First, I want to again thank everyone here at the Review. This is an update on the misinformation and harassment by certain editors at Wikipedia. It was finally recognized by Wikipedia Inc itself that there was bias in our article, but it was also mentioned that the bias is for as well as against our validity as a company. It also invites ANY Wikipedia members to edit, and that hopefully they will not to be blocked, harassed or threatened. You can find any of our information on the internet, "Real" encyclopedias, etc.

I invite all Wikipedia members that are here to check it out at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pee...iograph_Company

We do not want to be involved in ANY of the editing as usual because of conflict of interest, unlike the other editors. However, we do encourage any members from the Review "THE REAL FAIR PLACE" to check it out, and put thier 2 cents worth in.

Thanks again, and thanks for your support!

Thomas@Biograph Company

That page hasn't been touched in 10 months.

And the only editor on it who claimed bias was banned some time ago.

Hi, this is because anyone who tries to update or change the article outside of the ring of cwertain editors:

Walloon, Willbeback, and DTobias, among several others are blocked and banned.

With our company, Wikipedia is already under federal government surveilance, but you know how long government things take.

thanks for your concern,

Thomas R. Bond II
Biograph Company

Do you have any evidence for this statement? Or is it just that you aren't allowed to change it, so that must mean nobody can?

From looking at the history of that article, it doesn't appear that I've ever edited it, so how come I'm allegedly one of the special-privileged editors able to edit it where nobody else can?

It is that anyone who tries to correct the article or question it or the coalition of editors is either ignored or blocked. Please see the article history for verification. We have not conrtibuted the article since early 2005.

Thomas Bond II
Biograph Company



(cur) (last) 20:29, 20 October 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (157 bytes) (The Biography kook is banned, I think. Archive this.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 13:59, 20 October 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (40,658 bytes) (This is of noa ctual rleevance. We already have OTRS ticlets on the Mutoscope kook, and he's banned, soe we just don't need his input here.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 03:50, 20 October 2007 Dtobias (Talk | contribs) (41,045 bytes) (Censorship is unjustified.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 00:42, 20 October 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (40,658 bytes) (Thanks, Dan, but that has no more authority than the Biograph kook, and we have better sources for criticism than that link which currently goes to active harassment.) (undo)

One note I will leave, since I will not be replying to any other unusual postings. We are happy to be Biograph Company. We are happy and honored to be the oldest movie company in America. We are happy that we are recognized by legitimate organizations, publications, government credentials, and awards. It is very sad that the only "Small" world that enjoys falsehoods, vengence and yellow journalism is "Wikipedia" and that most of the unqualified editors without merit or background enjoy boasting of themselves while hurting others. It takes really "Big" people to do this. In essence, it is not "Defending" or "Rebuttal" but a battle that I do not want a part of. It is also very pathetic that individuals have nothing better to do with thier time than to build a false credentials of being "Editors" out of thier basements or bedrooms, when they cannot accomplish anything in the "Real" world. "Wikipedia" will continue on its course, and many will follow with the attitude of descent. But it is not just irony that these poor individuals are harming themselves by harming others, but that they are not even aware of the harm they commit to themselves.

What, exactly, are you intending that to prove? That bit of history is from the talk page, not the article itself, and it shows my comments there getting removed by JzG for violating the alleged BADSITES policy, my attempt to revert this removal, and JzG removing it again. If anything it shows how I'm outside the favored clique who can make their changes stand. Anyway, it's all from several months ago (and concerns talk-page comments from a long time before that).

By the way, has anyone pointed out this error to the British Film Institute?

http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/organisation/7244

We did a long time ago, but I think they were referring to BM&BC not AM&BC. The American company went into dormancy after 1928. I wish I could say more, but our confidentially with a private corp. would be breached. Thanks.

"Originally known as the American Mutoscope Co., in 1899 became the American Mutoscope and Biograph Co. And in 1909 adopted the name Biograph Co. Owing to its trademark AB it was also called American Biograph."

So the American Mutoscope and Biograph Co. is abbreviated to BMBC rather than AMBC?

Thanks for the question. No, the English branch is "British Mutoscope & Biograph Co." The British branch went out of business prior to AM&BC falling into dormancy. A good article to read is this one, which gives a reputable timeline:

http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/articl...biography_2962/

Thanks for the question!

What is your relation to American Zoetrope, Pathe, and Persistence of Vision?

This is a pretty extraordinary claim to make so casually. What in the world could Wikipedia or the WMF have done to another company that would trigger federal government surveillance? Defamation is a civil offense and would not be investigated by law enforcement authorities, and while questions have been raised about the tax-exempt status of WMF I can't suss out how that would involve your company. Would you care to elaborate a little?

