Talk:Keith Henson/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Keith Henson arrested?

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I just got this mail at the extropy chat mailing list. Obviously this can't be put into the article yet, but if someone can help at finding some news source, or internet resource where there's some reference to this, please reply to this message.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arel Lucas <arellu@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 3, 2007 1:47 AM
Subject: Keith Taken into Custody
To: arellu@gmail.com

(text omitted July 21, 2007)

I am Arel Lucas, and I have removed my email from this discussion list. Suffice it to say that Keith was arrested in Arizona on February 2, released on bail on February 5, 2007, taken back to jail on a no-bail governor's warrant on May 8, fought extradition until May 18 (cost $5,000 contributed by supporters), then was extradited to California on May 25. He has been in solitary for his own protection since May 26. Except for the cost to the defendant and its source of extradition legal proceedings, this is all public record. My emotional reaction to all this is not, and that is why I have removed it. It is also public record that Keith's attorney Mark Werksman is now appealing his conviction in Hemet, California, in April of 2001, and that Keith has not been released pending appeal. If you wish any further information, I will be happy to supply it from arellu@gmail.com I am also going to try to upload another photograph of Keith, since the current one has another person in it who has not given his permission for the photograph to be public. If I don't succeed in doing that I will solicit help.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.136.28.199 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

I can confirm this as I am on the same list - B.K. 16:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Same here, I'm on the list and have seen the email too. Anyone got news about it? Miguel1626 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me B.K. and Miguel1626 can only verify they both saw that email. I did too, but this doesn't seem to help verify the email's claims about Keith Henson.

I personally called the Prescott Detention Center (928) 771-3286 about 1100 Saturday, 3 February 2007. The person who answered the phone told me they have a "Howard Henson" listed under case #389486 with an appointment in Superior court next Monday.

My questions:

Would posting this violate No Original Research?

Does my claim of a telephone call count as a reliable source? --JayDugger 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and no. We must wait for either primary sources to be publicly released in a verifiable fashion (ie. transcripts published online), or for secondary sources to cover this stuff. Remember, Wikipedia is only a tertiary source, by design. --Gwern (contribs) 18:59 3 February 2007 (GMT)

Digg this please! Creating an account in digg is easy. 193.136.28.199 12:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A link to a webzine popped up today in Google news: [1] I am unsure about the reliability of if this report from a non-notable webzine. It may only be using the list email as a source. However, scroll down to the bottom and view the comment that was posted earlier today. That message reeks of cultist, and in my mind that adds credibility to the report of Henson's arrest. However, I don't believe that feeling is verifiable. Gregarious Lonewolf 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just added an EL to a report from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies which seems to be a reasonably reliable and notable organization. AndroidCat 23:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

May be this article should be protected for the time being since the page is being vandilized and of "fair game" ?SACP 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism doesn't look nearly so bad as to warrant semi-protection, much less full protection. --Gwern (contribs) 00:56 7 February 2007 (GMT)

Striping references and fact-bombing

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I've seen both done, rarely in good faith. I think this is the first time I've seen both combined. AndroidCat 04:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Smee 04:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I cannot revert again - but I would hope that others concerned with the truth will revert back about oh, 12 or 13 edits into the past, and get rid of the obvious vandalism and removal of sourced citations... Smee 04:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Don't know what you mean. If you are referring to my edits, they are justified. See the RS and see my comments. I guess the "fact-bombing" means inserting cn templates by BD? OK, instead insert an unsourced template. What is the big deal? --Justanother 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits seem to be fine, but they are built on top of BabyDweezil's striping of valid references and then {{fact}}-bombing the article which I don't think is acceptable. AndroidCat 04:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not look closely enough at the edits to read between one editor's good faith attempts and another's obvious vandalism. Hopefully others will sort this all out. I still think it would be best for someone to undo "BabyDweezil's striping of valid references and then {{fact}}-bombing the article", and go from there... Smee 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

huh?

