guilty" will interrupt them, no more than such pleas impact the historical investigation of other personalities and their deeds.
As for your return to the utterly discredited and scandalous charge that the Tolkien victims who have come forward are "jumping on the gravy train for fun and profit", how very strange that it was the wiley Tolkien who himself sewed the seeds of this canard[8] precisely at the time when he must have known that the inquiry into his activitis was about to arrive on his doorstep.
We now come to consider your contention that of all the cases of abuse by priests and other church officers we have to look at Tolkien and conclude that the circumstances are special. They are so for two reasons you argue: 1. due to his wealth as inheritor of the Tolkien fortune (and as he predicted himself in a national newspaper) he was especially open to false claims from those driven solely by the prospect of monetary gain; 2. in his case "even if the Church and the Brum archdiocese covered up or denied some cases of abuse" that is no reason to reject the idea that this single priest, despite the fact that even though he had himself broadcast the idea that he was ripe for picking in a national newspaper; despite the fact that a number of people laid complaints against him with the West Midlands Police (a number in "double digits" confirmed by email to me, (I was one of them)), apart from Chris Carrie; despite the fact that the West Midlands Police forwarded an investigation dossier to the Crown Prosecution Service; despite the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service implied by its decision not to prosecute "in the public interest" that there was a high likelihood of conviction should Tolkien be prosecuted; despite all this you would have us believe that not any other priest but this particular priest was the subject of the intention of people, the majority of whom to this day have remained silent, whose intention was "jumping on the gravy train for fun and profit?" I am afraid that you will only succeed with this extraordinary interpretation of the facts with the "completely naive".
Of course the real game is given away to any person who takes the trouble to look by the absolute determination of Tokiien's defender to continually downplay the number of victims that have come forward. The false assertion that "only one victim", i.e., Chris Carrie came forward is constantly being implied by the failure to mention even myself even though I have been communicating in the public realm for some years. Someone purporting to be the M&C Moderator recently wrote on the Monster & Critics website that Chris Carrie and I had the sam IP address. Really! This is the standard of the commitment to truth and justice of the Tolkien camp, allied possibly with the others with "monetary interests" in the Tolkien brand.
Lastly, it seems to me that someone with such strongly held views and with a background in the law ought to be willing, as I have been, to come on here as who they are in actual life and be willing to stand up publicly when throwing these very serious accusations around. But I doubt that you can do that. I doubt it because if you really do occupy a position in the UK legal profession the bizarre notions you have advanced, not least of which is your contempt for the law exhibited in your malign view of all prosecuting counsel, would have you laughed, if not kicked out of court.--174.88.53.205 (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)--Ddgrant (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- My, what an uncivil tone! In fact, as you surmised, I am an American not a Briton. "The bizarre notions you have advanced, not least of which is your contempt for the law exhibited in your malign view of all prosecuting counsel, would have you laughed, if not kicked out of court" What rot. As defense counsel it's my duty to point out that the prosecutor overstates his evidence. You lay an enormous amount of importance upon the CPS opinion, and its boilerplate language. Let's look behind that, shall we, the "high likelihood of success" standard, the equivaent of US "evidence suffficient for a jury to reach a finding of guilt," in practice amounts to "we have one or more witnesses who will testify that they were abused." Very importantly, the credibility or impeachability of those witnesses is not a factor at this level. If they say so, it's assumed to be true for the purposes of laying an information or indictment.
- I'm making no "very serious accusations." I'm expressing skepticism and doubt- foundation-stones of the Common Law. After all, the legal systems of the Anglosphere still share this fundamental principle: the burden of proof falls upon the plaintiff or accuser. All we have here is your naked allegation, uncorroborated and unrebuttable by the defendant. Are you telling the truth? I don't know. Nobody knows. That's rather the point. The only argument you have adduced to back up your charge is the mob-argument: lots of other people have piled on, so it must be true!
