Talk:Arthur Kemp: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:41, 6 April 2009 edit217.44.144.129 (talk) irrelevant unproven allegations removed← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:17, 19 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,834,231 editsm →top: Category:Stub-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings: -Stub, keep Start; cleanupTag: AWB
(413 intermediate revisions by 74 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|search=yes}}
	{{WPBiography
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes\|blp=yes\|class=Start\|listas=Kemp, Arthur\|1=
	\|living=yes
			{{WikiProject Biography\|politician-work-group=yes\|politician-priority=low\|needs-photo=yes}}
	\|class=
			{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom\|importance=\|auto=yes}}
	\|priority=
	\|listas=Kemp, Arthur
	}}		}}
			{{collapse top\| Historic Afd discussions}}
	{{oldafdfull \| date = 9 January 2009 \| result = '''keep''' \| page = Arthur Kemp }}
			{{Old XfD multi\| date = 9 January 2009 \| result = '''keep''' \| page = 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.
			{{Old XfD multi\| date = 18 July 2010 (UTC) \| result = '''no consensus''' \| page = Arthur_Kemp_(2nd_nomination) }}
			{{Old XfD multi\| date = 17 May 2012 \| result = '''no consensus''' \| page = Arthur_Kemp_(3rd_nomination) }}
			{{collapse bottom}}
			{{Photo requested}}

			== Undue and weight ==
	It would appear that Mr Kemp is currently in the midst of an extensive rewrite of his own biographic article.. ] (]) 21:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
			* - ]

			More discussion here - ]
	==encyclopedic notability==
	Even as a published author, I'm not feel'n it. and may propose this for deletion in a couple of days. --] (]) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

			After a request for investigation from the recent closing AFD admin I removed some of the imo undue and weight details from the lede - my edits were replaced - so I am opening a discussion here to talk about them - ]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>] 22:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
	==Sources==
	The sources used mostly don't seem to be ]. I removed a few things that were clearly not good sources, marked a few places that need sources.

			* My first edit I removed this - "and was responsible for the content of that party's website" - to me this seems undue - he was responsible? in what way? ]<span style="color:orange;">really</span>] 22:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
	Mr. Kemps blog and books are only good for his opinion and response to things, not as facts for the article.
	--] (]) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

			==Non-Notability==
	] removed. See his talk page ] (]) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)]

			According to Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for politicians: WP:POLITICIAN
	: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. --] (]) 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

			"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
	::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). --] (]) 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
			Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
			Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

			Kemp does clearly not meet the notability criteria for politicians under the WP criteria.

			According to Misplaced Pages's notablity criteria for books WP:BKCRIT
	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.
	] (]) 17:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

			"A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
	== Notable? ==
			The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
			The book has won a major literary award.
			The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
			The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
			The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Misplaced Pages's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study."

			Kemp clearly does not meet the notability criteria for authors or books under the WP criteria.
	According to Gnews hits, it might appear so. 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. '''SD'''] 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. --] (]) 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. '''SD'''] 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

			There is therefore no justification for this Misplaced Pages article at all.] (]) 10:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

			:You can't just ''declare'' that the article is about someone non-notable and then personally delete all the content. You have to go through the procedure for deletion. Of course you know this and you have done this already. The article was ''not'' deleted and you are now saying that your own personal view somehow overrides the decision of the community. That is contrary to pretty well all the principles by which can reasonably work. Your edits are therefore in effect acts of vandalism. ] (]) 12:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	Verifiable sources? All that will show is what I posted originally.

			The discussion on the AFD 3 agreed that the subject did not meet the notability requirements for a politician or an author. All of the participants agreed on that. The changes to the article merely represent that agreement.] (]) 12:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	Once again, I want to highlight was happened here:

			:No they don't. The "changes" are just attempts to stub the article. You also utterly misunderstand policy. The notability requirements concern the decision whether or not to have an article. They do not mean that all content that is not sufficient to create notability in itself should be removed. That would indeed be an absurd rule were it to exist, which of course it does not. A man is not notable, for example, because he in born in Liverpool, or has a wife called Sarah. But we don't remove all such facts from articles because they are not the ''reason'' for the person's notability. ] (]) 13:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	1. An anonymous poster made a Wiki entry on myself, quoting an utterly unprovable and unsubstantiated pack of lies;

			You are wrong. The WP Notability criteria are very simple and clear:
	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)

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

			"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature."
	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.