I removed a whole bunch of references that, e.g., linked to some dude's website when his name was mentioned, but DID NOT in any way verify that he had anything AT ALL to do with the subject. Go back and look at how it was--it's rather ridiculous. I added fact tags to the extensive unsourced material. Wazza matta with that? BabyDweezil 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish that others might take a bit more understanding look at BD's points. While I am no expert on his edits in general, I do not see asking for cn on an article that is a real dog's breakfast is so terrible. Certainly not vandalism; though it is better to pick and choose a bit and use unsourced-section template, IMO. This article is organized terribly, also, and needs major rewrite! --Justanother 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There are too many valid references that were stripped by BabyDweezil to let that edit stand. Some of the references could certainly be contested or improved, but presented with a lump edit like that, it needs reverting. I see that Antaeus Feldspar has already rolled it back before I did. It might have been more productive for BabyDweezil to spend the hour after block expiry discussing it on the Talk page and gaining some consensus. AndroidCat 04:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Resolving merge

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My thoughts on bits of the two versions, feel free to add points, but comments should go under.

"whose retaliation" Yes, of course it was (IMO), but without references of that's what it was, I don't think it can stand.
"The jury was not permitted to hear" Needs a reference. There should be a press story that's citable.
Reference to 'California Penal Code, section 422.6 should remain since it shows exactly what civil rights and law was involved.
Vietnam. Interesting but it's a bit of a sidetrack, isn't it?
Missing: nothing on the other charges that were dismissed.
Hanson [sp] fled to the Unites States. Fled seems POV.

Carry on, I'm either going to bed (logical vote) or watch Stargate:Atlantis (emotional vote). AndroidCat 05:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Same for me (bed). Good points and mine exactly:

Retaliation - POV if unsourced
Permitted to hear - that is retrying the case here. Find a RS, then sure.
Penal code - sure
Vietnam - dross
Missing - sure, add it
Fled - that is what the source said and is what you call it when someone runs instead of appearing

Good night all. --Justanother 06:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is basically unreferenced and an original research essay

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

the references that are in there are fluff--websites for prosecutors, lawyers, and various bits of nonsense but ZERO actual sources how any of them are related to the articles subject. Nothing about Henson himself is referenced--all those other references seem to be there to look like this Original research essay has any sources.BabyDweezil 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The vs. scientology section is using wikipedia as a soapbox for someone's Pro-This-Guy and Anti-scn views. The guy broke some laws and lost some court cases. We don't need a blow by blow account especially since that account is 1) original research and 2) makes horrendous anti-scn assumptions which renders it utterly, obviously, blatantly POV. I mean come on this thing reads like an unedited diatribe from operation clambake. Someone that cares about this guy start hacking the crap out of it please - in discussable chunks. This is not encyclopedic! The vs. Scn stuff is an attack piece, plain and simple. Slightlyright 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us also think about this article from Mr. Henson's point of view. He was held in jail, for a time denied his cardiac medications, and made to sleep with one blanket. The sources are reputable and the account is accurate. Smee 08:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

No, lets not think about it from anyone's POV. This is an encyclopedia. Your appeal to use Wikipedia to advocate for your pet causes couldnt be more obvious (since you said it!). BabyDweezil 08:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP YOUR VIOLATIONS OF Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks!!!. I was merely pointing out that if Slightlyright wants to look at the article from Scientology's point of view and voice his opinion that this reads like an "attack piece" it is also worthwhile to look at the article from the POV of the subject of the article. It was a rhetorical statement and not reflective of my own personal opinions. Yeesh. Smee 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Please calm down. BabyDweezil 08:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should he be calm when you are openly and unrepentantly violating the rules against personal attacks, BabyDweezil? -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Improper and misleading use of referencing

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

The following is an example of the misleading and rather bogus use of sources throughout the article:
Henson stated through counsel^[1] (the reference is to the attorney website, not a source for a statement)
that he is fighting extradition and requested release.
The judge^[2] set a future court date for March 5, 2007 (the reference is to the judge's homepage, not a source for the court date being set) at 1:30 pm in the Prescott Justice Court^[3], and fixed the security for his release at $7,500 cash or bond, with standard conditions. (the reference is to the webpage for the courthouse, not a source for bond being set)

