This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lloyd R. Woodson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Review prior discussions if considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Woodson is back in the news with national coverage by multiple notable / reliable news sources, originally international coverage. Deletion objections used to originally delete the article were largely based on initial news reports and the stub article. Bachcell ( talk) 00:33, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
This subject was inserted to obtain a Contents box on this page. Greg L ( talk) 07:03, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
A Keffiyeh is much more commonly worn in Middle Eastern countries, therefore I strongly suggest linking it there instead of to Turban. I would have simply made this edit myself but last time I did so this was reverted so I decided to discuss it first.-- Supertouch ( talk) 02:28, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Since the article does not really discuss Woodson, it would be better if it were renamed to something more appropriate by adding one of arrest/investigation/case/incident. wjemather bigissue 19:03, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
WP:People notable only for one event is the governing policy here. It addresses …whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. It says …when an individual plays a major role in a minor event … the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. It then gives an example: Steve Bartman incident, which is an incident in a baseball game that made him notable (several spectators attempted to catch a foul ball off the bat of Marlins' second baseman Luis Castillo). The policy also provides examples of non‑minor events like Rodney King and Howard Brennan. As the Lloyd R. Woodson article says:
An editorial in The Washington Times drew parallels with Nidal Malik Hasan. It said "When a man is apprehended with a cache of weapons, body armor, a map of a military installation and jihadist personal effects, the natural response of most Americans is to assume the situation is terrorist-related" and suggested the Obama administration's definition of terrorism was too narrow.
I think it unfortunate that so much time-wasting wikidrama has arisen so needlessly. I would suggest editors who who are highly mobile on Wikipedia and who hand out unsolicited advise to others by slapping tags on articles and insist that his (or her) concerns be addressed by the community before the tags are removed should be exceedingly well versed in current Wikipedia policies. It wastes less time of others, many of whom are spending tens of hours building new content.
There has been an open invitation for days for others to participate in this discussion and it is clear that only seven editors really have the stomach for discussing this issue. Moreover, current Wikipedia policy is sufficiently clear on this issue. The consensus (six to one after a full and fair exchange of views and vigorous debate) is that there is no enthusiasm for changing the name of this article. I’m removing the “name” tag but will be leaving the AfD tag as that can only be removed by an Admin.
Should the tag be removed? We appear to have reached a consensus. – BLM Platinum ( talk) 20:20, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Ohconfucius, I don’t understand why you would want to remove mentioning the terrorism-related materials in the article’s lead. Without mentioning the “various materials suggesting Woodson sympathized with terrorist ideology”, the following paragraph quoting the FBI spokesman about how Woodson didn’t appear to have any connections to known terrorist groups looks oddly out of place. NPOV doesn’t mean “leave off germane and true information that were essential elements of why the story made it into the national news” and it certainly doesn’t mean “ignore the 800-pound gorilla in the living room.” Having a military-grade arsenal and jihadist literature and maps to a nearby military facility are all common-sense evidence that alarmed the authorities and caused the FBI to investigate whether Woodson was part of a larger conspiracy.
The key issue here is whether extraneous, inflammatory information is in the article—which is typically the product of an editor with an agenda. Note that many Americans have a “semi-automatic rifle” in their closets—they’re known as .22 LR “plinker” rifles. Mentioning that Woodson had a semiautomatic rifle—in effect—neuters the article to the point that readers could have a hard time understanding the full nature of the incident and why authorities would be deeply alarmed. That he had a military-style (assault-style) semiauto is a key piece of pertinent evidence that A) made it into the news and B) was mentioned in the legal complaint against him. AK-47-type rifles are a whole ‘nother animal. So too was the Middle Eastern headdress and jihadist literature found in his motel room. Accordingly, it is not only highly appropriate to mention that here in the lead, it is important to do so in order that the reader can get the essential “Ah, HAA” as to what is notable about Woodson without having to wade through the rest of the article. Wikipedia is famous for its pithy, tight lead sections.