Since when does anybody on Wikipedia Review have to actually justify their fantasies about the massive legislation / litigation / prosecution that's about to bring all of Wikipedia crashing down?

You're right. I've apparently confused this with the Snopes message board. My mistake. [/sarcasm]

Nya, I wish I could go into detail but cannot because of legalities. I can say that they have used extortive measures to pressure private corporate information that is held confidential under law. But I do thank you for your question.


We are not related to those companies, but thank you for your inquuiry.


No, we are AM&BC.

I wasn't asking for details, I was simply asking what crime the organization was being investigated by the federal government for. I don't quite understand part of your sentence: "they have used extortive measures to pressure private corporate information". How can they pressure information?

What is your relation to EdisonOla, VictorOla, and ERPI Classroom Films?

Nya, this is only one of the things they have done. They pressure a company or private corporation to reveal priviledged information. If you do not, they discredit you on Wikipedia as being fake, or not real. That can be a criminal offense. But this is only one small thing they have done. there are other things that I cannot go into that are being investigated. I do thank you for your inquiry:)

Again, I wasn't looking for additional information, except that your first explanation was apparently missing a word: compare "used extortive measure to pressure private corporate information" and "pressure a company or private corporation to reveal privileged information." I understand what you're alleging.

I completely understand, and again, we appreciate, and thank you for interest and input.

To translate into plain English, people on Wikipedia said they wouldn't take this guy's word for it and put things he claims to be true about his company in the article entirely on his say-so; they required some sort of proof they were actually verifiably true. Since he claims that any such proof would require disclosing confidential business information, making any such requirement (you know, requiring that some actual evidence exist that what he's saying is true before allowing the article to reflect it) is (in his mind) inherently "extortion" and a criminal offense. (Actually, Wikipedia policies require that information be from a reliable source, generally a published one, so that digging into his private business documents, even if it were possible, would be useless for Wikipedia reference purposes... so his secret papers are entirely safe from Wikipedians trying to dig into them.) He also has some weird conspiracy theories about Wikipedians implanting viruses in his computers or something. If he's really talking to government officials about this stuff, I imagine they're laughing uproariously once he leaves.

Mr. Tobias, this will be my last statement on this. This is not just Wikipedia taking "My word" as you well know. There are many reliable references that are published by established sources that confirm this company. Every one was discounted by Wikipedia and minimized, or disregarded. Every endorsement from government and reputable organizations have been ignored by Wikipedia. There was statements sent to us requesting that if we did show business information, this would "Prove" who we are, so you are incorrect once again. This is irrelevant now, since Wikipedia's reputation is now so tainted as to even be pulled from many schools due to its lack of creditability. Having countless remarks from almost every so called "Editor" of Wikipedia of us being "Kooks" and from you sir when you stated "You are toast!" are all inflamatory and confrontive remarks far from any kind of unbiased publication. There have been other threats as well through Wikipedia linked individuals. Insults are the result of a personal agenda and biased. The more there are, such as your statements here, the more obvious the personal agenda there is. Again, we are not the only target of biased agendas at this "Encyclopedia" with such a tarnished reputation, but definately one. Also, for the record, the government officials did not laugh. Last statement.

There is nothing wrong with a commercial enterprise engaging in promotional public relations.

But naked PR is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedic article about a commerical enterprise. If a commercial enterprise wants to make credible advertising claims, it must back them up with objective data.

Please review the article on Wikipedia. There was no naked PR in the original article, just information on the company. All of the unusual frivolous items included were placed there by these "Editors" in an effort to make us look "Bad" in thier words. Please review the archive history in the history section of the article. It states this was the agenda in writing. Any attempt to correct this was stopped by them long ago. Even some unfortunate editors that did try to correct this were accused of being part of "Biograph" and banned from Wikipedia. For creditable data, please refer to our website and all of our references in business publications, and other reputable non-Wiki encyclopedias. Thank you.

I'll wait for the story to be made into a feature length motion picture.

I understand there are companies that make movies out of interesting stories.

Yes, there are companies that actually make movies out of interesting stories, like ours. You can check our film list on IMDB.Com

When does casting and shooting start for the fascinating story chronicled in this thread?

As soon as they can line up space on a rocket to the moon in order to get the cast and crew to the shooting location.

Don't mention the moon. I mentioned it once and didn't get away with it.

Because there's no point in sending dogbiscuits to the moon... dogs don't go to the moon, only cows jump over it. Don't you know your nursery rhymes?