This faux referencing is done throughout the article, largely, it seems, to give a false sense of notability to the subject. Comments welcomed. I do think the bogus/misleading sources should be removed, since they give a false appearance of proper sourcing. BabyDweezil 16:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say "sofixit" but not if "fixing it" means wholesale deletions. The article is already tagged, sonme work is being done on it, so let's see where it goes. I think that the examples that you gave above are easy enough to source and my "sofixit" would be to source them and edit to match the source. No-one can argue with you if you find an RS that covers the material that you claim is unsourced and then edit to match the RS you found. That is an improvement while wholesale deletion is problematic. I go into this topic a bit on my user page under "doing the work". --Justanother 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone who considers the subject notable enough to provide the proper sourcing. As it is, the article is 99.2% lacking in RS's--the references that do appear in the biographical sections follow the same pattern of sourcing events, people etc but not sourcing at all Henson's connection to them. I haven't the resources to establish those connections before my rapidly approaching cryonization. BabyDweezil 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but just keep in mind that if some people are building a house they are not going to much appreciate someone standing on the sidewalk saying "You guys are doing it all wrong". They would not likely object to that same guy picking up a saw and showing them how it should be done. That is what I mean by "just people" here and "the normal interactions of people". I think that certainly most editors and admins here are aware of bias problems and OR problems but since the ones complaining are doing more complaining than fixing then there is a tendency to close ranks and defend the ones that are actually creating articles here against the perceived enemy that appears to be solely interested in tearing articles down. The only solution is to join in, find sources, edit articles. So instead of heading rapidly for the freezer, slow down and contribute. --Justanother 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted and appreciated. And even though some pugnacious Russians from more interesting times have noted the creative side of tearing things up, I, guided as ever by Corinthians, only mean to offer the most constructive of criticisms. BabyDweezil 17:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just like that guy on the sidewalk. "Sidewalk superintendents", we used to call them back when I worked in a ditch up to my waist in water. Big help, they were too. Couldn't have done the job without 'em. Laff --Justanother 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Illustration of above point. Note workers. Note "sidewalk superintendent". Note condition of coveralls on all parties. "Hey, you are holding that shovel the wrong way. Choke up on it more." (Should note that the sidewalk guy seems to be the actual superintendent or foreman; the term "sidewalk superintendent" refers to casual bystanders, not employees. But the image made my point so well) --Justanother 17:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can dig it.BabyDweezil 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I just got that. Man, am I slow :-) --Justanother 19:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This "sidewalk superintendent" stuff is nothing more than a fairly lengthy PA. Tanaats 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, before you go accusing me of PA, would you please be kind enough to let us all know exactly who you think is being attacked??? As in "personal". Kinda needs a "person", don't it? --Justanother 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is abundantly obvious which editors you are referring to. Sarcasm, innuendo, and mocking humor and laughter constitute PA whether you actually specifically name the targets or not. Tanaats 20:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You totally miss what went on above. Sorry if you feel offended but the "target" of my "attack" was BabyDweezil and it was my (pretty obvious, I thought) attempt to persuade him to turn from the path that led him to one block and the threat of another. Don't know why you would take my comments to mean you or anyone else that you know. If they can be taken to mean anyone but BD, it would be pro-Scn editors that are disruptive, and that is what the bit on my user page is about. --Justanother 20:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Just like that guy on the sidewalk. "Sidewalk superintendents", we used to call them back when I worked in a ditch up to my waist in water. Big help, they were too. Couldn't have done the job without 'em. Laff." Tanaats 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(repeat of my post elesewhere) Tanaats, I never doubted for a second that Justanother was mocking me in those comments, and in fact I believe I thanked him for the advice to me more than once. (I'm not going to look for the diffs because this whole thing is getting to childish). However, I might suggest editors take a look at WP:OWN. Without delving too deeply into psychobabble, I can't help think that some of the knee-jerk, trigger-happy angry reverts of my edits, as well as the hostile and distorted "complaints" that led to my brief Wikilynching are rooted in some sort of personal outrage that I have dared challenge a number of distorted bits of POV pushing that have been festering in a number of articles. BabyDweezil 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, another PA, quite blatent this this time, in which you express your attitude towards fellow editors.

And not for the first time, either. See also my comments on your 3RR complaint as regards your prior demonstrated blatent disrespect for fellow editors as well as administrators.

I'm done here. Tanaats 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Tanaats, all due respect but you are one confused wikipedia editor. That are not my words above, that is BabyDweezil. Seriously, if you cannot correctly interprete what you read then you should make accusations against other editors with only the greatest of caution! I sincerely hope that you truly are "done here" if by that you mean "done" trying to make other editors look bad for reasons known only to yourself. --Justanother 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Call me a pedant...