			Kemp has NOT been elected to oublic office of any sort, nor, as far as anyone is aware, has he even stood for office.
	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.

			"This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."
	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, <i>precisely because it did not happen.</i>

			Kemp has NOT been the subject of "significant" press coverage.
	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 <b>MUST</b> allow me right of refutation.
	] (]) 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

			Therefore there is ZERO grounds for inclusion as a politician on Misplaced Pages.] (]) 14:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	::'''Comment:''' Quote: "An anonymous poster.." Not true; the original editor was quite properly named as ] (]), a ''nom de plume'' no doubt, but not anonymous. ] (]) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

			:You have ''not even addressed the point''. Here's another example ]. I doubt he would satisfy notability criteria as an author or as a politician, but because his combined efforts raise him above the bar for GNG, ''all'' his activities should be in the article, including his stellar political career standing for election once and getting less than 1% of the vote. That is ''part of the whole''. We don't delete that section because alone it is not sufficient to guarrantee notability. Your endless listing of criteria for notabilty apply to article creation not content as '''I have already explained'''. ] (]) 14:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	== Conflict of interest, .....and other stuff ==

			:Agree with Paul Barlow. ] is not the only criteria for inclusion. A person who fails ] can still meet notability via ], which seems to be the case here. <code>]]</code> 14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	I have reported this article, as well as Mr Kemp, on the ''']''', 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.] (]) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

			Let us then look at the General notability guideline ] and see if Kemp qualifies under them then:
	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.

			"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
	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.'

			Kemp has NOT received "significant coverage" in "reliable sources."
	It was in that sense, and that sense alone, that the remark was made, and it is OBVIOUS from the context what was meant.
	] (]) 17:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

			In terms of ] "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
	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.

			One article about packing leaflets in a warehouse (referenced on the site) does NOT constitute "significant coverage" by any stretch of the imagination, especially bearing in mind that Kemp has utterly failed the politician notability guidelines as well (see above.)
	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.

			Are we going to have a stand alone article about EVERY leaflet packer for every single party in Britain or the world? It is an absurd notion.
	] (]) 10:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

			In terms of ] a "reliable source" is open to "editorial integrity" -- what that essentially means is it is a subjective matter. In other words, some may question the SPLC as a "source" while others will think that it is. Given that Kemp has failed both politician and author Misplaced Pages guidelines, it is far fetched to think that an obviously politically-motivated "source" such as the SPLC should then be taken as a criteria for inclusion.
	==Whitewashing, removal of sources, etc.==

			Once again, are we going to have a stand alone article on EVERY single person that the SPLC has mentioned? It is an equally absurd notion.] (]) 15:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
	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 ] was removed. There was a note about this on ] 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 Misplaced Pages is ]. It could be that the SPLC is totally lying (I doubt it, but anyway). That doesn't matter to Misplaced Pages as long as it is properly attributed to them and it is clear to the reader that it is their accusation.

			:OK so I'm glad you agree now that ] isn't the only notability guideline that could apply here. The AFD discussion was closed with the note that whether ] might be met really was not discussed properly during the AFD. So let's look at whether he might meet ]. The article has three newspaper articles from ]-respected news sources: an article from ], one from ], and one from ]. In each case, I would describe the coverage as "non-trivial" because the articles really could not exist if they didn't mention Kemp. From my experience working on Misplaced Pages biography articles, the Misplaced Pages-wide consensus is that this meets ], so I don't agree with your assessment. I'm not saying it's a super-high "pass" of the ] guideline, but it's a pass.
	] (]) 16:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
			:<p>Regardless, this is the not the venue for discussing whether the article should be deleted. That venue is ]. Removing article content because you didn't like the result of the ] is against Misplaced Pages process and will be considered ] if it continues.
			:<p>Your question "are we going to have a stand alone article on EVERY single person that the SPLC has mentioned?" is arguing against a strawman. There is a ] case to keep every article with the coverage level this article provides, whether or not the subject of the article is a person the SPLC has mentioned. <code>]]</code> 15:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

			Since it hasn't been mentioned yet except in my edit summary....] - "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies". Therefore you don't get to say he doesn't meet ] then delete all mention of his political activities, and the same applies to all other notability criteria. <span style="font-family:Celtic;">]<sub>'']''</sub></span> 17:35, 26 August 2012 (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.
	] (]) 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