I agree with you 100% that we need to expunge needlessly inflammatory details from our lead sections. What was originally there (“Officers found in his possession and in his motel room a large weapons cache that included illegal weapons and ammunition, a detailed map of the Fort Drum military installation, and a traditional red-and-white Middle Eastern headdress”)… (my emphasis) could clearly be improved upon and reasonably smacked of POV-pushing. With my edit, I think I’ve struck a balanced, encyclopedic tone with “and various materials suggesting Woodson sympathized with terrorist ideology.” Now the reader can quickly and fully comprehend why Woodson attracted so much media interest and why the FBI launched a thorough investigation into him. Greg L ( talk) 04:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
As for the “FBI” paragraph, I apparently wasn’t making myself clear. I have no problem with the second paragraph where the FBI spokesman stated that they found no terrorist links. If neutered too far though, we’re at risk of making Woodson come across in the lead as just another survivalist kook who was armed to the teeth, ready for WW III, and got caught. I was simply pointing out that we needed to mention the AK-47-style of the semi-auto (semi-auto by itself isn’t sufficiently descriptive; I have a “semi-auto” 22 LR in my closet) and also mention that they found materials in his room indicating he fancied terrorist ideology. That, along with the maps, sets Woodson apart from your generic survivalist kook and is why there would be a Wikipedia article on him. Fairly conveying the gist of this is important in order for the reader to properly appreciate why the FBI would have been dragged in after his arrest to investigate possible connections to terrorists. The art in capturing the totality of the evidence and summarizing it in the lead, is in accurately communicating the essential and basic nature of what the authorities disclosed without exaggeration or prejudice; ‘just the facts, ma’am.’ I’m not seeing a disagreement here.
Wrapping this up (I hope): What is in the lead is, IMHO, sufficiently complete and factual to provide the reader with a fair, accurate, and clear understanding of the basic nature and importance of Woodson’s alleged crimes and his arrest without having to wade through the rest of the article. As I wrote above, pithy, clear leads, is one of the virtues that made Wikipedia famous (that, as well as often featuring content from I.P. editors who write that “Dick Cheney is really a robot”). Greg L ( talk) 14:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lloyd R. Woodson. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/cms/story.php?id=1010{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=11880907When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lloyd R. Woodson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Review prior discussions if considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Woodson is back in the news with national coverage by multiple notable / reliable news sources, originally international coverage. Deletion objections used to originally delete the article were largely based on initial news reports and the stub article. Bachcell ( talk) 00:33, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
This subject was inserted to obtain a Contents box on this page. Greg L ( talk) 07:03, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
A Keffiyeh is much more commonly worn in Middle Eastern countries, therefore I strongly suggest linking it there instead of to Turban. I would have simply made this edit myself but last time I did so this was reverted so I decided to discuss it first.-- Supertouch ( talk) 02:28, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Since the article does not really discuss Woodson, it would be better if it were renamed to something more appropriate by adding one of arrest/investigation/case/incident. wjemather bigissue 19:03, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
WP:People notable only for one event is the governing policy here. It addresses …whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. It says …when an individual plays a major role in a minor event … the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. It then gives an example: Steve Bartman incident, which is an incident in a baseball game that made him notable (several spectators attempted to catch a foul ball off the bat of Marlins' second baseman Luis Castillo). The policy also provides examples of non‑minor events like Rodney King and Howard Brennan. As the Lloyd R. Woodson article says:
An editorial in The Washington Times drew parallels with Nidal Malik Hasan. It said "When a man is apprehended with a cache of weapons, body armor, a map of a military installation and jihadist personal effects, the natural response of most Americans is to assume the situation is terrorist-related" and suggested the Obama administration's definition of terrorism was too narrow.
I think it unfortunate that so much time-wasting wikidrama has arisen so needlessly. I would suggest editors who who are highly mobile on Wikipedia and who hand out unsolicited advise to others by slapping tags on articles and insist that his (or her) concerns be addressed by the community before the tags are removed should be exceedingly well versed in current Wikipedia policies. It wastes less time of others, many of whom are spending tens of hours building new content.