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"OK, you're a pedant." Ahem.

In this edit, Smeelgova italicized a quote that (since Henson tried to have the opinion entered into evidence) can be reasonably characterized as a pro-Henson position, but not the corresponding quote from the Scientologist. It would seem (regardless of my personal opinion of the individuals quoted) that to maintain NPOV, it is unfair by implication thereby to treat one as the horse's mouth and the other as the horse's ass. I conclude one should italicize either both quotes, or neither. Anyone care to try for consensus as to which? Abb3w 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC), SP

I have implemented your suggestion... Smee 06:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

After checking WP:MOS, I believe that these italics are inappropriate in both cases, and will Be Bold and {{fixit}}. Abb3w 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability, verifiability, original research

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article needs a major quality check. His bio data is not verifiable, he himself is notable because is a refugee from justice and the main part of the article contains lots of original research. The discussion should be on the BLP notice board. COFS 21:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: the above editor has self-identified as an employee of the Church of Scientology. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I have known of Henson in the context of Lagrangian points and the L5 Society since the very early 1980s, more than two decades before this article's issues were posted on the BLP noticeboard. Any claim that Henson's notability derives solely from friction with Scientology and Scientologists is completely false. — Athaenara ✉ 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Heinlein's influence?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article says:

"The science-fiction author Robert A. Heinlein played a major role in influencing his early life."

Did they know each other personally? Or was reading Heinlein's books the influence? Steve Dufour 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Two new news sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Staff (May 11, 2007). "Former Brantford man in Arizona jail". Brantford Expositor. Osprey Media. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Buric, Mirsada (May 11, 2007). "Church of Scientology critic fights his extradition". Prescott Daily Courier. Prescott Newspapers Inc. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

These should be added to expand the article with reputable secondary sourced citations... Smee 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Heads up, recent Slashdot

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Surprise Arrest For Online Scientology Critic. FYI. Smee 09:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Isn't anyone going to do something about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.253.209.1 (talk • contribs).

Well, the Extropy Institute set up a defense fund (and then dissolved, hmm). —Tamfang 03:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

5/20 - Former resident faces extradition over Scientology clash

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Peterson, Kristina., Former resident faces extradition over Scientology clash: Man fled Palo Alto for Canada seven years ago, 20 May 2007, Palo Alto Daily News.

This should be added to the article somewhere... Smee 10:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

Done, along with a general cleanup of all the original research. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've removed the following text per WP:BLP. Please restore if sources are found. --h2g2bob (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Um . . . BLP applies to talk pages too. If it can't stand in the article, it can't appear here either. Interested parties can find the removed text in the history of the article (and now this page as well). -- But|seriously|folks 08:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

COI tag

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reviewing Ariel's edits, I doubt that anyone would think that changing a photo and adding minor details in current events is "someone who has substantially contributed to it". I think WP:BITE applies as well. AndroidCat 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Capture bonding

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Welcome back. I am no longer qualified to mediate this dispute because I've been involved in a related Arbcom case. The article seems quite. I suggest you post recommended changes to the talk page, and see where that leads. There's no rush. Take it slow to avoid conflict. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be quite, but is it as quite as it could be? —Tamfang 06:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Cite sources

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"In 1985, having been convinced by Eric Drexler that nanotechnology provided a route to make it work, Henson, his wife and their 2-year old daughter signed up with Alcor for cryonic suspension.[citation needed] "

I can't find a published source for this though it is true and could be verified by the date we signed up (in 1985) and my daughter's age. The records are with Alcor. Keith Henson 09:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Courier

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Cite to add to article:

Staff (February 6, 2008). "Today in History: February 6". The Daily Courier. Prescott Newspapers, Inc. Retrieved 2008-02-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Feb. 6, 2007
Prescott Police officers arrested 65-year-old California fugitive Howard Keith Henson five years after he fled to Canada to avoid serving a one-year jail sentence for making threats against the Church of Scientology. Henson's Internet threats and picketing stemmed from his belief that the church was responsible for the deaths of two women.

