Talk:Tod Scott Brody/Archive 1

Scandinavian allegations of misrepresentation and fraud

Well, now I've written the actual facts. It is true and can be documented, that the Danish TV show ran a series of allegations against the man - and that these have been repeated by a tabloid. Mikael Bertelsen and Mads Brügger who are the two hosts on the show, have earlier lied to promote their left-winged political beliefs, but that does not violate the fact that all of the named people have claimed these things about Mr. Brody. If anyone doubts it, they are free to do so, but though I rarely believe Mr. Bertelsen or Mr. Brügger, I know of the Danish law on media, where Mr. Brody would be able to claim just satisfaction from them. Therefore it is also in his best interest, that Wikipedia provides this information, as it is the facts of the case.

In my opinion, the fact that Mr. Brody has not sought to stop the tv shows, is a ratification of the allegations, but that musn't reflect the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malver (talk • contribs) 13:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it has been removed, though being impartial and true. There is no need for a third source for the facts I wrote, as they were facts. He HAS been accused of scamming by a Danish TV show. You all agree on that matter. Let Wikipedia reflect this. Malver (talk 13:58, 10 May 2008, GMT

DR2, a subsidiary of the Danish National Broadcasting Company, ran long stories on Tod Scott Brody on 29 and 30 April, and have announced they will run a further story on 7 May 2008. The stories included lengthy interviews with film-industry figures from Denmark and Sweden, and the interviewees backed up each other's allegations of misrepresentation. This is being taken quite seriously here in Denmark, by serious media and journalists.

I humbly suggest that the Danish part of the story meets BLP guidelines and should stand. AllanJ (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it would be helpful to include those reliable publications which are carrying the story as references. Especially in the case of controversial or negative claims, its important to make sure that those sources are included and air-tight. Shell ^babelfish 22:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original DR articles are referenced in the Wikipedia article ... I will add other refs. AllanJ (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks. Shell ^babelfish 22:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a little more information about this television show? Someone has mentioned that its not really news program, but more of an entertainment or tabloid type show. It looks like the information has been removed again, so maybe other sources, preferably from reliable news outlets should be found first before putting it back? Shell ^babelfish 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not view the program and read the articles? Wouldn't that help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanJenkins (talk • contribs) 22:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have actually though my Danish is particularly poor. My concern is that for an allegation this serious, we need to have multiple highly respected news organizations. The television show does not appear to qualify as a reliable source, nor does the single article provided. If this is receiving more attention, please provide the sources as requested. Otherwise, do not add the information back to the article again or you may face being blocked from editing. The policy on biographies of living people is very clear on this. Shell ^babelfish 22:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, DR is the BBC of Denmark... not sure what higher hurdles you expect them to make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllanJenkins (talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are multiple BBCs, some reliable, some not so much. :) In any case, per our WP:BLP policy, negative statements about a living person really require multiple sources. And especially since this is such a short article at the moment anyway, we also have to be concerned about neutrality, since we don't want to give undue weight to just the negative elements. If DR has genuinely broken a major story though, other media will pick it up, and then you'll have your sources. But if there's only one source saying it so far, that's not enough to pass our threshold yet. --El on ka 23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as savvy users can browse the edits... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.58.167.62 (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that the smart thing to do is to go with what secondary sources say. Whatever the merits of the show, it's the primary source for this material, and we prefer secondary sources sothat we can see how independent authorities react rather than blazing the trail in documenting something outside its original source. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should be included in this article?

There's a distint difference between an article stating that someone has comitted fraud and stating that someone has been accused of comitting fraud. If such an accusation has been made in public medias, whether true or false, should it be considered an important part of a person's biography?

It should be noted that a number of Wikipedia's editors insist on removing the only sourced part of the article, but have no problem with the poorly sourced, autobiographical part originally written by "Buttereight". --Minutae (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if its not appropriate for the article, its not appropriate to copy it here. You have a primary source and a tabloid; this is no where near the requirements necessary for such an allegation to appear on Wikipedia. As was clearly stated above, if this gets picked up by mainstream media, the issue can be revisited. If you'd like to provide sources for other material in the article, please feel free.

Also, its important to note that Wikipedia has a policy against outing other editors. Please do not attempt to provide the real name of any editors again, or you may find yourself blocked from editing. Shell ^babelfish 03:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, your statement ("if this gets picked up by mainstream media, the issue can be revisited") indicates that you haven’t understood the extent of this matter at all. The Tod Scott Brody-scandal has so far been the subject of several national television programs - most recently today in Aftenshowet, the evening news on Denmark's main national public service channel DR1 - and of several national newspaper stories. When you dismiss Ekstra Bladet as merely "a tabloid", you overlook that this paper is also famous for its investigative journalism which has brought to light many famous cases of fraud and injustice. As for Den 11. time, where he story originally broke, this is a national, long-running TV-talkshow hosted by journalists Mads Brügger and Mikael Bertelsen, who in 2007 won the Journalism Award of The Danish School of Journalism. The people who have given testimony in their investigation include such highly respected people as Oscar-winning director Anders Thomas Jensen, Oscar-winning producer Kim Magnusson and even the U.S. Ambassador in Denmark (all of which and more can be find thorough he links removed by Wikipedia’s administrators). Are you still saying this should all be hushed away, simply because Mr. Brody doesn’t like it? Furthermore, Shell, your threats and accusations towards me for having allegedly "attempted to provide the real name of an editor" are entirely uncalled for, since it was "Buttereight" himself who posted a message here, openly and purposefully revealing his identity. Finally, the notion that "if its not appropriate for the article, its not appropriate to copy it here" may be a Wikipedia-rule but isn't necessarily true, as there's a lot to be said for providing users easy acces to look at and discuss things in a talk forum in preparation for an editorial decision. --Minutae (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, as you are probably aware, Danish television has now shown five news programs (the latest in English language, available at the official homepage of Den 11. time) investigating the case of Tod Scott Brody, tracking it back through the years from country to country. Tod Scott Brody is himself discussing the case on his website, Summer Night Films. All of this can come as no surprise to you if you have looked into the matter. On this background, I have to question the reason for your vigilant insistence that none of this be mentioned in the article, and cannot be openly discussed even on the discussion page: Are you somehow affiliated with Tod Scott Brody? And since his use of female aliases is a recurring motif, I am also tempted to ask, are you in fact Tod Scott Brody? I won't, but it certainly would explain a lot! --Minutae (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting personal isn't going to help make your point here. This isn't me being vigilant, I've pointed you to the appropriate Wikipedia policies and even explained what needs to happen to get the information in the article. Since you've mentioned that more and more people are picking up the story, it shouldn't be long before this meets the requirements, eh? I haven't asked that you not discuss adding the content here, simply that you don't repeat the content itself for now -- but again, that's not a decision I made myself, its something specifically laid out in the biography of living people policy.

