Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:12, 14 September 2012

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula at the Reference desk.

Should merge

This should be merged to Innocence of Muslims per WP:BLP1E. I don't think the guy is notable for any other newsworthy event than this one (though the bank scheme comes close, and if you have find good sources about it I could be convinced). The article comes close to being a "WP:Attack page". And ultimately, there's not much you'd say here that wouldn't be relevant to the other article. Wnt (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• My gut would tend to agree with the merger suggestion, though I suspect that it’s still a bit too early to tell how significant the making of the film will prove to have been, as opposed to the events in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen —— all in connection with that third prong of the test in WP:BLP1E. I’m not sure it becomes an attack page. My guess would be that the making of the film, and this man’s role in it, are not, at this point, yet significant, and that the biography, which otherwise has little of notability to it, would be best merged into the film. If subsequent events change things, warranting a separate biography, then of course a biography can always be separated out. My 2¢ Xenophonix (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is an AP story in the NY Post removed (NY post, no thanks)?

Why is an AP story in the NY Post removed (NY post, no thanks)?

--Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the NY post digs up so much shit just to sell their paper, it's not a source for biographies. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If the source meets guidelines for reliability it should not be removed. Such actions seem biased and agaisnt Misplaced Pages policy. Please don't fan flames on the talk page. As long as the claim is referenced per policy to BLPs it may be used.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The New York Post is a tabloid and generally should not be used for WP:BLPs. However, if they are just reprinting or quoting an AP story, I think it is usable. 72Dino (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Although one wouldn't need to use the NYP, it could be sourced directly to the AP.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The New York Post reference was just reprinting an AP story. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/anti_muslim_film

--Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The same person removed the AP story from Google. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nakoula_Basseley_Nakoula&diff=512261513&oldid=512261385 --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Coptic an ethnicity?

Is Coptic an ethnicity, a religion, or both? I can't tell from the Copts WP article. Right now it is shown as both in the infobox. 72Dino (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The cited sources clearly put it in contrast to "Arab"; therefore, it is used as an ethnicity in this context. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556

Exactly. Both. Copts are an ethnoreligous group. Many members specifically identify as a non-Arab ethnicity. See Arab Christians. Jokestress (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Coptic is generally considered a religion. His ethnicity is Arab, as people born in Egypt are considered Arabs. --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not all of them; read the sources relevant to this case. Other sources do not matter here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Democrat

So... can we get his penis-size, too? That's probably what led him to make the movie. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nakoula was a registered Democrat. This is relevant as this involves political controversies. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/13/mohammed-movie-s-mystery-director.html --Unindicted co-conspirator (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true, but what the fuck does it matter??? You can't just throw every snippet in here just 'cause someone says so. It's called editing not copy-pasting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 your behavior on this page is becoming perilously close to uncivil. While we may not censor at Misplaced Pages, you show no reason for your choice of words except to possibly create an uncomfortable atmosphere. Please consider treating all members with more respect.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Commenting on users is a personal attack. Do you have anything substantial to contribute? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing in either policy or guidleines that substantiates that claim. Your overwhelming the talkpage could be seen as disruptive.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree, political party does not seem very relevant. Jokestress (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Then we should take it out and have Uc-c make his case here before putting it back in. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I can agree to removing the mention at this time. If consensus changes it can be returned.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; but I can't do that (>WP:3RR). Someone else please. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, there does at least appear to be consensus for it's removal once you clear 24 hours and i will support the change by another if needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't have 24 hours. I'll take to the BLP noticeboard. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, but what is the rush?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a living person. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, you mean, as a Biography of a living person, you are concerned about the information? It seems to be pretty harmless if perhaps, more detail than is needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

That was in response to "no rush" . BLP is always a rush to get it right and relevant. It's gone now. And DreamFocus's edit summary is perfect. Read it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the info seems irrelevent, but accusing anyone of slander seems pretty harsh for an edit summary.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:No legal threats:"It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording..."--Amadscientist (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I have removed the specific date of birth as being irrelevant to his bio, and per WP:DOB. Also removed a "death date" line from the infobox that thankfully was typo'ed and not showing up in the article itself. Smarten up, people. Tarc (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles