Talk:DiveFox

Wow, this one needs a lot of work to bring it into line. I'm not saying a whitewash is necessary, but could we at least make an attempt at NPOV? ----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 14:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hatchet job

This article is a major character assassination piece. This does not read like a person's entry, more like a libelfest.

The article should be split into "Divefox" (the person,) "Divefox and the Judge Mathis show" entries, really, to be fair. Insinuation is so high, and reference is so lacking, it's bordering on illegal (major linkage needed,... Anybody at AC can confirm the banning?.)

Jeez H,... could the initial have been more "subtle" on the POV angle >.< Still needs major work. Any other thoughts Spirou 15:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Around five years ago, the people Dive "stole" from continually spammed the OhioFur and ARF mailing lists with anti-Divefox "warnings". They gave him credit card access, room and board, and then complained when he never paid them back. In other words, they allowed someone to take advantage of them, and still haven't gotten over it.

Loaning people money or property is always a risk. Furries seem to think that everyone they meet should be as trustworthy as a saint, and it baffles me. I don't think that legal accusations should be a part of WikiFur, but then there's the whole Sibe page thing (though it at least has references to actual crimes). --Trickster Wolf 15:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that he was banned from Anthrocon in 2001. --Douglas Muth 16:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The confirmation from the convention is a fine reference.

But do second-hand posts from the Livejournal community "truthaboutdive", set up specifically for the purpose of defaming DiveFox (who has no criminal record, to my knowledge), baselessly accusing him of being a child molester and a stalker, count as "references"?

People may get the mistaken impression that I want to defend DiveFox. I don't. I don't know him well, and I don't care to. I'm simply troubled by the way that WikiFur is being used as a vehicle to attack unpopular furries by spreading rumors, gossip, and personal information in a public forum. At some point, speculating about someone's fetishes isn't appropriate for the biography of a still-living person.

Trickster

--Trickster Wolf 05:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the purpose of that group is for people to share real life experiences with him. If you think he is being defamed, please bring the offending posts to the attention of the group owner, and he'll remove them, along with the individual who posted them.

While perhaps the part of this post which calls him a pedophile is a bit inappropriate, the rest of that post looks like a first account of the poster's experience with Divefox, which I believe is a proper reference.

I also disagree with the assertion that we are "spreading rumors". Spreading rumors would amount to putting up articles that have no sources. That's part of the reason why I have gone to the time and trouble to dig up sources for this article, and either remove or flag statements which are unsourced. --Douglas Muth 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

They should be used as references for these people's opinions, without necessarily implying that what they say is the truth (if there is a generally accepted fact then I guess this might change, but any counter-arguments should be stated). It should be made clear who is saying what, especially if there is controversy over the facts. This should probably look similar to pages like FoxWolfie Galen and Bart Bervoets. --GreenReaper^(talk) 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet, other people's "opinions" don't turn up in the biographies of popular furries, such as (just for an extreme example) Dr. Conway, even when public knowledge in the fandom includes many things that are selectively unlisted in the bio. Artist's pseudonyms, alts, and real names rarely appear in bios in cases where an artist would clearly object to their loss of anonymity. I suppose it's possible that popular furries' bios simply haven't been vandalized by rumor posts, but if there is a safeguard, it seems to be applied selectively.

It's easy to put, "Some people accuse this person of <blank>," in a bio. It's also libel if you suggest it might be true in print when it isn't confirmed and could damage someone's reputation. This is why Wikipedia keeps a strict list of standards on living biographies that absolutely forbid rumor and accusations to surface. There's no mention of the gerbil rumor on Richard Gere's biography (though there is a link to it on externals, to the Snopes site disconfirming it), and no mention of Jamie Lee Curtis's suspected XY chromosome status on hers. Those issues get discussed on the talk page; they aren't allowed on the bio, because they're not confirmed by an authority source.

In any event, accusing someone of being a pedophile, even by adding the ubiquitous Wikipedia "Some people say..." before it, is about the most serious charge you can make of someone socially. A more NPOV way of doing it would be to say, "DiveFox was reportedly involved in an incident where he accompanied a minor runaway across state lines on a public bus. Law enforcement authorities later determined that no crime was committed, and no charges were filed." That's a lot better (and far more accurate) than, "Some say DiveFox is a pedophile."

Trickster --Trickster Wolf 05:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, it is easy to say "some people", which is why it shouldn't be used. Conversely, I still don't see the problem with saying "person X says this", which is what I meant when I said "those people's opinions", and why I specified "who says what" needed to be included. It's then easy for people to say "do I really give a damn about what person X thinks?" I'm guessing for every one person who doesn't like Dr. Conway, there are five or ten others who would be more than glad to disagree. Can DiveFox say the same? --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what people actually believe. I doubt that many people with opinions about specific furries (such as those with opinions on Dr. Conway) actually know them on a personal level well enough to make such claims. That's the problem with infamy. The fact that you seem to be defending the idea that popularity = truth is a restatement of my original problem.