			One should seriously question the notability of one Arthur Kemp. After having researched this individual one could see that he has no academic credentials as a historian, all of his works were self-published and the totality of his political activity has been in small neo-nazi outfits or far right extremist organizations, in addition to strong well founded allegations of him being an intelligence plant of some sort. The inclusion of a person as insignificant and unimportant as Arthur Benjamin Kemp, a real fringe nobody in the political scene, in Misplaced Pages seems to be the result of an effort by this individual himself to self-aggrandize and therefore takes away from the serious nature of Misplaced Pages. Or has Misplaced Pages transformed now into a vanity platform for narcisssitic megalomaniacs? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	==Continuous Removal of Refutations==

			== 3RR violation by TheFallenCrowd‎ ==
	All I have asked for is the right to equally refute allegations made against me. Please desist from removing these refutations.
	] (]) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	: Please stop editing the page per ]. Your claim is in the appropriate section, and the claim is well referenced by a ]. The fact you work for the BNP doesn't strengthen your denial. ] <small>]</small> 18:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

			TheFallenCrowd‎, you have violated the ] with your latest revert. Please self-revert or this will be reported at ]. (A similar message has also been left at your Talk page.) Thank you. <code>]]</code> 15:58, 9 August 2012 (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.

			== RfC ==
	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?
	] (]) 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 ] which is not allwoed on wikipedia.--]<sup>]/]</sup> 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 ] say about you. '''SD'''] 18:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

			{{bulb}}An RfC: ] has been posted at the ]. Your participation is welcomed. – ] 16:25, 22 September 2012 (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.

			== Edit warring and deception about when Kemp came to the UK ==
	:# 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?
	:# Why are people removing 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.
	: ] (]) 18:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

			After TheFallenCrowd was blocked today for a 3RR violation an IP deleted the same material and added a claim that Kemp only came to the UK in 2007, sourced to Kemp's blog. However, this is clearly incorrect as he was working for the BNP in June 2004.. His Ancestry visa doesn't prove he wasn't in the UK earlier and of course we know he was. ] (]) 12:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
	===Comment by Pat===
			:And Kemp's claim to have emigrated in 2007 is probably literally correct, but as we know he was in the UK in 2004 it's just as likely that 2007 is when he invoked his right of ancestry, thus 'emigrating' without necessarily having left the UK since 2004 or earlier. ] (]) 15:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
	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, <s>but I am not going to block</s> as you are a new editor and obviously confused about how Misplaced Pages works. ]] 18:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

			== Bolding '''Ostara Publications'''... ==
	: Isn't this somewhat unnecessary? Its a non-controversial fact, and appears to be a good source for it anyway ] (]) 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. ] <small>]</small> 19:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

