Talk:Charles Carreon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 7, 2007Articles for deletionDeleted
June 11, 2012Articles for deletionNo consensus

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Major editor here is No Rivals Media, to which Charles is affiliated with and it shows in the content/tone of this entry. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing this link as it immediately redirects to a link to a survey if you navigate to it from Wikipedia (looking at the referer string). If you go to it via another source (or just type it into your address bar) it takes you to a domain squatter page. - Letsbefiends (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theorist?[edit]

Should this guy be listed as a conspiracy theorist, or should it be mentioned in the article somewhere? Because just by glancing at the front page of his website, he seems to be at the deep-end of the pool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.179.239 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced[edit]

All the sources are there, someone just needs to go through and match them up with the appropriate claims in the article. I left the "unreferenced" tag in place. Chris Fjordson 08:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The top reference (only reference) to this article, presently, is this bio at Domain Name Journal. The glowing language in the bio and the favorable photograph associated with it suggests bias (did he write it himself?) We need more sources. There's dozens - hundreds - of articles written about the Sex.com matter. Charles Carreon himself wrote a book about the case. In fact, this book review presents itself as an excellent source.

Furthermore, the credited "Awards and recognition" should be struck. I refrain from calling the "Businessman of the Year" award by the Business Advisory Council of the National Republican Congressional Committee a scam, but it's certainly a bought award. The latter "Most Unprofessional Lawyer/Solicitor of the year" seems to be backlash from The Oatmeal matter. Rburriel (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Carreon is listed as a "Contributing Attorney" to Domain Name Journal. I believe that invalidates the impartiality of that source. Rburriel (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheOatmeal.com[edit]

He's currently involved with a lawsuit against The Oatmeal. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter It's possible some vandalism may occur. DaveDubya 21:47, 11 June 2012 Even though the page has been locked down for fear of vandalism, wouldn't it make sense for someone who has the ability to edit to add something about this ongoing event?

There is no lawsuit. It's just a letter demanding $20000. Big difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6B0:17:F026:24B1:3B31:F0B9:F63 (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lawsuit now, Charles Carreon vs Matthew Inman, IndieGoGo Inc., National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society (!), see http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/17/the-oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-part-iv-charles-carreon-sues-everybody/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.234.97.120 (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... It's all true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.66.187 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that matters. He himself is not significant even if his work is. 70.15.136.149 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, delete, and merge the details of the legal action into The Oatmeal page instead. It seems likely that Carreon is motivated by a desire for notoriety, and it would be unwise for wikipedia to fuel it. EdFortune (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an attorney and I was involved with a case that made precedent in asylum cases at the circuit court level. There's no way I deserve a wikipedia page. Nor does this clown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.157.93 (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that Wikipedia is about people being "deserving" of pages, or that one of the criteria for having a page is someone's "desire for notoriety" as mentioned above. There are 1000s of pages featuring people who have had a negative impact on society. I think the question is more of relevance or impact... whether or not this Charles Carreon character is relevant or not is debatable...TeaganK (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case of notoriety being a reason not to have a page, it's more the impression that the only reason Carreon could warrant a page is his current behaviour - which isn't notable enough. He's just another lawyer. At best, he deserves a note on the Oatmeal page. DELETE. EdFortune (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This person is not notable and this page does not belong on wikipedia. DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.195.61 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


DELETE Busha5a5a5 (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With Jokestress's revision of the article, and Carreon's lawsuit filed against The Oatmeal et al., I think there is now sufficient relevant to warrant it's non-deletion. Rburriel (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those wishing to weigh in on the deletion discussion should do so here, not on this page. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

He is only known for one event, and he lawsuit he was involved in is of limited notability, mainly showing that you can sue to get your domain back and recover damages. He was only the lawyer and is not notable himself. He would be no less notable nor important if he loss. 70.15.136.149 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, he's notable for two events (Sex.com and The Oatmeal). Three, if you count RL.com. There's a bit of something here. Don't know if we can make this turd shine, though. Let's give it a few days to flesh out. Rburriel (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Bhudda[edit]

