A fact from Stanley Woodward (attorney) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 June 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Bruxton (
talk) 23:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6533:46A2:8D23:2134 ( talk). Nominated by BeanieFan11 ( talk) at 23:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Stanley Woodward (attorney); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
He has also represented January 6 rioter Ryan Samsel who has been accused of igniting the January 6 attack, [...]is the only non-neutral statement, as
rioter, although from the source, is still a contentious label. I think it would be better to rephrase it to something like:
He has also represented Ryan Samsel, who Kyle Cheney refered to as "a prominent Jan. 6 rioter accused of igniting the Jan. 6 breach."& immediately follow with "Cheney 2022" footnote. Peaceray ( talk)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
I believe that the deletions from the lede are not in line with wp:lede. "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents..... It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points... The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."
And the deletions from the infobox as well make it inferior, as they delete relevant information and add "high profile" instead - which is subjective and not RS supported. Those changes should be reverted. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:7468:9C4F:BECE:5B21 ( talk) 08:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
a summary of its most important contents.
His clientele has included those subpoenaed or convicted for the January 6 United States Capitol attack and current or former aides to Donald Trump.Peaceray ( talk) 21:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
We had prose describing this fellow's clients. That was recently changed by an editor into a non-prose list format. Thoughts on which is better? I've seen editors in the past assert that prose is preferred in these circumstances. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C85:CA1C:6C32:129E ( talk) 00:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
There were a number of refs to article, wherein the quotation marks around the article titles have recently been removed. I know not why. Thoughts? I think they belong there, as they were. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C85:CA1C:6C32:129E ( talk) 00:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
As has been pointed out in edit summaries, the subject of this article is notable because of coverage of him representing certain people. He's not other notable. There were two images of those people in the article. However, an editor has (now twice, once after the explanation of their relevance) deleted the images. His explanation was "These images are of his clients, not him." But that simply ignored the prior point, already made to him. He also references MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. But my reading of that rule reveals nothing that supports removal of the images. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D815:6811:5162:EC62 ( talk) 06:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
An editor is deleting relevant material about Woodward's cases. Leaving only part of it in - as in the charge, but not the result of the case. If the result is not favorable. This smacks of something other than proper editing. Of course since Woodward is a lawyer, his cases (the charges, and the result) are relevant. Not credible to claim they do not belong in his article. Perhaps User:Bruxton, who promoted the DYK above, can opine, as this page gets little readership. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:CCC9:7E7B:26A9:1834 ( talk) 17:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was:
Participants were not convinced that the attorney was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, instead holding that the pageviews of his relatively recently-created article were likely buoyed by WP:RECENTISM. Instead, there was agreement that a WP:NOPRIMARY solution would be most appropriate here, and that a DAB page should be created at the primary title. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
– Primary topic. Per WP:PTOPIC. See, inter alia, pageviews. Would also I imagine require that "Stanley Woodward" be changed to "Stanley Woodward (political aide)". 2603:7000:2101:AA00:20F3:1000:9685:AD85 ( talk) 15:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request ( permalink). 162 etc. ( talk) 16:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
A fact from Stanley Woodward (attorney) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 June 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Bruxton (
talk) 23:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6533:46A2:8D23:2134 ( talk). Nominated by BeanieFan11 ( talk) at 23:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Stanley Woodward (attorney); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
He has also represented January 6 rioter Ryan Samsel who has been accused of igniting the January 6 attack, [...]is the only non-neutral statement, as
rioter, although from the source, is still a contentious label. I think it would be better to rephrase it to something like:
He has also represented Ryan Samsel, who Kyle Cheney refered to as "a prominent Jan. 6 rioter accused of igniting the Jan. 6 breach."& immediately follow with "Cheney 2022" footnote. Peaceray ( talk)
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
I believe that the deletions from the lede are not in line with wp:lede. "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents..... It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points... The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."
And the deletions from the infobox as well make it inferior, as they delete relevant information and add "high profile" instead - which is subjective and not RS supported. Those changes should be reverted. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:7468:9C4F:BECE:5B21 ( talk) 08:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
a summary of its most important contents.
His clientele has included those subpoenaed or convicted for the January 6 United States Capitol attack and current or former aides to Donald Trump.Peaceray ( talk) 21:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
We had prose describing this fellow's clients. That was recently changed by an editor into a non-prose list format. Thoughts on which is better? I've seen editors in the past assert that prose is preferred in these circumstances. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C85:CA1C:6C32:129E ( talk) 00:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
There were a number of refs to article, wherein the quotation marks around the article titles have recently been removed. I know not why. Thoughts? I think they belong there, as they were. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C85:CA1C:6C32:129E ( talk) 00:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
As has been pointed out in edit summaries, the subject of this article is notable because of coverage of him representing certain people. He's not other notable. There were two images of those people in the article. However, an editor has (now twice, once after the explanation of their relevance) deleted the images. His explanation was "These images are of his clients, not him." But that simply ignored the prior point, already made to him. He also references MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. But my reading of that rule reveals nothing that supports removal of the images. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D815:6811:5162:EC62 ( talk) 06:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
An editor is deleting relevant material about Woodward's cases. Leaving only part of it in - as in the charge, but not the result of the case. If the result is not favorable. This smacks of something other than proper editing. Of course since Woodward is a lawyer, his cases (the charges, and the result) are relevant. Not credible to claim they do not belong in his article. Perhaps User:Bruxton, who promoted the DYK above, can opine, as this page gets little readership. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:CCC9:7E7B:26A9:1834 ( talk) 17:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was:
Participants were not convinced that the attorney was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, instead holding that the pageviews of his relatively recently-created article were likely buoyed by WP:RECENTISM. Instead, there was agreement that a WP:NOPRIMARY solution would be most appropriate here, and that a DAB page should be created at the primary title. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
– Primary topic. Per WP:PTOPIC. See, inter alia, pageviews. Would also I imagine require that "Stanley Woodward" be changed to "Stanley Woodward (political aide)". 2603:7000:2101:AA00:20F3:1000:9685:AD85 ( talk) 15:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request ( permalink). 162 etc. ( talk) 16:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)