There has been an open invitation for days for others to participate in this discussion and it is clear that only seven editors really have the stomach for discussing this issue. Moreover, current Wikipedia policy is sufficiently clear on this issue. The consensus (six to one after a full and fair exchange of views and vigorous debate) is that there is no enthusiasm for changing the name of this article. I’m removing the “name” tag but will be leaving the AfD tag as that can only be removed by an Admin.
Should the tag be removed? We appear to have reached a consensus. – BLM Platinum ( talk) 20:20, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Ohconfucius, I don’t understand why you would want to remove mentioning the terrorism-related materials in the article’s lead. Without mentioning the “various materials suggesting Woodson sympathized with terrorist ideology”, the following paragraph quoting the FBI spokesman about how Woodson didn’t appear to have any connections to known terrorist groups looks oddly out of place. NPOV doesn’t mean “leave off germane and true information that were essential elements of why the story made it into the national news” and it certainly doesn’t mean “ignore the 800-pound gorilla in the living room.” Having a military-grade arsenal and jihadist literature and maps to a nearby military facility are all common-sense evidence that alarmed the authorities and caused the FBI to investigate whether Woodson was part of a larger conspiracy.
The key issue here is whether extraneous, inflammatory information is in the article—which is typically the product of an editor with an agenda. Note that many Americans have a “semi-automatic rifle” in their closets—they’re known as .22 LR “plinker” rifles. Mentioning that Woodson had a semiautomatic rifle—in effect—neuters the article to the point that readers could have a hard time understanding the full nature of the incident and why authorities would be deeply alarmed. That he had a military-style (assault-style) semiauto is a key piece of pertinent evidence that A) made it into the news and B) was mentioned in the legal complaint against him. AK-47-type rifles are a whole ‘nother animal. So too was the Middle Eastern headdress and jihadist literature found in his motel room. Accordingly, it is not only highly appropriate to mention that here in the lead, it is important to do so in order that the reader can get the essential “Ah, HAA” as to what is notable about Woodson without having to wade through the rest of the article. Wikipedia is famous for its pithy, tight lead sections.
I agree with you 100% that we need to expunge needlessly inflammatory details from our lead sections. What was originally there (“Officers found in his possession and in his motel room a large weapons cache that included illegal weapons and ammunition, a detailed map of the Fort Drum military installation, and a traditional red-and-white Middle Eastern headdress”)… (my emphasis) could clearly be improved upon and reasonably smacked of POV-pushing. With my edit, I think I’ve struck a balanced, encyclopedic tone with “and various materials suggesting Woodson sympathized with terrorist ideology.” Now the reader can quickly and fully comprehend why Woodson attracted so much media interest and why the FBI launched a thorough investigation into him. Greg L ( talk) 04:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
As for the “FBI” paragraph, I apparently wasn’t making myself clear. I have no problem with the second paragraph where the FBI spokesman stated that they found no terrorist links. If neutered too far though, we’re at risk of making Woodson come across in the lead as just another survivalist kook who was armed to the teeth, ready for WW III, and got caught. I was simply pointing out that we needed to mention the AK-47-style of the semi-auto (semi-auto by itself isn’t sufficiently descriptive; I have a “semi-auto” 22 LR in my closet) and also mention that they found materials in his room indicating he fancied terrorist ideology. That, along with the maps, sets Woodson apart from your generic survivalist kook and is why there would be a Wikipedia article on him. Fairly conveying the gist of this is important in order for the reader to properly appreciate why the FBI would have been dragged in after his arrest to investigate possible connections to terrorists. The art in capturing the totality of the evidence and summarizing it in the lead, is in accurately communicating the essential and basic nature of what the authorities disclosed without exaggeration or prejudice; ‘just the facts, ma’am.’ I’m not seeing a disagreement here.
Wrapping this up (I hope): What is in the lead is, IMHO, sufficiently complete and factual to provide the reader with a fair, accurate, and clear understanding of the basic nature and importance of Woodson’s alleged crimes and his arrest without having to wade through the rest of the article. As I wrote above, pithy, clear leads, is one of the virtues that made Wikipedia famous (that, as well as often featuring content from I.P. editors who write that “Dick Cheney is really a robot”). Greg L ( talk) 14:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lloyd R. Woodson. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/cms/story.php?id=1010{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=11880907When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)