- There are however grounds upon which to be skeptical, starting with your cavalier dismissal of the PCC report, cleverly equivocating so as to assert that it doesn't say what I never said it said. I never claimed the PCC made any finding on John Tolkien's guilt or innocence, which is quite beyond the PCC's ambit: what it did find was that the Mercury story was unprofessional, under- or un-researched, and made serious allegations unsupported by the available facts, "failing to take care that material on which the articles were based was accurate...the basis for the articles was not factually sound: the newspaper had not indicated that the story had been widely or satisfactorily sourced." And, of course, the single 'source' involved was Carrie, who on his own website boasted of having sought out the reporter and fed the story: the story which, by your own admission, got the whole ball rolling, the CPS involved and 'double-digit' complainants coming out of the woodwork, and by which time John Tolkien was in no condition to respond.
- With regard to Carrie, I'm not even a skeptic, I'm a wholehearted unbeliever. The man's allegations made in his self-published "book" go beyond bizarre into the realm of the delusional, declaring the Inklings were a child-molestation ring etc etc. And, yes, he did admit that he lied to make money off the Brum archdiocese. If you do have a legitimate claim, you can only help your credibility by stopping your efforts to defend Carrie, who is practically indefensible. Solicitr (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It has been that long since I paid attention to this web site. The email address I initially signed up with is history and so I had to sign up anew. You [Solicitr] have put your own slant on an extract from my book Klone’it. You say I am delusional for “declaring the Inklings were a child-molestation ring etc, etc”. I have no idea what you’re ect, ect amounts to. What I accurately declared was “The Inklings were a group of writers with a liking to use little girls and boys disguised as Elves and Fairies, as characters in their stories”. How wide of the truth is that? Locate and speak to anyone connected to Oxford University at the time the Inklings were current and they’ll tell you ‘the Inklings were mainly a bunch of weirdo’s and homosexuals’ notorious in and around Oxford. Apart from twisting the facts of what I said about the Inklings, where is your evidence to support “And, yes, he did admit that he lied to make money off the Brum archdiocese”? The one thing I have been consistent in since I began Klone’it is that I never tell lies. Never do I tell lies, borne out by the disinclination of anyone challenging me in a court of law. Klone'it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klone'it (talk • contribs) 11:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ https://www.poynter.org/article_feedback/article_feedback_list.asp?id=41909
- ^ http://markshea.blogspot.com/2003/02/yeah-i-think-its-pretty-fishy-too.html
- ^ http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/sundaymercuryexclusives/2010/04/11/former-archbishop-of-birmingham-accused-of-failing-to-expose-paedophile-priest-66331-26216818/
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8589340.stm
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_family#Royd_Baker
- ^ http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=MjA5Ng
- ^ http://www.thefreelibrary.com/TOLKIEN+THE+ARCHBISHOP+AND+THE+LIE%3B+Victim+was+told+priest+would...-a096940790
- ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1313620/Lord-of-Rings-films-will-force-Tolkien-family-into-hiding.html
Protected
The article has been fully protected against editing for two weeks due to edit-warring and BLP concerns. See WP:AN3#User:Christopher Carrie reported by User:Tonyinman (Result: Protected). It would be helpful if any regular editor (unconnected to the Royd Baker dispute) would try to summarize what has gone on here in the last three months, and propose how to resolve the dispute. Omitting the Royd Baker material entirely from the article is one option that editors might consider. To get wider discussion, consider making a report at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have actually made a report now at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- The issue appears to be one of Christopher Carrie or associated puppets not wanting certain information to appear on WP (or anywhere else.) A search on google and cached pages revealed his website http://www.jtolkien.com has recently been taken down. The information contained in section in question of the WP Tolkien Family entry appears to be properly sourced and verifiably sourced. Whether all of this meets WP notability standards is another question - however this point could be applied (and has been in the past judging by this talk page) to much of the Tolkien Family article. However, the court ruling in 2009 does meet notability criteria on google hits alone and does appear to be a notable precedent in internet/blogging and defamation law in the UK. isfutile:P (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Isfutile, you should have a look at the discussion at the BLP Noticeboard. I'm going to copy your above statement over there. De728631 (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Improve this text
Royd Allan Reuel Tolkien, born Baker in 1969 in Sychdyn, Flintshire, Wales, is the son of Hugh Baker and Michael Tolkien's daughter Joan; thus he is the great-grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien. He grew up on a farm in Sychdyn, where members from the Tolkien Society would annually meet, during which time they would reenact scenes from his great-grandfather's works with other Tolkien enthusiasts.[1] He prefers to use his mother's surname Tolkien.[2] At the request of Peter Jackson, he played a Gondorian ranger passing arms out to other rangers as they prepare to defend Osgiliath in The Return of the King, the final film in Jackson's film adaptation of his great-grandfather's works.[1][3] Royd Tolkien works as a film producer[4] and literary agent.[5] Notable films produced by him include Pimp, wherein he also plays himself.
