Talk:Craig Winn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Year of Birth?

Does anyone knows the person's year of birth? -Politicallyincorrectliberal 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Imploded Company?

The opening paragraph says he had 2 companies go bust, but only VA is named. What's the second?

Dynesty Lighting. Read again; it is named in the article. Uucp 02:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] self-published author and self-proclaimed

The use of these phrases appears POV motivated and is obviously intended to discredit his work and is not acceptable in a living Bio unless you have a legitimate source. As it stand it is just an inferences , thus OR.--CltFn 10:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The use of "terrorism expert..." is also OR. BhaiSaab talk 19:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a living BIO so cut out your POV motivated slant.--CltFn 19:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I've already established at many other articles that it is you who quite clearly has POV motivated slant. BhaiSaab talk 20:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
well if you want to cite someone saying that he is self-published author and self-proclaimed then go ahead.--CltFn 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Winn's books are published by Cricketsong books, "a division of Virginia Publishers, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Winn Company, LLC." [1] That more than qualifies as "self-published." However, I found one third party that referred to Winn as a "terrorism expert," on the American Family Association's site: [2]. While the AFA obviously has a POV, I think that's sufficient to say that he's more than self-proclaimed; he at least has convinced someone that he's an expert. I suggest (and will make this edit) that the intro read, "Craig Winn is an American author who has self-published several books on terrorism and Islam." I think that's accurate, NPOV, and verifiable. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. BhaiSaab talk 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Dot Bomb

Okay, as you say "per google", here is what google had to say.

There were a total of 48 uses of the phrase "first dot bomb". That included repeat usage on the same websites.

Other than the Craig Winn on Wikipedia page (which is not a primary source), it showed up in two other places- both of them on the www.strategy-business.com website which was a book review of Kuo's book.... as I said before the only one making this reference is Kuo who is not a suitable primary source, especially as he can be seen as a person with an axe to grind and we must conform to WP:BLP. --ProtectWomen 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Uucp, Please read the references on the new edit. This is my second attempt to get you to use the talk page.

First of all, you are using edit summaries to replace communication you should be making on the talk page.

Secondly, you are displaying a profound lack of understanding of the terms "good faith" and "original research".

Good Faith is defined per Wikipedia: "To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." This has nothing to do with trying to use the opinion of a weak secondary source(David Kuo) as if his opinion was fact(ValueAmerica was not the first dot bomb). Facts can't be taken on faith. The intention of other Wikipedia users is what you take on faith.

Also Original research has been superseded by WP:A. Please read those policies.

Another key policy you are disregarding is WP:BLP. Per Wikipedia's policy on writing biographical information about a living person : "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel."

In light of this, I can keep reverting you, and you will be in danger of WP:3RR and I will not. Also, if you do not desist, I will be forced to ask for assistance in keeping you from adding this contentious information about a living person.

Sorry if this seems harsh- it is not personal. I do not know you, nor Mr. Winn, nor Mr. Kuo. This is not personal about any of you. It is about having a factual and quality online encyclopedia. I myself am new and have made quite a few mistakes. Some other users have pointed things out and I've had to read a lot of policies as I go. Anyway, it's good to just learn from those mistakes and move on. So I am about to leave you a message on your page, and then have no choice but to revert this page. Thank you. --ProtectWomen 09:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in discussion. David Kuo wrote a well-reviewed book that called Value America the first dot bomb. We have no reason to doubt Kuo's objectivity, and no evidence that he is wrong. You delete this phrase repeatedly, using different explanations each time. You current explanation, that it may be libellous to Winn, makes little sense to me. The article does not say that Winn is a bad person, only that his company was called "the first dot bomb," which is a clear matter of fact, and footnoted. I will re-insert the fact and the footnote. Uucp 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, your saying that it was an early public dot com to go bust, following in the footsteps of boo.com, is misleading. Boo.com was not publicly traded. There may have been public dotcoms that went bust before Value USA, but I don't know of any. Either the reference to public status, or the reference to Boo.com needs to be changed. I will do this now. Uucp 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Uucp, thank you, I can see more of your rationale here better than the short line given for the edit summary.
Again, a dot bomb refers to the companies who had large amounts of money put in by investors, then the company was not able to return that money to its investors (much less with interest, as an investor hopes). There were countless companies who had millions poured into their company, then had to claim bankruptcy (or were bought by someone else in the case of boo.com). Google was one of the winners of the dot-com boom, but most were not so lucky.
I haven't read the book, so I am taking it on good faith on your part that Kuo actually said it was the first dot bomb. The title of the book is "dot.bomb: My Days and Nights at an Internet Goliath". Notice that it is not "the first dot.bomb: My days and Nights at an Internet"
As a matter of fact, your second reference behind "first 'dot bomb'" does not serve as evidence to back up your claim. It says this:"Craig Winn pitched Value America as the future of retailing to the likes of Paul Allen and FedEx's Fred Smith, but the dot bomb was gone by the end of 2000."
The reference calls it "the dot bomb" which actually CONTRADICTS Kuo's claim that it is the first dot bomb. The fact that they 'do not call it the first dot bomb supports both my position, and reality as well. Value America was not the first dot-bomb. It was not even on CNET's list of Top 10 dot-com flops. But Boo.com is.
Actually, the boo.com reference isn't particularly relevant to the article- and I will remove it. The point is that boo.com flopped before valueamerica did. AND there is not one reliable source who seems to document who the first was- we can only say with 100% certainty that valueamerica was not the first and also has no purpose in this article. --ProtectWomen 18:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, (1) Kuo did call it the "first" dot bomb. I can find the page reference if you like. (2) The other random footnotes on that line were not inserted by me. Uucp 10:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I will also be adding a link to Wikipedia's page on dot bomb --ProtectWomen 18:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Wonderful. We have a Muslim editor, a Christian editor, and a neutral editor (ProtectWomen). I reverted the Christian fellow's most recent edit, but I may have erred, and if he reverts it back I won't be upset.