The website is damned slow, probably on the same server as his main site (at least on the same IP) and is being killed from that, but it would seem that he is the person who owns/registered american-buddha.com and if you ever get a look at it there are links to several of his sites, and seems to be mainly a single article from someone named Tara Carreon (presumably a family member). It's the "American Buddha Online Library". It's really rather Web 1.0 and I'm not sure if it's worth even mentioning should this article be kept, but he's definitely related to the project. 70.15.136.149 (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done not 100% sure what your on about, but it has been nominated for deletion Mdann52 (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Him being a founder of American Buddha needed a citation. I still maintain this should be deleted, but if it doesn't, it should at least be decent quality. His owning the domain, and a likely relative of his being the maintainer of the website, along with the several links out to his sites, should be enough of a citation to show he's a founder, or at least strongly involved. It's also not called American Buddha, but rather "American Buddha Online Library" and it IS a non-profit in Oregon with Amy and Tara Carreon being the people currently listed (and I'm not paying $5 just to find out if he was a founder). That said, I have no idea why it matters at all if he is a founder. It'd be like mentioning that someone doesn't like onions on their Wikipedia page. It doesn't really have anything to do with him. So, provided citation, suggested that the part about American Buddha Online Library be removed, suggested correction of name of ABOL, and still think there's no reason to keep this article at all. 70.15.136.149 (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carreon's law office seems to be in a residential home in Tucson, at which is also located the "Maitreya School." He appears to be associated with the "First Church of Buddha, Materialist," and authored a number of the articles at their website: http://www.american-buddha.com/1st.church.budd.htm Lippard (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since 70.15.136.149 made a point about the proper name of American Buddha, I would note that it's called simply "American Buddha" in the case caption (see, among many examples, 609 F.3d 30).[1]Oblivy (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RL.com Case[edit]

The link that is supposedly to the RL.com case seems to relate to a completely unrelated case regarding a case of mistaken identity. It has nothing to do with a website RL.com or anything internet law related. Suspect there is a correct article out there, but the links is just incorrect. Should it be removed? 58.178.92.176 (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Carreon[edit]

Someone identifying themselves as Tara Carreon, Charles Carreon's wife [2][3] has been responding to comments. It is unknown if they are legit. CallawayRox (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Jokestress![edit]

Applause to Jokestress for the massive revision of this article. The case of The Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk.com seems to evolve and become more convoluted by the day, and this article finally gets the revision it so badly needed. Rburriel (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rburriel! Jokestress (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Buddha complaint[edit]

You might wants to read this! http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/AmericanBuddhaComplaint.pdf - 124.184.12.102 (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, but not suitable for most citation purposed in this article. See WP:PRIMARY. If we can find reliable secondary sourced that discuss this document we can add material sourced in the secondary sources and add this on as an additional ref. That's an acceptable way of using cites to primary sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a Businessweek article about the case. Jokestress (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Still ongoing[edit]

As far as I am aware, we are still discussing potential deletion on this page so why has the tag been removed? EdFortune (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it says at the top of that page, "The result was no consensus." Jokestress (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashland Free Press[edit]

Is it worthwhile mentioning that Carreon seems to own the Ashland Free Press? - Letsbefiends (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD Revisions[edit]

I am about to make a couple of revisions that may be seen as controversial. I am a big believer in WP:BRD, so if anyone objects, feel free to revert and discuss. If you can, please wait until I finish the string of edits before reverting; it won't take more than half an hour or so. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First edit: I am removing the citation to dnjournal.com because it violates WP:BLPSPS. Carreon is a columnist at dnjournal.com[4] and clearly wrote his own bio[5] Both pages contain the header "..meta name="Microsoft Theme"..", and the other pages on the site do not. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second edit: I am changing "who successfully litigated the Sex.com domain name rights case" to "who was part of the legal team that successfully litigated the Sex.com domain name rights case". According to http://www.leagle.com/decision/2000126799FSupp2d1168_11147 there were at least four attorneys litigating that case (Richard Diestel, Charles Carreon, James Wagstaffe, Pamela Urueta) and it is not clear who did what from the sources I have been able to find. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third edit: adding information about dropping the appeal/ I cited a secondary source, but if anyone wishes to look at the primary source, it is at [ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/798179-169014356-charles-carreon-dismisses-appeal-in.html ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, those were the ones that really didn't require any editorial judgement. Now I am going to do some major copyediting to fix what I see as the following problem: the lead and the "Life and career" section focuses on the sex.com case. While that is indeed a notable legal case, it is mostly the actions of Stephen M. Cohen that are notable, not the fact that Charles Carreon filed the suit. I am also going to update The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Charles Carreon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Carreon&oldid=1206334104"