I'll be happy to work with you to help you gain your bearings at Wikipedia. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, which means the articles aren't the front runners for breaking news (see Wikinews though, if you'd be interested in that sort of thing). So, while you wait for this issue to be fleshed out and reported, I hope you'll be interested in editing some other Wikipedia articles as well. If I can answer any questions for you about policy, or anything else about Wikipedia for that matter, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Shell ^babelfish 13:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely in error here and I believe you have been so from the start. The allegations against Mr. Brody may be fair or not, I don’t know, but either way, they are not new and they were well sourced even when they first appeared in this article, with more sources appering soon after. It is my impression that “buttereight” claiming to Mr. Brody simply conned you into removing any content he didn't like by using <personal attack redacted>. It’s also my impression that you did not research the case properly to begin with, and now to excuse your initial bad edit you are simply pretending that there are not enough sources or that Danish medias are somehow not acceptable to the high standards of Wikipedia, both of which are nonsense. --Minutae (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above where both Elonka and Guy, two experienced and well respected editors both made statements that disagree with your assertions here. In no way were the allegations "well sourced" and certainly, the sourcing fell well below the standards for biographies of living people. Instead of attacking my integrity (and the subject of the article), you might want to investigate Wikipedia's dispute resolution options to invite a wider community of editors to review the situation.

There was no suggestion that Danish media itself is unacceptable, simply that the TV exposé is a primary source and the newspaper article is not sufficient for the "multiple reputable sources" requirement. Also mentioned was that if this issue is as important as you continue to assert, additional media is highly likely to report on it - once there are a good number of reliable sources reporting this information, then situation can be reviewed. I have asked if you have knowledge of additional sources three times now -- since none have been forthcoming, I have to assume that none currently exist.

Remember, first and foremost Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Information added to articles needs to be well documented and have lasting importance. Neither of these requirements are met at this time for the fraud allegations. When this issue can meet those requirements and be backed by multiple high quality sources, you're welcome to revisit its inclusion. Shell ^babelfish 15:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to protect well-known American citizens from allegations from foreigners. Furthermore, actors are better off not knowing about these allegations. Yes, I'm sarcastic.

Apart from the allegations, the Tod Brody article is almost entirely based on edits made by a person with detailed insight into Tod Brodys e-mails. Does an article like that meet Wikipedia's quality standards?

Documentation for this can be found in old edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Buttereight

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tod_Scott_Brody&diff=209667686&oldid=209662971 PonsX (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latest addition to this page is just all the more reason why this article should be locked. It stated that Mr. Brody had been convicted of a crime in the state of New Jersey. The truth is that Mr. Brody has never been convicted of any crime in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world. The stating of such on TV2 was pure, blanket defamation, and it's repeat here constitutes the same. Just because someone states something, doesn't make it true. I'd suggest that anyone interested contact the Morris County NJ Courts where you'll find that the indictments were dismissed and Mr. Brody was not convicted of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.132 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again the latest addition is an outrageous lie and constitutes libel as despite claims made on the tabloid show, Mr. Brody has never been convicted on any crime in any jurisdiction in the world. If you're going to libel him that way, please cite a source from the court which you claim convicted him. Not the claims made by disgruntled people on a tabloid show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttereight (talk • contribs) 23:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the allegations and clearly said "allegations" as well as not saying that he was convicted of anything just that there was an interview with the detective who "claimed" to have investigated Tod Brody, and that this detective claimed that Tod Brody "was charged criminally." Nowhere does this say "convicted of a crime" as I understand the difference between "investigated", "charged" and "convicted". I also linked directly to the English language interview with the Madison detective James Haspel who stated these things, together with other English language interviews with other people talking about the current allegations. Not sure why this doesn't cut the wikipedia standards, as I thought well-sourced current events on living people was relevant, can someone please explain as I'd like to learn. I'm also confused as to why the person who first created the Tod Brody page knows so much about Tod Brody's emails to Gry Bay and now wants to the Tod Brody page deleted but perhaps someone can explain that as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.67.145 (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’m curious. Why are Wikipedia users not allowed to read about Brody's alleged acitivities and his response to the allegations?

Should American citizens be protected, since they are superior to foreign actors?

Is that why Wikipedia editors lock the article, but don't want to discuss the content?

However, if Brody's alleged activities qualify as "art" or "practical jokes", then it may be wise to hide the allegations, so that Brody can continue the alleged activities without any warning to future "victims". This might be much more fun - at least for Brody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.74.69 (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]