Talk:Nasdijj/Archive 1

Archive 1

Created

I was surprised to discover there wasn't yet an entry for this, and so have created one (having searched the site as much as possible on both this name and other possible related ones). It's very much just a starter-entry at this point - take it from here.... Robertissimo 06:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What to do?

As of this week, it's clearly established that Nasdijj is Tim Barrus, and a rewrite indicating that is in order. Should there be a separate entry for Barrus, which could include more information on his previous writings and future career, if any? Should "Nasdijj" then redirect to Barrus? Trying to follow the writer's increasingly agitated blog, it appears he may be morphing, as it were, into the "personal assistant," Mike Willis, mentioned in the original "Navahoax" article. Will he need his own entry soon? It's a fascinating, slightly scary, and profoundly sad story.... Robertissimo 09:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created Tim Barrus as a redirect. Time will tell if the article should be at Nasdijj and a redirect at Tim Barrus or vice-versa (they can be switched, if need be) but it would be a bad idea to have multiple entries for the same person, since it would encourage content forking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow leave it to wikipedia, I just read a boy and his dog, right away I was sure he made up the name Awee and the names of the baseball teams. I read and watch the news, heard nothing of this until now. I thought the blood runs through a river was fairly believable, I've kinda been in awe at the pedetastry he described in the book I just read, unbelievable stuff. I think he makes alot of good moral arguments, however I should not have picked this up in the nonfiction section of library.

What's going on here?

16:02, 27 July 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Nasdijj: Jimbo wants it sprotected. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

15:53, 27 July 2006 69.19.14.17 (Talk) (please rebuild with very strict attention to sourcing; see talk)

Well, here I am on the talk page to "see talk", and there's nothing. No explanation. The page has been blanked and protected because "Jimbo" wants it. I'd love to help but, uh, apparently you don't want my help and have proactively blocked me. Useful. Really useful. 195.173.23.111 09:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the apparent concern about this article's reliability, I am reviewing my contributions to ensure that they are as accurate and fully sourced as possible. As I've already discovered one minor error (PEN's "Beyond the Margins prize" vs. the correct "Beyond Margins award"), I suppose it's a useful exercise. Robertissimo 10:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous IP that blanked the page and placed the {{sprotect}} notice was actually Jimbo Wales, he was just in a remote location on a flaky satellite connection with some proxy issues that wouldn't let him log in. Please rebuild the article with special attention to accurate and verifiable sourcing. --Cyde↔Weys 12:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Could you/Jimbo maybe give an example of where the sourcing is at fault? I watched Robertissimo's work on this page in awe: it was extraordinarily well-sourced and I really think it should be incumbent upon complainants to at least explain the problem! Vizjim 13:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • This is a standard procedure when we have a complaint about a biography. I have not had time to look into it, and no criticism of Robertissimo's work is intended. It is all there in the history and it should be brought back, line by line, if it is accurate and well-sourced. Unfortunately I am still on a flaky connection and so I can not work as quickly as normal, so my personal attention on this will have to wait until tomorrow. --Jimbo

• Erm. It has been deleted from the article's history. Is this the way Wikipedia normally works? I have clearly been wasting my time here if so. Vizjim 22:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; this is extremely fishy. Working on a flaky satellite connection means you can't log in? Jimbo couldn't contact someone who is logged in who is known to handle this? And entirely removing any trace of the article, including the sources used to build it, is the first step towards "rebuild[ing] with very strict attention to sourcing"? This stinks like dead fish. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Really not good enough

Jimbo was logged on this morning to edit Matthias Rath if he was involved with this article he should have logged on at the very least, better to have got Danny to do a WP:OFFICE action. We can't have anonymous IP's claiming to be Jimbo (even if they are) and then acting in the executive way Jimbo has always disliked. If there is no confirmation from Jimbo or Danny (logged in) that this is an office action we should restore the history. Regardless we should also un-sprotect the page soon, since there's no suggestion that any "problem" has been caused by anonymous users. Rich Farmbrough 21:59 28 July 2006 (GMT).

Well, it all seems a tad odd. When the history was deleted yesterday, I found a recent version in my cache and saved it. At this point, though, I'm hesitant to do anything with it until things settle out somehow. I reviewed what was there pretty thoroughly yesterday, and after adding a couple of additional references, the only substantial content not to my mind adequately sourced was the apparent lifting of content from an Anne Applebaum column in February, as that phase of the deleted Nasdijj blog seems to be unretrievable, so I was thinking of removing that. Also wanted to update on his most recent blogging. What next? Robertissimo 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I implicitly trust Cyde, however Jimbo has been on again since my last message here, and not left a direct comment, I have left another nte on his talk page. Little harm in giving this a few more hours. Rich Farmbrough 22:19 29 July 2006 (GMT).

I will un-sprotect now though. Please keep an eye on the article. Rich Farmbrough 22:21 29 July 2006 (GMT).