One of those two women must have been Lisa McPherson, who was the other one Keith Henson was picketing about? Cirt (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, neither was Lisa. The dead girls were Ashlee Shaner and Stacy Meyer, both accidental deaths. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:American criminals

Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

The category says that "For inclusion in this category, a person must have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial)...". From my reading of the article, it appears he fits the criteria for the category.

Instead of edit warring, can we please discuss its removal? Thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, he should not be in the category, as though he may have been convicted of a crime, he's not notable for being a criminal, and this article doesn't exist because he's a criminal. Plenty of people have been convicted of crimes, but there's no reason for them to be in a category for it unless they're independently notable for committing that crime. --Rory096 05:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, from my reading of the category, it doesn't matter if you're notable for the crime... anyone who's been convicted should be categorised there, it seems (correct me if I'm wrong). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The precise wording of the category is not important- we generally do not put people in categories for things that are completely irrelevant to what's written about them, even if they happen to fall into the stated definition of the category. We wouldn't put John Travolta into Category:Aviators, for example. --Rory096 05:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with including this category, this individual is not notable for the singular misdemeanor conviction. And apparently Chetblong (talk · contribs) [2] and Jehochman (talk · contribs) [3] agree. Cirt (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

They may have been trying to enforce BLP; I commend them for that. Sometimes these things are hard to pick up when vandal fighting, and this could have been an accidental revert. Which is why we discuss. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Chetblong (talk · contribs) did indeed regard CatUrineCuredMe (talk · contribs)'s edits as vandalism. Cirt (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, he may have missed the statement in the article where this guy meets the category's criteria. It's understandable. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry 'bout that. My reasoning for reverting the vandalism was 1. the category which they were adding to the article, and the way we take BLP violations 2. the username CatUrineCuredMe wasn't a name that quite helped out the situation, so I went ahead and reverted with those two things in mind. If I was wrong for reverting, and it appears I was, feel free to undo my actions per policy. Cheers, Chetblong (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for the category has now been changed by Cirt (talk · contribs). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note, I changed the criteria after noticing comments at Category talk:American criminals by Will_Beback (talk · contribs) [4], Aleta (talk · contribs) [5], and David in DC (talk · contribs) [6], that the category should be limited to felons. Cirt (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: CatUrineCuredMe (talk · contribs) has been blocked indef as a sock of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I rolled back their edit -- they were an obvious sock. As for he category, I also disagree with adding Keith Henson because he is not a notable criminal (contrast: Jeffrey Dahmer), and I think he was convicted of a misdemeanor, not a felony. The label appeared to be added maliciously by a sock for the purpose of damaging the person's reputation, not for improving the encyclopedia. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about this claim

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Quoted from the article: "On August 11, 2007, Henson was jailed in Riverside, California for "using threats of force to interfere with another's exercise of civil rights."[27] He was released in early September 2007."

The footnote provided is from July the 8th. How could it possibly state that he was released on August the 11th? Furthermore, the date of his release is not cited either. Can anyone shed some light on this? 206.248.178.193 (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Qwerty612

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I telephoned Arizona Superior Court Pima County and requested a photocopy of the document [REDACTED BLP SENSITIVE INFO]

--Qwerty612 (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not the best WP:RS, especially in a WP:BLP article. Best to have secondary sources, not primary. Especially when dealing with controversial material like that. Cirt (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sworn testimony in court is allowed in BLPs. --Qwerty612 (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If things are reported in secondary sources. If you have to go digging into archives to find negative information about a person's life, that is a good indication that might be violating WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, we have no idea if you are a reliable source or not, or if the copies you've uploaded are authentic. Please desist or you will be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Section blanked by administrator

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a WP:BLP issue in letting this discussion remain even on the Talk page until there are WP:RS sources. AndroidCat (talk) 04:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn right. That's why I blanked it. Anyone who restores this material risks an immediate block without warning. Jehochman ^Talk 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information due to lack of sourcing

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Cirt has been removing information from this article based on lack of source. The information is generally true, that is, I knew the Hensons well, I worked with them for several years. Cirt has properly tagged this information with cn tags, which encourage the discovery of source for information; immediate removal should be reserved for possibly damaging information, not harmless information generally known to the true. I'm not personally sure of either the marriage date or divorce date for the Henson/Meinel marriage, they were married when I knew them; Henson and his wife were running the L-5 society and I actually took Carolyn's place doing design work for Analog Precision. Everything should be sourced, but Wikipedia is a process, not a result, and each edit should improve the encyclopedia. Taking out harmless information that fleshes out an article and was almost certainly placed there by an editor from personal knowledge does not improve the project, it weakens it. Putting a cn or fact tag on it is a service. Deleting it is damage.