You folks have got to talk things over among yourselves. There seems to be edit warring going on, and nobody needs that. As the sayding goes, "Mind NPOV." Note: I am not formally taking sides in this dispute. YechielMan 02:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote styles, CAIR, External Links

User ProtectWomen, you are constantly trimming any criticism of the subject of the article and continually link to his website to the exclusion of others.

Please review the section on 'Critics' at the WP:BLP. As long as the criticism is sourced (it is), does not overwhelm the article so that the article appears to side with the critic (it does not; the Muslim response section is less than a quarter of the entire article), and is not the view of a tiny minority (patently not a tiny minority), then it is fine.

Also, the use of block quotes is fine and needs to be shown its current form because it:

(a) is written by a representative of CAIR, one of the largest Islamic organisations in America.

(b) discusses two separate criticisms -- that of Winn's lack of knowledge on the subject (his background is in business not comparative religion), and that he has been criticised for having extremist views in the eyes of Muslims (and probably most non-Muslims too, for characterising the beliefs of 1.5 billion human beings as being inherently terrorist).

(c) is a quote of more than 4 lines (which is exactly when block quotes are meant to be used).

(d) cannot be described as redundant. In fact, the quote you added to the 'Analysis of Islam' section is far more redundant, since the block quote you added a few days ago adds nothing but elaborate on the exact same theme.

Finally, your antics in the external link section are not appreciated any more than Waheedmiah's are. First you denied that it was even a legitimate link or a debate/criticism, despite the fact that it was a debate between Winn and a Muslim critic. Now, you're saying the content is unacceptable. I listened to it once, so perhaps I missed it, but I heard no advertisement to a blog. Regardless, the point is, that the majority of the content is exactly the same -- the only real difference being that it links to a site that is not Craig Winn's. Look at the article in its current form. Virtually all of it is references to Winn's own website. Linking to a variety of different sources is superior to making readers reach the same one over and over. Artichoke84 12:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Invitation2Truth website is completely non-notable. It is a blog. The audio sample has what is essentially an advertisement for this non-notable blog/online store website. The audio sample that I am inserting links to a page that contains no reference to Winn's site, other than the http address. The link you insist on trying to insert IS edited, and that is a fact. There is music at the beginning, then the advert appears toward the end. Your claim that we should be representing diverse websites is completely irrelevant in the case of the soundfile, this should be obvious.
As for the quote, you should not confuse the words of one man who happens to have a minor leadership role in CAIR to be taken as a spokesperson on behalf of CAIR. As we know, CAIR is itself a terrorist front organization and does NOT represent the average (moderate) Muslim. In fact, using quotes from extremist members of CAIR to criticize anyone (even Winn) is about as appropriate as quoting Adolph Hitler's opinions on Jewish people in the Wikipedia article Jew as if it is also valid criticism.
Waheedmiah is using several IP addresses to consistently vandalize the links section. I've tried reporting this user, but to no avail. --ProtectWomen 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You've raised 3 cricitisms. To answer: the amount of promotion is completely neglibible, less than the advertisements available on the majority of sites. Links do not have to be notable according to the WP:EL. The WP:EL, however mentions avoiding linking to multiple pages on the same website.

The quote is available on the CAIR Chicago site, and is in the form of a published article by a member of the organisation. It is safe to say that this is what CAIR wants people to hear. Your statements about CAIR as a terrorist front organisation is a clear admission of bias and POV attitude affecting your editing style. Even if the libellous accusations you make about CAIR were true, this does not make the organisation any less prominent. If Osama Bin Laden commented on Craig Winn, it could appear in this article under criticism.