For some strange reason the other day (I suspect a rogue proxy server or something like that), I was unable to log in. I was concerned about Nasdijj, not Matthias Rath. I do not think Matthias Rath was sprotected or deleted or anything else, was it? You just misspoke here? I did make a couple of ordinary edits to Matthias Rath, trying to make it a bit more NPOV. (The article suggested he has made some amazing discoveries, which quite clearly I think are controversial (at best) claimed discoveries.) --Jimbo Wales 10:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just read what was written above, and I think I misunderstood it. Ok, yes. I got logged out after editing Matthias Rath, I suspect a rogue proxy server, so I blanked the page and went into irc to ask someone else to sprotect this article.--Jimbo Wales 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming it's really you. Are there any "office" issues with restoring history? Rich Farmbrough 13:59 30 July 2006 (GMT).

In answer to my own questions, the next from Jimbo's talk page Rich Farmbrough 14:04 30 July 2006 (GMT).

---

Hi Jimbo, if there is an WP:OFFICE action here, please confirm (or have Danny confirm) ASAP. Regards Rich Farmbrough 22:14 29 July 2006 (GMT).

WP:OFFICE is a policy which does not apply to things that I do. It is a way for Danny or Brad to notify that they are doing something that I would normally be the only person to do, due to a legal/customer service/etc situation of some sort, and usually because I am not available to take the heat personally. My action in this particular case is the sort of action that any ordinary editor might make, and should make in similar cases. The article has not been "blocked", it has been "semi-protected", which will keep anons from editing it while we, including Robertissimo of course, sort out all the details. If the article is as good as you say, and I have no current reason for thinking that it is not, then Robertissimo and other editors should have no problem building it back up line by line carefully. This is an action of "whoa, this article makes some very strong claims, let's make 100% certain it is right".--Jimbo Wales 10:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was under the impression it was based on a complaint by the subject. I'm copying your note (and this reply) to the article talk page to let (encourage) the experts to re-build the article. I guess we can restore history safely. Rich Farmbrough 14:04 30 July 2006 (GMT).

---

Draft Replacement Article

Please visit my user page; I've created a subpage with a potential update for the article, tightening and further sourcing the text and removing a couple of points that are either no longer verifiable (deleted blog content, for example) or might be read as POV. I welcome constructive comments and any thoughts others might have on if/when this text would be appropriate for use. Robertissimo 05:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Completely sourced and verified. Unless anyone offers objections, I can't understand why this should not be implemented immediately. Vizjim 10:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Given recent concern about the article, and prior to restoring it, I have:

• Added the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons template at the top of this Talk page;
• Reviewed the article as of its semi-protection on July 27, making corrections as noted above, clarifying some statements and removing others that were possibly POV or seemed to me extraneous;
• Added some new material, including a quote from a 2002 PEN forum, recognition of the subject's work by the National Magazine Awards, and updated information from the subject's blogging
• Added a reference section showing sources.

The subject has indicated on his blog [1] that he is aware of this article and its editing. Robertissimo 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[This post] alleges that someone editing this page (the discussion page) has libelled him: "They have published terminology on their dialogue page that implies I have committed violent crimes against children. This is libelous and slander. It is not true and I deeply resent the implication." I have no idea what this means. Does anyone else? The word "pederasty" is mentioned up above, but not in any way that implies that he has committed such crimes, only that he described them in his book. Still, I recommend a close watch on this.--Jimbo Wales 21:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes please

Can someone please make these small changes? I'm not allowed to make them myself.

• Change "The Raleigh, North Carolina, News & Observer, a newspaper that had published" to "The News & Observer, a newspaper in Raleigh, North Carolina that had published".
• Change the link after "The author subsequently removed much of the blog's content." to http://nasdijj.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-used-to-be-nasdijjs-blog.html

195.173.23.111 09:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

The material from Nasdijj's Blogspot postings are no longer retrievable or otherwise verifiable; the blog itself exists, but either is or is presented as now being by someone else[2]. He seems to be no longer posting on LitKicks, and the profile there is basically blank. Therefore I've taken out the 'graph from those sources and removed from the refs. I've also added a mention of the most recent sourced Nasdijj sighting, from online content from the New York Times. Robertissimo 19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Barrus commenting on Italian writer Roberto Saviano, target of death threats by organized crime, in the nytimes.com "comments" section of an article

He claims to be "innocent" Link to the article page, to see the comment scroll down. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.156.52.105 (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

More from Prairie Mary

I apologize for a couple of typos and redundancies. Mackay's advisor is, of course, a female professor. And I came to Browning, MT., as a teacher of English rather than England. My eyesight is not the best but my eye doctor says the cataracts aren't "ripe" for surgery yet.

Mary Scriver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.129.234.165 (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim Barrus

I have waited for my password so I could log in, but it has not arrived and I can't remember what it is. However, the people who will harass me for this entry already know my IP. They show up on the Feedjit for my blog except when cloaked. Googling easily connects me with Barrus.