(It's likely that Henson himself added the information, but I haven't checked the history. None of it is inconsistent with my knowledge, though I'd personally like to verify that Enrico Fermi reactor story, and may take it out myself, it's probably a self-justification, though possibly sourced elsewhere, not that he wasn't justified for standing up for quality in products. I was fired for a similar kind of thing once. I like to do some research before hacking up an article that someone else wrote in good faith.) --Abd (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN. Also, note please that 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.. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:IAR and meditate on it. The facts involved are verifiable, and the appropriate response to text which is probably true, not dubious, not controversial, and not damaging even if wrong, (beyond the simple damage of error in itself) is to cn or fact tag it, to encourage editors to find sources for what may have been originally written from personal knowledge, much of the project was and still is built this way. This also warns readers that the fact hasn't been verified, thus protecting against even the damage of minor error. --Abd (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR does not allow for unsourced material to remain in a WP:BLP article. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

BLPN

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Keith_Henson. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am going to disengage from this article for a while, so hopefully the notice at WP:BLPN will help to resolve the unsourced material in this article. Cirt (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

System dynamics

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Some evidence here: http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/L5news/L5news7510.pdf Depictionimage (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for edits by subject of article

Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

Someone went to the trouble of looking up some of the cite requests.

[removed semiprotected template --Abd (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)]

On Heinlein being an influence. <http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2099>http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2099

Culthelp.info is not a RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. But if you look a little further for the source, http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/02/05/a-reprint-of-an-interview-with-keith-henson-by-ru-sirius-2/ As I pointed out, R.U.Serius is a well known journalist,

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._U._Sirius>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._U._Sirius

This is published interview. You can certainly draw the conclusion that Robert Heinlein had a large influence on Henson's life from that interview.

On University of Arizona and EE degree,

<http://www.nss.org/resources/library/spacemovement/chapter05.htm#desert>http://www.nss.org/resources/library/spacemovement/chapter05.htm#desert

"The blunt, energetic Keith, who has a degree in electrical engineering,"

OK Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

<http://www.amazon.com/Great-Mambo-Chicken-Transhuman-Condition/dp/0201567512#reader>http://www.amazon.com/Great-Mambo-Chicken-Transhuman-Condition/dp/0201567512#reader Page 188 associates Henson with the University of Arizona.

"Henson also programmed geophysical type cases and wrote data reduction programs for the company"

Amazon not ok, cite the book inc page no directly. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok

<http://books.google.com/books?id=QGkgGwAACAAJ&dq=H.+Keith+henson+geophysics&client=firefox-a>http://books.google.com/books?id=QGkgGwAACAAJ&dq=H.+Keith+henson+geophysics&client=firefox-a

What is this supporting?

It is the book that resulted from a year or two of working on geophysical type cases.

"Theoretical Induced Polarization and Resistivity Response for the Dual Frequency System Collinear Dipole-dipole Array: Volume 1 & 2. By Chris S Ludwig, H Keith Henson, Heinrichs Geoexploration Company Published by Heinrichs Geoexploration Co., 1967"

There isn't a published source I can find for how many daughters Henson and Meinel had.

"Henson became familiar with the System dynamics"

<http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/L5news/L5news7510.pdf>http://www.nss.org/settlement/L5news/L5news/L5news7510.pdf Someone at L5 News, probably Henson, was up on system dynamics.

probably is not good enough, form reading this source it appears that Carolyn Henson was the major driver. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

<http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2007/02/keith-henson-talks-about-memetics.html>http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2007/02/keith-henson-talks-about-memetics.html

This is a blog. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Some blogs are considered good enough for Wikipedia. Look at the links to "The Oil Drum"

RU: How did your participation and leadership in the L5 society come about?

KH: It was indirectly related to “Limits to Growth” memes that were so active in the early 70s.

"Limits" was based on system dynamics.