			As ] redirects to Arthur Kemp (my edit), I bolded '''Ostara Publications''', as per ]
	:::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. ]] 20:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	== "knowing" people who were found guilty ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	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? ] (]) 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Well, your use of the word 'allegation' is itself suspect, but in answer to your question: Yes, it's prefectly proper. Look for other examples - there are countless cases on subjects knowing convicted criminals. Does the article on ] mention that George W. knew him? Is this a violation of BLP policy? Far from "guilt by association" being inherent "no matter how it is cited", it actually depends entirely on '''how''' it is cited. ] (]) 13:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	::You are arguing the reverse of this instance. An article on Lay should mention his legal troubles. In WP, by the way, "allegation" has a specific usage for any stetement which is proffered without proof other than it being written in a :reliable source." And per ArbCom: "Guilt by association 10) '''Guilt by association is never a sufficient reason to include negative information about third parties in a biography.''' At a minimum, there should be reliable sources showing a direct relationship between the conduct of the third parties and the conduct of the subject (i.e. a nexus), or that the subject knew or should have known about and could have prevented the conduct of the third parties." . ] "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. " Results from arbitration are about as close to "law" on WP as one can find. ] (]) 13:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904071706/http://tv.bnp.org.uk/2009/05/a-look-behind-the-scenes-at-euro-depot/ to http://tv.bnp.org.uk/2009/05/a-look-behind-the-scenes-at-euro-depot
	:::You're quite right about my wrong-way-round example. However, I think it is still correct to say, in the light of your reference to WP:BLP that my comment that it depends "entirely on '''how''' it is cited" is correct and it is not right to say that such sources may never be used, as was suggested in the first place. ] (]) 14:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::And as it is currently used, it is improper per ArbCom dicta. ] (]) 14:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	==March of the Titans==
	Is this Arthur Kemp the same guy as Arthur Kemp? If so, surely this should be a prominent feature of the article. ] (]) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Not mentioned on his blog, and not a rare name. Could be, but find a reliable source for any claim about it. ] (]) 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
	::That Arthur Kemp is here: . ] (]) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::Seems dispositive of any claim, then. Meanwhile a note about the lede and another editor -- it is supposed to contain a summary of material in the body of the article -- it is not to have unsupported charges not even mentioned in the body of the article. (Not a note to Doug) ] (]) 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::I'm not sure what "dispositive of any claim" means, but the person in the photograph linked by dougweller appears to be exactly the same person who appears in other photographs and videos of talks. His prose style is also very similar to the Kemp whose blog is linked. The article states he has published five books. Five books by Arthur Kemp are listed here . March of the Titans is one of them. ] (]) 12:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Lists of books on such sites do not mean the author is the same - only that the name matches (sigh). Seems that the search engine does not keep info to separate people with the same name, so the results are not a source for any such claim. Nor is the search complete. Sorry. ] (]) 13:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Your sigh is rather petty and unhelpful, but what is most problematic is the fact that you seem less interested in the truth than in wikilawyering. We should be concerned with identifying the truth here not with trying to evade it. It seems very very likely that this is the same person. We should be about building knowledge not trying to hide it. Are you interested in ''finding'' good evidence or not? By the way, the site in question is not a "search engine" it's is an author site, wholly different from searching "Arthur Kemp" on, say, Amazon. ] (]) 14:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::I am in favor of verifiable cites. A search engine which searches for name matches is not a "people match" reliable source. And the site you give does searches, and also allows wiki-style entries -- which is what your ref appears to be. I could edit it and say he was a blue transvestite <g> which means it still fails any WP standards. Did you note that you could easily edit his entry? ] (]) 14:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::I don't know why you keep explaining the obvious about what search engines are, as if that were relevant. They are tools for finding information. We judge the relevance of information found in that same way we do with other sources. My very first post made it clear that I was aware of the obvious fact that there is more than one Arthur Kemp in the world. Please stop repeating the obvious. The author page on Good Reads is a personal page. Any author can create one, but it is clear evidence that a person calling himself Arthur Kemp says that all these books are his own. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that this Arthur Kemp is the author of March of the Titans. However this page has been gutted by wikilawering. That's why I raised the issue here instead of adding material straght away. I was hoping that other editors might help to ''build'' reliable evidence. Judjing by your tendency to use legalese, I assume that you are a member of the legal profession. May I suggest that what we need is rather more an inquisatorial than an adversarial approach? ] (]) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
	{ud}A blog, admittedly, but it looks as though they are one and the same . The Guardian makes it clear that our Arthur Kemp is a member of the BNP. and . Searchlight mentions March of the Titans . What else do we need? ] (]) 15:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	::Find a specific cite for the claim per ] and ]. So far none has been given. ] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::Specifically, what claim? ] (]) 16:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
	March of the Titans is bizarre. Kemp claims that anyone not British is basically part black since ancient times. Kemp forgets that the Romans for 500 years brought their black slaves to England, he just leaves that out of his book. Kemp is a real nut case. ] (]) 14:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
	:The Romans had African troops, but there's no reason to assume that they were slaves, or that they were black. However, black or not, their genetic contribution would have been utterly tiny. This page should not be for refuting March of the Titans, but it should include it. ] (]) 22:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
	::Kemp does not consider it tiny, his book makes a good deal of it in other areas where the Romans were, why not England too. Fair is fair. - And Romans of course had slaves as well as soldiers. 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

	:::Yes, of course they had slaves, but slavery was not based on race in Roman culture. The overwhelming majority of slaves were white. ] (]) 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

	== new article tags ==

	The article has been tagged as needing a longer lede, that the article needs third-party sources, that it needs additional verifiable sources, that the article needs expansion, and that a "self-published source" should not be used.