- ^ a b "Royd Tolkien". BBC - North East Wales Showbiz (BBC. November 2008).
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Royd Tolkien". Tolkien Gateway.
- ^ "He Rings a bell; ..IT'S TOLKIEN'S GREAT-GRANDSON, TAKING A BIT-PART IN THE MOVIE". The Daily Mirror. 2003-12-08.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
(help) - ^ Royd Tolkien at IMDb
- ^ Royd Tolkien Literary Agency
As stated on the BLP noticeboard, I suggest that you all edit and improve the above text, here on this talk page, to create a properly sourced and neutral section covering the material that has been swept along for the ride in this dispute (not the court case). EdJohnston, I, or another administrator will then put such material into the article. Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Carrie is trying to sanitize his own past and remove anything he doesn't like whilst having another go at anyone with the surname "Tolkien" on his website. Is Wikipedia going to be party to this?! I vote to reinstate the details of the case and Carrie's past in relation to the Tolkien family. After all, it was all sourced and referenced. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=375906595 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=375909101 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=376062010 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=364985847 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=356641748 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tolkien_family&diff=376996157&oldid=341525069 etc there are more if you view the page history. Dogdazed (talk) 17:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
D.D.Grant: How interesting that someone has appropriated my twitter id "dogdazed" and even gone to the extent of adding an entry which paraphrases a note I make on my twitter profile! So this is the standard adhered to by Wikipedia and the "Solicitrs" with their commitment to legality! I wonder what IP address the entry can be traced to? In the meantime I will have my legal representatives look into this outrageous and blatant misrepresentation of me.
- Agree. IF the Carrie stuff were to be included at all, it should only be allowed in if balanced by material regarding Carrie's conduct in this matter. Either keep it out, or include it with counterpoise; otherwise it violates NPOV. Solicitr (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion has moved to the BLP Noticeboard - perhaps Solicitr would prefer to enter the discussion there. isfutile:P (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- The BLP discussion can now be viewed in Archive93. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- This discussion has moved to the BLP Noticeboard - perhaps Solicitr would prefer to enter the discussion there. isfutile:P (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Details in Royd Tolkien entry
The birthplace and the location of the farm where Royd Tolkien grew up, which were removed in this revision, are referenced by the BBC (see footnote #37). There's also an interview with R. Tolkien on Youtube where he confirms that he grew up on a farm near Mold. For being the grandson of Michael H.R. Tolkien, we could possibly add a Lord of the Rings fan convention report citing Royd Tolkien himself. But then some might say that it's just a fanpage. And there's also The Tolkien Family Album, a book by two children of J.R.R.T. from 1992 which is used as a general reference in an entry for Royd Tolkien aka Royd Baker on Ardapedia, the German equivalent to the Tolkien Gateway Wiki. This last book would be very interesting to get a hold on to verify the family tree, does anybody have it at hand? De728631 (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)