Talk:Patrick Syring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Patrick Syring article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	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.

This article was nominated for deletion on August 22, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] deletion debate

I created this article and within minutes it was tagged for speedy deletion. I was actually still putting info into the article when it was tagged, and got an edit conflict when I tried to save it.

I think that if someone is indicted on federal charges of harassing James Zogby and the Arab American Institute, then this deserves to be documented. This story has been very widely covered. Popkultur 04:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag, but it will probably end up going to Afd if nothing else can be said besides "this guy was charged with xxxxx crime, the Associated Press published an article about it". --- RockMFR 04:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire to delete this page because of NPOV/attack in some versions, but I think the subject is important and we should keep working to improve the article. The subject's alleged actions are worldwide news, the State Department is forced to defend itself in the Arab world, and it has had some repercussions on U.S. foreign policy. I would agree that the biographical details of the subject are unimportant and I will delete those sections. Lfp 04:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI2 tag

The tag is inappropriate. Pat1425 is neither the creator nor the main contributor to the article; his POV-pushing edits have been reverted. And WP:BLP permits editors to edit their own biography, so long as they are not POV-pushing. If there's a POV problem, fix it and remove the tag. THF 05:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If the proper response to a COI is to simply fix the POV edits, then what is this tag for? I don't think the tag is there for the general reader's benefit, as much as for the editor's benefit. WP:COI specifically mentions legal antagonists and strongly discourages editing under this type of COI. Is there a COI in this case? I think there is. Has this COI led to POV edits? Yes: we have both fixed them. So I think the tag is appropriate. It shouldn't stay up forever, but in my opinion it should stay up as long as the editor in question is continuing to contribute.Lfp 12:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The tag is for the general reader's benefit in the case of an article where COI is affecting the POV of the article (note that the COI2 tag doesn't flag the article in a category, so there's no benefit to editors of the tag). Contributing doesn't violate COI; what violates COI is violating NPOV while having a COI. That's solved by warning the editor and fixing the article. Once the article is fixed and stable, there's no reason for the tag. By flagging the article, you are telling people that someone needs to check it for POV. If that's not true, then don't tag the article, especially when the statement in the tag isn't true. Pat1425 is not the main contributor to the article. THF 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

THF is correct, there is no prohibition on an editor editing their own article. First, WP:COI is a guideline, not policy; policy should not be broken (except see WP:IGNORE), guidelines represent standard practice but not policy. However, even the guideline does impose a blanket discouragement on self-editing. The best summary of the COI guideline comes from the page itself:

This page in a nutshell: When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they have a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged, but editors with a potential conflict of interest may edit with appropriate care and discussion.

Some of pat1425's edits are inappropriate as violations of policy WP:NPOV; if such statements are present, the article should either be fixed or be carrying an NPOV tag. So far, I haven't seen true COI from pat1425 - his bio edits have been mostly clarifications or minor expansions - not COI, but he does add NPOV violations. Studerby 21:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

```` This article is still good, it can stay, this situation looks like what happened recently in australia where the government deleted notes in wikipedia they didnt like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.74.229 (talk) 20:15, August 24, 2007 (UTC)