"Patents were issued on both subjects vapor phase fabrication and space radiators.[citation needed]"

From Drexler's web site:

Henson, H.K., and K.E. Drexler. (1988) “Heterodensity heat transfer apparatus and method” U.S. Patent Office: #4,759,404

Henson, H.K., and K.E. Drexler. (1984) “Method for processing and fabricating metals in space” U.S. Patent Office: #4,480,677

"article by the name of Star Laws, jointly written by Henson and Arel Lucas and published in Reason Magazine.[citation needed]"

<http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.space.policy/msg/3654d08deee4f4f0?hl=en&>http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.space.policy/msg/3654d08deee4f4f0?hl=en&

"It was originally published in *Reason* Magazine, Aug., 1982."

Link is right on the page.

There are other things that might be added such as the oil drum article, but I don't want to do it. Keith Henson (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Above, Jezhotwells intersperses comments. We should discuss each one, because generic objections that might not actually apply in a specific case are being used. For example, the page at culthelp.info is actually a convenience link, not itself the source. Question is, is the original source available? (That's not necessarily the only question, but do consider what is being sourced, it's pretty simple. Henson, by pointing to this source, is validating the interview, and, if it were, for example, self-published, we could still use it if we find it useful as a fact about Henson. I find it interesting!) --Abd (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not done: The editsemiprotected template is intended to allow non-autoconfirmed users to continue to be able to edit articles which are semiprotected. You are autoconfirmed, so you should be able to do this yourself. Celestra (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think it is ok for me to add these cite to the page about me, ok, can do, though I got a lot of flack for doing the same thing (adding requested cites) in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop&oldid=292921824 Keith Henson (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, Keith, I think that conversation had its wires crossed. You need an uninvolved editor to make these edits for you. Please post a note at WP:EAR or WP:COIN requesting that your proposed changes be reviewed and potentially acted upon by an uninvolved editor. Regards, Jehochman ^Talk 02:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Keith Henson (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It is now Aug 2, more than three weeks later. Any suggestions? Keith Henson (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a change to the Non Controversial edits policy after two weeks of the proposed change being on the talk page. I would still rather someone else put the cites in rather than me, but if nobody steps up in a few days or a week, I will do it. Keith Henson (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw this and I've started adding sources. Jehochman, Keith could make the edits, provided that they are not controversial. It's more efficient if he makes them when he finds the sources; he can disclose his COI and ask for review. If he thinks something might be controversial, he can self-revert. (If he is formally banned, this is controversial, but it should be no problem if he isn't.) (edit summary: "adding sources, will self-revert due to COI.") or {edit summary: "adding sources, COI, please revert if discussion needed.") Efficiency. Don't leave home without it. --Abd (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As a practical matter, because this article is covered by Scientology sanctions and is potentially watched by various accounts trigger happy to file complaints, I think it is a good idea for the subject to use the article talk page. He could edit the article, but it is better for him to use the talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 19:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My bad; I didn't realize that Keith couldn't make those changes. Is there some way to know? Celestra (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't have known unless this was made clear. Jehochman ^Talk 19:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there was a bit of a clue in the user name! However, Celestra was led astray by the template Henson used to ask for help. --Abd (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the cites

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Added cites where requested. This is permitted by the non contriversal edits in the Wiki COI policy Keith Henson (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 20:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not so long ago, an IP made a comment at another venue pertaining to this article and I ended up having to redact their comment per BLP. I did leave a message for Jechochman on this. I think ~~protection~~ unprotection at this time would be premature. –xeno^talk 20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean unprotection? Anyway this is a BLP, for reference. ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think unprotection would be a good idea. This page is a chronic issue with disruption from socks that attempt to add disparaging material in violation of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late reply - yes, I meant unprotection. –xeno^talk 13:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Advocacy

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Unfortunately the article does not cover even a few percentage points of the human rights and civil rights advocacy that Mr. Henson engaged in toward the end of his world-renowned space pioneering advocacy "career," if one can call unpaid science insight advocacy a "career."

Mr. Henson was heavily involved in human and civil rights from the 1960's right up until the late 2000's and provided technical assistance in isolating and punishing anti-freedom of speech crazies involved in the so-called "Sporgery" computer crimes. If I can find an on-line copy of the human rights award he won back in 1998, I believe it was, I'll add a section here covering the award. If anyone gets there before me, please do add it since that was an awesome feather in Mr. Henson's hat. NotSoOldHippy (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Amature Action BBS

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Another significant part of Mr. Henson's later civil rights work involved the eye-witness court reporting on a BBS's lawful dissemination of pornography as a matter of freedom of speech as the BBS was on trial for same dissemination.