I don't like using WikiFur as a gossip column for popular rumours about someone's sexual proclivities, mental health, family problems, or other deeply personal information; regardless as to how many furs are jumping on the rumor bandwagon or how unpopular the person is. I find it distasteful, and it may be libelous enough to get the site shut down, were anyone to actually pay money for a good lawyer. I think pages should limit themselves to issues of public record, not hearsay or innuendo. These are just my opinions, but unlike my typical soapboxing I actually feel pretty strongly about this. I've had bad experiences with reputation and furry and furry-haters in the past, more so than most furries. I may be "popular" enough to be extended more courtesies than someone like Sibe, but you never know how long something like that will last. I want to be part of a community where I can feel safe and know I have some control over how much information I share about myself. Furry is notoriously bad at discretion.

Trickster --Trickster Wolf 20:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So what consitutes public record? LiveJournal entries look pretty public to me.

On the subject of libel, if we were posting rumors and opinions about people, THEN we might be on the hook for libel. However, that's not what we're doing. We are citing other sources which have made those accusations and merely reporting on that. We are, in essence, a publisher who is reporting on what others are saying. Not unlike a real world encyclopedia or newspaper.

This is the same reason why newspapers all over the world were not sued by Michael Jackson when they reported on the sex abuse allegations against him. The newspapers were not making that accusation, rather they were reporting on the fact that another individual did. --Douglas Muth 21:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Popularity is not truth. But there are usually good reasons for that popularity. Conversely, if a person is infamous, there is usually a reason for that, too. Truth trumps any amount of public opinion, if you can provide proof. If you cannot, then all you can state is attributed opinions, or nothing. We have decided in some cases that it is better to state something rather than nothing, on the basis that some information is usually better than no information.

We do appreciate that such information can be misleading . . . but in general, I like to think WikiFur actually does far better than most sources of information, and can in fact help reduce the amount of drama out there by laying out the statements of each party side by side in an attempt to represent them both fairly. People notice when we succeed. This is rarely done elsewhere, since the only people who tend to write about a person are that person (or their supporters), or their detractors. Either can start an article on WikiFur, but they don't get sole ownership of it as they would with LiveJournal. --GreenReaper^(talk) 03:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a Personal Attack, but simply a Warning

I, like most people believe in second chances, but Dive has done a lot of really bad things. He is guilty of all that he has been accuse of and much, much more. He has been given every opportunity that a person could be given and multitudes of "Second Chances" with the same repeated outcome every time consistently. I don't see this page as a personal attack, but simply as a warning of what this fur has don and capable of doing and what he will do again. I'm not saying that it is up to Wikifur to be judge, jury and executioner. True, the original document was geared a bit dramatically, but was just in it's infancy. Now that it is here and more refined it seems to be serving it's original intention of simply warning others of a potential hazard. Wikifur is a really useful tool and for researching the fandom, it's good points and the bad. If we tear down this page then we are denying future possible victims about this fur. And at that point we might as well tear down the article about Sibe, the Burned Furs, the Rotten Furs, the Baby Furs and anything else controversial. The current document has been changed quite a bit from it's original version. The original didn't have nearly as much condemning evidence against Dive. There was only the Judge Mathis video and the fact that he had been banned from Anthrocon. This means that apparently other furs have had a problem with Dive. That alone warrens such a page as this. It's not the personal attack of a single fur on another, but a collaboration of several furs who have had similar experiences with a single bad fur. I for one admire Trickster. Not only is she a good furson, but also open minded. She is also highly intelligent and an excellent debater. The sad fact though is that if 10 people (and trust me, Dive has offended and harmed a hell of a lot more than just 10) says that Dive is a snake then the man is obviously a snake and other people need to be warned before they too are bitten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.60.208.189 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, the purpose of Wikifur is not to "warn" people. It is simply to be an encyclopedia of all things furry, which includes both the good and the bad.

That being said, if you know of any first-hand incidents with this individual (good or bad) that are relavent to the article, I would encourage you to post about them to a blog or website so that we may then use the posts as additional references for this article. Thanks! --Douglas Muth 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Tag on Malaika Mizaati's allegations

I added the Dubious tag because there seems to be some concern expressed in the referenced LJ entry comments by those familiar with Dive's behavior that something doesn't sound right in the allegations.----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 12:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)