Also, please do not make analogies to Hitler. They are instantly emotive, and I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. Artichoke84 12:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1) The promotion as you say is "negligible" is irrelevant. The fact that there is one version with promotion and one without means we must use the version without.
2) As far as WP:EL linking to multiple pages on the same website, it's not relevant because the link goes to a sound-file; there is absolutely no text related to the website on the page
3) CAIR is a group with many ties to terrorist organizations.[1][2][3][4][5][6] It's not libel; it is documented fact.
4) I am fully aware of Godwin's law, but it doesn't apply in this case, because CAIR actually hates the Jews in the same way as the Nazis... sorry to point it out.--ProtectWomen 05:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to: 1) Actually, if you read the WP:EL, it has a problem with "objectionable" amounts of advertising; a tiny amount is fine.

2) Of course it matters. The principle is to avoid drawing from exactly the same source over and over again, so that readers of the page don't get routed to the same place. External links from a variety of sources are superior to ones that lead to the same site.

3) You completely ignored what I said. Even if CAIR were a terrorist organisation (and I don't believe it is), it has a place in the article because of its prominence. People might have their problems with the ACLU for standing up for hate-mongering groups like the KKK, but that doesn't mean they're any less important. CAIR is one of the few organisations to speak up about Craig Winn (those Muslims who know of him just view him as some sort of marginal figure, and the majority have never heard of him), so they completely fit in the Muslim response section. You're trying to draw this off on a tangent. Stop trying to prevent criticism from being placed in the article, please.

4) Godwin's Law applies because this article doesn't mention Jewish people, genocide, or anything related or comparable to Nazism. It's about you trying to liken organisations you dislike and comparing it to the mass execution of millions of people, in order to try and win an argument.

Also, it's just terrible behaviour not to halt the edit war when I invite you to try and reach some sort of agreement here. The point of a talk page is to solve disputes, and if editors can't be mature enough to sort them out first, then what's the point? Almost every edit any other user has made lately has simply been edited out and disregarded. Wikipedia is a community project based on trying to form consensus, not a place to play edit war games, or enforce your sole view of articles should be. Artichoke84 13:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ac84-
1)If there is an option for content with advertising and without advertising, there is no reason to opt for the one with advertising.
2) Routing? The page routed to on Winn's site contains absolutely no graph or text content. Your argument is not relevant with regards to the soundfile because there is nothing there showing up on the webpage but the individual user's embedded media player (in whatever browser they are using). Again let me spell it out. No text. No graphical content. After heading to this site there are no links to click on, nothing about Winn's website other than what is in the http: address window. If you hit the back button on your browser it leads right back to Wikipedia. I understand the argument you are making, and I would agree with you if some kind of text or graphical content were involved.
3) I didn't say that CAIR itself was a terrorist organization, but its ties to terrorist groups is not even debatable. You can get a quick rundown here non apologetic summary but also see here The CAIR-Terror Connection and here CAIR leader convicted on terror charges and here CAIR Backs Down from Anti-CAIR and here Sestak takes heat over appearance at CAIR banquet and here CAIR's Al Qeada Link Exposed and here Singing CAIR’s Tune, On Your Dime.
In light of all those articles (which I'm guessing you might read but probably not) it brings up the idea that should all of CAIR be condemned because of a small percentage of CAIR's leaders are proven "bad apples" ? How do we separate the actions of individuals who happen to belong to CAIR from saying that those people represent CAIR as an organization?
Why am I asking these questions? Because the "criticism" you include from Sultan Muhammad amounts to name-calling of Winn without legitimately criticizing Winn's viewpoints. In the article they claim he has only 4,000 hours of study devoted to Islam therefore he is ignorant about Islam. Such weak criticism doesn't even really deserve mention at all. What little is included is a compromise. Such a prominent quote style for such a lame quote is completely ridiculous. And of course, the article does not indicate Sultan Muhammad is making the statement on behalf of CAIR.
4) I agree with you on one point: "this article doesn't mention Jewish people, genocide, or anything related or comparable to Nazism." - However, the reason I mentioned the nazis wasn't because of this article on Winn, it is because CAIR is an offshoot of Shia Islam from Palestine whose anti-semitism rivals that of the Nazis. You felt that CAIR was a legitimate organization whose opinion of an Islamic scholar (Winn) was worthy of being quoted. The Nazis were also notable, but you will not see Hitler's opinion of the Jews in block-quotes in the criticism section under Jew because most Wikipedians have more sense than that. --ProtectWomen 15:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waheedmiah

Your persistent vandalism is not productive to the encyclopedic goals of Wikipedia. If you would like to engage in discussion, please do so here. I am suspicious you are a sockpuppet of an established user. Please reply, as I am pursuing administrator intervention into your linkspam vandalism activities. --ProtectWomen 07:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits Reverted

There was a critique added of Craig Winn's work on Jan 10th - it was reverted. I would like to know under what premise was it reverted? 67.42.88.221 (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)