The "Amature Action BBS" (AABBS) in the year 1994 had been raided and indicted for sharing out pornography when in fact such activities were lawful within the State of which AABBS operated. A single Christian extremist in Memphis advanced the notion that AABBS violated the laws of Tennessee and that because AABBS could be accessed through the phone line, some how laws were being broken, opening up a fiasco that cost tax payers considerable money and ended in the AABBS's operators being found not guilty of having broken any laws.

Much of Mr. Henson's real-time reporting of the on-going trial against AABBS was posted to the FidoNet and to segments of the Internet that were still utilizing Usenet protocols, and Usenet Posting 1

Usenet Posting 2

Usenet Posting 3

Unfortunately a lot of the history of Mr. Henson's court reporting on this highly important civil rights trial has been lost. It would be nice if anyone who has records of Mr. Henson's outstanding work in the AABBS case would scan it in and get it saved and referenced here. NotSoOldHippy (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

footnote 34 goes to a facebook page

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

it seems to be the page of the lawyer who represented Mr Henson but it's not proving a thing. Perhaps mention of the lawyer's name and an inline link would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

footnote 41 does not link as labelled

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

claims to go to the san jose mercury-news, goes to http://wwrn.org/ instead Elinruby (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Another link that didn't work has an alternate here: http://web.archive.org/web/20030707112304/http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/giving/danjones.html Keith Henson (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if or how this should be linked

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://www.lynceans.org/talk-95-51315/ Keith Henson (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Keith Henson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101127000217/http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1 to http://prescottdailycourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=44055&TM=25214.71

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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} 03:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Keith Henson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Keith Henson. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor addition

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have been scanning my Dad's army papers. Among them are the citations for his decorations. He was awarded the Bronze Star and the Legion of Merit for things he did related to the Korean War. If someone wants to put (Bronze Star, Legion of Merit) after "decorated" I would appreciate it. I would do it myself, but that's skating kind of close self-promotion. Keith Henson (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The details probably should have been added a long time ago when the article was first created, so yes, I added the proposed text. In fact the whole BLP article here probably needs to have details added about the L5 Society involvement and some reference to the various academic white papers the subject has written about single-stage-to-orbit and tethered atmospheric launch systems, but only if such white papers have actual academic reference counts in other significant research so that they're "notable."

Also did Henson ever actually meet Robert A Heinlein?

Yes. At MidAmeriCon, the World SF convention in Kansas City in 1976. A year or two later my ex-wife and I talked him into being on the board of the L5 Society. In that capacity, we had many interesting interactions with him. In my experience, he was as impressive in real life as his most engaging heroes. Around 1986 Eric Drexler and I tried to talk Heinlein into signing up for cryonics, but Virginia (Heinlein's wife) opposed it.

And did any of Henson's research and publications influence Heinlein in any way, either science publications or fiction, does anybody know? SoftwareThing (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but I can't think of any good examples. Perhaps someone else can. He only wrote 5 books after 1976. The influence certainly flowed the other way. For example, a lot of the "Space Farm" paper presented at the first Princeton SMF conference (1975) was cribbed from "Farmer in the Sky," a Heinlein Juvenile my mother read to me when I was about 8. (She later regretted getting me started on SF.)

Thanks very much for editing the article. Keith Henson (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, the whole section of cryonics is a bit thin, I don't reall any of the details but Henson is on record lecturing about the medical ethics as well as the financial ethics about cryonics, though I don't recall anything about the legal aspects beyond inheritance of a "well maybe he's dead, maybe not" last will and testament left behind by the dearly maybe departed. Still the extant article touches on it, maybe additional links to his lectures. There should be a web site dedicated to archiving his work, the guy's old and none of us are going to live forever... Oh wait... Maybe we will. :) SoftwareThing (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

[1] ttp://kielsky.com

[2] ttp://www.co.yavapai.az.us/Content.aspx?id=20144

[3] ttp://www.co.yavapai.az.us/Content.aspx?id=19168

[1]

[2]

[3]