	There is some doubt as to whether the person is sufficiently notable for an article in the first place. The lede currently accurately represents the contents of the article in summary fashion, and does not include material which is not in the article. The material in the article is all currently sourced, although the "self-published source" is used only for a denial of an attack. The reference as used makes it clear that Kemp's denial is on his personal website, and is unlikely to confuse any reader.

	As for "third party sources" - they abound here compared with many articles about not very notable people. ] (]) 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

	== Ostara Publications ==

	Only published Kemp's books - well, sells them at least, Lulu self-publishes them. ] (]) 15:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

	:Which is relevant for what reason when we already note the author published them?] (]) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
	::Saying that the author published them is ambiguous, it could just be clumsy wording. There is no reason why we can't be specific about lulu.com (which I've put back in). Ostara seems to be just the name of his site on lulu, it doesn't publish his books. And 5 seems in error. ] (]) 16:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

	:::Seems his website claimed 5 -- it is not a bone of contention. Meanwhile it is against policy to make parenthetical claims about a site being blacklisted as spam. Let's try to make this an honest NPOV article as far as possible. ] (]) 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::There is definitely nothing in policy about my explaining why Misplaced Pages won't let me put the full url in a reference - it is blacklisted by Misplaced Pages, that is not a secret. Please don't accuse me of dishonesty for pointing out why I couldn't include the full url. I've replaced published with self-published to make it clear, and changed five because I can find more than 5 books by him that he is selling. Meanwhile I am waiting for a reply to my question in the section above. ] (]) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
	::::No need to mention the site at all -- but saying it is blacklisted as spam is not NPOV. Note also that WP is not allowed as RS for any WP articles either. ] (]) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

	== avoiding OR ==

	Per ] claims about the book should reflect third party sources. Using the list of chapters to make a claim about the book is SYN and OR. ] (]) 00:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

	:No it is not. The contents of books can properly be summarised without transgressing OR. ] (]) 08:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

	::In this case, it is not "summarising" the book. The "race mixed with non-white blood" is ''not'' found in the chapter titles or summaries. "By the presence of the Roman Empire" is not supported by the wording on the web-site. As the website is not RS for anything more than (at absolute most) the material on the website, any inferences from it are OR and SYN. Kemp may be despicable, but we can not violate WP policies to hit him harder. I can not actually even prove Kemp has anything to do with the site as it is registered under a Dutch company. Nor have I found any definitive proof that the Arthur Kemp is the only Arthur Kemp from South Africa. ] (]) 11:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

	:::The website is legitimate as a source for its contents in an article on its author. Regarding its theories, which are legitimately within the category of ], it is clear policy that such sites can be used to describe the theories they contain. This includes NPOV summaries, which are normal practice. It is found in articles on other fringe authors, including other so-called "white nationalists". There is no actual dispute that this Arthur Kemp is author of March of the Titans, which is repeatedly cited by members of the BNP. This is not about 'hitting' Kemp, but about providing basic information about him which is currently being suppressed. One learns almost nothing from this article. ] (]) 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

	::::As non RS, it can be cited for what it specifically says at most, not for what one desires to imfer from it. In the case at hand, the site does not say what was imputed to it. I found no sign of it being sold on the BNP site, which means that part was unsupported. ''There is more than enough here to condemn Kemp's positions without pushing the WP policies.'' As to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that is a remarkably weak argument. This is a BLP, and must conform to that policy. ] (]) 11:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

	:::::Indeed, but what is says can be properly summarised. I am not sure what is "imputed to it" that it does not say. You will have to specific. NPOV summarising inevitably means that some complexities of arguments will be lost. This is true of summaries of any text or viewpoint. It is certainly sold by the BNP, but it is not, as far as I know, marketed through its website. I do wish you would not quote policies that have already been shown to be irrelevant. Citing OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant to an explanation of how Misplaced Pages actually works. ] (]) 12:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

	::::::The material in the claim did not fit what was on the webpage. If you stick to precise quotes, you should be safe. And I would suggest the average reader can darn well figure out what sort of person he is from the material already here. ] (]) 12:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