I would like you to add material about Barrus that is NOT focused on the "hoax" sensationalism. I have reviewed his books, the three written as Nasdijj and another written as Tim Barrus. I cannot afford to buy the early handmade poetry books that sell for hundreds of dollars, and I'm not really into the subject matter, but they deserve to be mentioned since they show up on used book websites. I'm resisting reading and reviewing "Genocide," a major work about AIDS. He has not published since the big hoax scandal. Over the years he has written and edited innumerable articles and magazines, often using pseudonyms, which is particularly common among genre writers.

A writer ought to be known by his writing. These posts on "prairiemary.blogspot.com" are about Barrus' work:

10/18/07 "The Nasdijj Trilogy" 5/22/08 "The Boy and his Dog Are Sleeping" 9/1/08 "Djordji's War" 10/3/08 "Beloved Community or Saving Remnant"

There are probably others as well as a long interview on www.unlikelystories.com. I have never met Barrus or any of the boys. If they are inventions, they are certainly a virtual world as worthy of admiration as a Dickens novel. I've see many photos.

I've been corresponding with Tim for several years now. We met online during a controversy on "Flyover Country," a blog. I also glancingly know Sherman Alexie since I've been active on Native American listservs for more than a decade. He is not "SEVERAL" authentic Indian authors -- he is the only one I know who has complained about Tim's impersonation. For instance, Louis Owens, an NA author and expert on Steinbeck, was eloquent in defending the right of white people to write about Indians, just as Indians have written about whites. The Nasdijj stories hardly interfered with Sherman Alexie's career but the Alexie quote (partly because Alexie is the only Indian writer known by many non-Indians) was used to bludgeon Barrus out of print. The responsibility and culpability of publishers ought to be discussed, since they knew Barrus was not NA and not writing his own memoir, but chose to promote him that way. They also knew he was in desperate need of a very expensive double hip transplant, as mentioned in the Esquire article. He appeared at readings on crutches, in a wheelchair, and relying on Navajo, the helper dog who finally succumbed to old age a few weeks ago and is now replaced by a new Blue Heeler.

The information supplied to many of the journalists about Barrus, which then became fossilized in print, came from the San Francisco scene in the Seventies when posing, transgression, grandiosity, and boundaries in general were being challenged. Barrus and his wife, Tina, met while teaching troubled and handicapped children and have all along worked in this way. Tina specializes in the care of autistic children. The two main attackers of Barrus (who have now been traced electronically) complain that he had no right to pretend he was an Indian, that he has an evil interest in his students, and that his students don't exist. They show no signs of ever having read the three Nasdijj books.

One of these attackers is James Mackay whom I knew of from participation in the same listserv. He has turned in a doctoral thesis to King's College where he is enrolled in a correspondence course since he lives on Cyprus. His advisor is a female Portugese woman who specializes in theories of deconstruction and post-colonial thought. I confirmed this with King's College. His topic is four Indian "fakers": Ward Churchill, Jamake Highwater, Asa Ward Carter, and Ruth Beebe Hill, whom I know personally. (She wrote "Hanta Yo!" and was a dear friend of Ayn Rand, but never pretended she was Indian.) Mackay once asked me to be on a "friends" list with him and, since he assumed I was in sympathy with him, was more frank than he ought to have been.

I am white. I came to the Blackfeet Reservation to teach high school England in 1961, was married to Bob Scriver (a white sculptor who was born and died on the rez and who created a series of sculptures of Blackfeet among other subjects), then became a Unitarian-Universalist minister for the next ten years. I was also the Methodist minister for the reservation for one year. I now live on the edge of the reservation. I am retired and nearly seventy. My degrees include a BS from NU in 1961, an MA in Religious Studies from the U of Chicago in 1980, and an MDiv from Meadville/Lombard Theological Seminary in 1984. I am a published writer in addition to a blogger. My main blog is prairiemary.blogspot.com and I also self-publish research aids for Blackfeet and other books through www.lulu.com/prairiemary.

This entry about Tim Barrus is incomplete and misleading because of the omissions. In addition, using a pseudonym is a long literary tradition hardly deserving of assault. If you are claiming this is not libel by omission, you are being coy. Barrus doesn't know I'm writing this and may get angry at me. This may also trigger more assaults on Barrus and myself.

Prairie Mary Mary Scriver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.129.234.224 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure from the above what material you would want added to the article - could you perhaps give details? Vizjim (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cherry picking for negatives

My previous posts were either ignored or cherry picked for negatives. The incident with the video for unlikelystories.com is misinterpreted. "Nasdijj Come Home" is an anonymous and irresponsible blog invested in maligning Tim Barrus.

If wikipedia represents itself as being responsive to posts from legitimate public speakers, then this will stop. Otherwise wikipedia is simply letting itself be gamed by witchhunters.

Mary Scriver216.129.234.103 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC) (Sorry about overlooking the tildes earlier.)