Hmm, you are not keeping up with the times:

More cheese, Gromit?

What a friend we have in cheeses.

Moulton, are you an editor at Wikipedia?


This is very interesting. I bid you all ado, since the genre has changed to a battle of elementary school wits. All this would be alright, if the malice was kept to a blog, rather than an encyclopedia that is proported to be factual.

Uh, this isn't an encyclopedia - it's a discussion site.

Nya, let me clarify. If Wikipedia was as this is a discussion page or "Blog", as WR is, there would be no problem. The problem we have is Wikipedia proporting to be a factual encyclopedia, which is what some of the members here are from Wikipedia and defending it. Thanks :)

Wikipedia doesn't have editors. It's has players with avatar characters who engage in battle much like any MMPORG. Given that observation, I prefer to play it for laffs.

Cheers! Well said.

So, when you turn the Wikipedia Story into a movie, I'd suggest a Noir Comic Opera, along the lines of Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Just so long as I, or my brother Alan, get to direct the feature film.

How about Springtime for Hitler, since nazi's are running Wikipedia haha...

You've just triggered Godwin's Law.

I am on the phone right now to Jack Benny's people and Mel Brooks to cease their comedic nazi jokes and comparison activities!

It's about time for Godwin's Corollary: Any mention of the name Hitler, even when appropriate, in an Internet discussion thread will inevitably result in someone invoking Godwin's Law.

Very good point. However, when an organization or person adheres to philosophies of a monster (Hitler), then they should be compared, as comparison to anything. Wikipedia is a dictatorship, just as any dictatorship, such as Mussolini, or Stalin. When propaganda is spread for the sole purpose of harming others for profit or personal gain, disgusing this as "Fact" this is facist. Wikipedia does not share or put forth an "Opinion" but publishes its slime as "Fact". When only one side of an issue is regarded as "Real" and any further discussion is neutralized by the power that publishes it, well, need to study some poli-sci.... Also, I abide by no self made law, for a self made law is now close to the philosophy this "Godwin" is criticising. This hampers free speech and that is a guaranteed right in this country, at least for now. I abide by fair laws initated by the people and for the purpose of freedom.

A well-crafted story cannot succeed by bludgeoning the audience. Stories have to be artfully crafted to amuse and enlighten without being overbearing and banal.

That is true, as long as it is a "Story". If it is the truth, then it needs to be raw. If it is crafted and manipulated, then it is a "Story" and not truth.

Fiction is a great scam. You get to tell the truth while pretending to lie. (See, for example, the novels of Fyodor Dostoevsky.)

Deceit is deceit. Again, back to our situation, Wikipedia has not only lied about us, and proported an opinion or agenda as fact, but others too, many others. Wikipedia IS a good idea, if it was not used as an agenda tool. This is like the historical "Blacklist" with the communists back in the 50's. This is the same tactics that Wikipedia uses. I blame not just the agenda based editors, that are only contributors NOT editors in the "Real" world, but we blame Wikipedia for not mediating these stitations properly. On our company, we are listed in many publication, published, and reputable. To be included in Wikipedia, this is the requirement. "Verifiable" sources. I have listed them time and again. The rebuttal I always get is "Show us the link from the old company to your company". First, this is the same company, no old or new. This has been published in public publications, NOT paid for adverstsing. These are verified sources, but Wikipedia refuses to recognize these. They want to see confidential information. This we will not show. Since we will not reveal this, the "Wiki" world will continue to bash us. That is where the extortive intent comes in. I will also give you another example of "Bias". It is an example of Gaumont Studios, please read this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaumont_Film_Company.... yes, this article claims Gaumont as "The oldest running film company in the world. " I want you to see how many "Verifiable" sources are listed in this article that was published on Wikipedia without question? ONE source, a footnote in a book. Please explain this? Yet, we have over 10 published, and verifiable sources submitted to Wikipedia, and all ignored. Our credidabilty torn with scrutiny, trying to find any flaw in detail to discredit us, and over 50+ ctiations "Trying" to prove we are not who we say we are. Why is this? There is an agenda. This is not my own opinion, but evidence of facts. Biased and agenda based. This cannot be expained. There you have it, I have explained again. this has NOTHING to do with our PR promotions, the studio, the digital camera on the moon (Which is legitimate), this has to do with Biograph being Biograph, and our company being torn to shreads by a group that want to see us, and I QUOTE "It is all the better, it makes them look ridiculous" and confessed to IN WRITING, the intention to harm our reputation as a company.