	==Constant Vandalization of Article==
	This article has become the target of constant vandalization by 66.194.104.5 who is also known to Misplaced Pages users as a disruptive influence http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Alvestrand/POV-history by inserting lines which have nothing to do with the subject and which are merely pushing his own POV on the topic of racial mixing in Classical Rome and Greece.
	He has now resorted to outright lies in this effort. For example, one of the irrelevant lines he has inserted into this article reads as follows:
	"Agreeing with Kemp's claims are Afrocentrist works such as Martin Bernal's book Black Athena whose thesis is that Blacks built Ancient Greece."
	Kemp argues nothing of the sort: in fact he argues that whites built ancient Greece, not blacks. This is obvious from both Bernal and Kemp's books. He is engaging in deliberate distortions and lies, and needs to be prevented from further vandalization. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:First, Misplaced Pages does not allow slander of living persons, and Alvestrand never positively identified 66.194.104.5. Second, that contributor simply pointed out that Afrocentrists do indeed have some common ground with Kemp. Both believe there was significant African presence in Europe.

	===Encyclopedia Britannica Contradicts Kemp===
	The following is well sourced and must be included by Misplaced Pages rules, where there in the article where Kemp listed the sources that supposedly agree with him: ''Contradicting Kemp's claims is the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry for Slavery in Ancient Greece, which states that Athens' slaves were of Aegean origin. '' from Britannica 2005, p.290, vol.27 ] (]) 13:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

	:Probably much better suited for an article on the book in itself, rather than in the BLP where I have doubts about the amount of space already devoted to the book. ] (]) 13:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
	::KEMP INSERTED SOURCES AGREEING WITH HIM, SO CONTRARY SOURCES SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUDED. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	=Kemp's research not peer reviewed=
	Added the following, '' Kemp's research was never published in any peer reviewed scientific journal.'' It is impossible to disprove a negative and this is necessary for perspective. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 19:17, 19 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arthur Kemp article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Historic Afd discussions

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 January 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 May 2012. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Undue and weight

- Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Arthur_Kemp

More discussion here - User_talk:C.Fred#Kemp

After a request for investigation from the recent closing AFD admin I removed some of the imo undue and weight details from the lede - my edits were replaced - so I am opening a discussion here to talk about them - Youreallycan 22:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My first edit I removed this - "and was responsible for the content of that party's website" - to me this seems undue - he was responsible? in what way? Youreallycan 22:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-Notability

According to Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for politicians: WP:POLITICIAN

"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

Kemp does clearly not meet the notability criteria for politicians under the WP criteria.

According to Misplaced Pages's notablity criteria for books WP:BKCRIT

"A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. The book has won a major literary award. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Misplaced Pages's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study."

Kemp clearly does not meet the notability criteria for authors or books under the WP criteria.

There is therefore no justification for this Misplaced Pages article at all.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't just declare that the article is about someone non-notable and then personally delete all the content. You have to go through the procedure for deletion. Of course you know this and you have done this already. The article was not deleted and you are now saying that your own personal view somehow overrides the decision of the community. That is contrary to pretty well all the principles by which can reasonably work. Your edits are therefore in effect acts of vandalism. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on the AFD 3 agreed that the subject did not meet the notability requirements for a politician or an author. All of the participants agreed on that. The changes to the article merely represent that agreement.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No they don't. The "changes" are just attempts to stub the article. You also utterly misunderstand policy. The notability requirements concern the decision whether or not to have an article. They do not mean that all content that is not sufficient to create notability in itself should be removed. That would indeed be an absurd rule were it to exist, which of course it does not. A man is not notable, for example, because he in born in Liverpool, or has a wife called Sarah. But we don't remove all such facts from articles because they are not the reason for the person's notability. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. The WP Notability criteria are very simple and clear:

WP:POLITICIAN

"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature."

Kemp has NOT been elected to oublic office of any sort, nor, as far as anyone is aware, has he even stood for office.

"This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

Kemp has NOT been the subject of "significant" press coverage.

Therefore there is ZERO grounds for inclusion as a politician on Misplaced Pages.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You have not even addressed the point. Here's another example Charles Beauclerk, Earl of Burford. I doubt he would satisfy notability criteria as an author or as a politician, but because his combined efforts raise him above the bar for GNG, all his activities should be in the article, including his stellar political career standing for election once and getting less than 1% of the vote. That is part of the whole. We don't delete that section because alone it is not sufficient to guarrantee notability. Your endless listing of criteria for notabilty apply to article creation not content as I have already explained. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Paul Barlow. WP:POLITICIAN is not the only criteria for inclusion. A person who fails WP:POLITICIAN can still meet notability via WP:GNG, which seems to be the case here. Zad68 14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Let us then look at the General notability guideline WP:GNG and see if Kemp qualifies under them then:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Kemp has NOT received "significant coverage" in "reliable sources."

In terms of WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

One article about packing leaflets in a warehouse (referenced on the site) does NOT constitute "significant coverage" by any stretch of the imagination, especially bearing in mind that Kemp has utterly failed the politician notability guidelines as well (see above.)

Are we going to have a stand alone article about EVERY leaflet packer for every single party in Britain or the world? It is an absurd notion.

In terms of WP:GNG a "reliable source" is open to "editorial integrity" -- what that essentially means is it is a subjective matter. In other words, some may question the SPLC as a "source" while others will think that it is. Given that Kemp has failed both politician and author Misplaced Pages guidelines, it is far fetched to think that an obviously politically-motivated "source" such as the SPLC should then be taken as a criteria for inclusion.

Once again, are we going to have a stand alone article on EVERY single person that the SPLC has mentioned? It is an equally absurd notion.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OK so I'm glad you agree now that WP:POLITICIAN isn't the only notability guideline that could apply here. The AFD discussion was closed with the note that whether WP:GNG might be met really was not discussed properly during the AFD. So let's look at whether he might meet WP:GNG. The article has three newspaper articles from WP:RS-respected news sources: an article from Western Mail, one from The Guardian, and one from The Independent. In each case, I would describe the coverage as "non-trivial" because the articles really could not exist if they didn't mention Kemp. From my experience working on Misplaced Pages biography articles, the Misplaced Pages-wide consensus is that this meets WP:GNG, so I don't agree with your assessment. I'm not saying it's a super-high "pass" of the WP:GNG guideline, but it's a pass.

Regardless, this is the not the venue for discussing whether the article should be deleted. That venue is WP:AFD. Removing article content because you didn't like the result of the WP:AFD is against Misplaced Pages process and will be considered disruptive if it continues.

Your question "are we going to have a stand alone article on EVERY single person that the SPLC has mentioned?" is arguing against a strawman. There is a WP:GNG case to keep every article with the coverage level this article provides, whether or not the subject of the article is a person the SPLC has mentioned. Zad68 15:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet except in my edit summary....WP:NNC - "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies". Therefore you don't get to say he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN then delete all mention of his political activities, and the same applies to all other notability criteria. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 17:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

One should seriously question the notability of one Arthur Kemp. After having researched this individual one could see that he has no academic credentials as a historian, all of his works were self-published and the totality of his political activity has been in small neo-nazi outfits or far right extremist organizations, in addition to strong well founded allegations of him being an intelligence plant of some sort. The inclusion of a person as insignificant and unimportant as Arthur Benjamin Kemp, a real fringe nobody in the political scene, in Misplaced Pages seems to be the result of an effort by this individual himself to self-aggrandize and therefore takes away from the serious nature of Misplaced Pages. Or has Misplaced Pages transformed now into a vanity platform for narcisssitic megalomaniacs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaAccidentalObserver (talk • contribs) 10:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

3RR violation by TheFallenCrowd‎

TheFallenCrowd‎, you have violated the WP:3RR with your latest revert. Please self-revert or this will be reported at WP:EWN. (A similar message has also been left at your Talk page.) Thank you. Zad68 15:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and deception about when Kemp came to the UK

After TheFallenCrowd was blocked today for a 3RR violation an IP deleted the same material and added a claim that Kemp only came to the UK in 2007, sourced to Kemp's blog. However, this is clearly incorrect as he was working for the BNP in June 2004.. His Ancestry visa doesn't prove he wasn't in the UK earlier and of course we know he was. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And Kemp's claim to have emigrated in 2007 is probably literally correct, but as we know he was in the UK in 2004 it's just as likely that 2007 is when he invoked his right of ancestry, thus 'emigrating' without necessarily having left the UK since 2004 or earlier. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Bolding Ostara Publications...

As Ostara Publications redirects to Arthur Kemp (my edit), I bolded Ostara Publications, as per Redirect#What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904071706/http://tv.bnp.org.uk/2009/05/a-look-behind-the-scenes-at-euro-depot/ to http://tv.bnp.org.uk/2009/05/a-look-behind-the-scenes-at-euro-depot

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) 21:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories: