Talk:Ammar Campa-Najjar

Significant coverage since last Afd

There appears to have been significant coverage of the subject since the last Afd. In-depth coverage of their loss distinct from coverage of Hunter’s win is highly suggestive of being generally notable. See [1]. I note that coverage continues to this day both on a local and national level, one story from the last 24 hours:[2]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Not ready. I live in San Diego, so I will know when he breaks out of the "ran for Congress but lost" pocket and becomes actually notable. (And by the way the second link you gave, an op-ed from San Diego Jewish World, is massively offensive. The writer wants to demand that he answer dozens of questions about anti-semitism and Muslim-Jewish relations - ignoring the fact that he is Christian, not Muslim. Perpetual foreigner in action.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I would note that he doesn't ever have to win to pass WP:GNG and if he passes WP:GNG all other arguments are moot. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I draftified the version that was not kept at AfD at Draft:Ammar Campa-Najjar. It can be worked on there. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out there was a draft, I added a number of sources there including this [3] Newsweek feature piece from *7/17/19.* Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Additions

@2604:2000:e010:1100:69df:b499:aa48:bc87: many of your additions are good (such as your work on dates), but POV pushing on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict isn't appropriate for this page. If you could make the edits about birthdate and such while leaving out the editorializing it would be greatly appreciated. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no such editorializing. Your deletion of what you admit was proper RS supported text is not appropriate. See comment below. --2604:2000:E010:1100:45BC:4AF1:1705:5CE9 (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I made no mention of RS in my edit summary, just because something is published in a WP:RS doesnt mean that its necessarily appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please review WP:VNOTSUFF and come back with an actual policy based argument for the wholesale changes you have made to the page. Your citation style is also inappropriate and slightly disruptive, please review Wikipedia:Citing sources and use a standard which matches the other citations on the page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Also the extra information about Campa-Najjar's grandfather and father does appear to be editorializing, especially when combined with the dozens of minor changes in phrasing you’ve made. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

All of the material is appropriate. It is all from RSs. It is all from RS articles about the subject of the wikipedia article, including discussion of his family. Deemed by those RSs as appropriate. Horse - it is not appropriate for your to delete RS-supported text that you simply don't like that is in RS articles about the subject, because you dont like it, saying "Many of these edits were good..." And your argument that I was pushing a POV is false. And assumes bad faith. Just the opposite - when you delete proper text and its RS support without proper reason you are not editing properly. And you have it backwards. My edits were proper and supported directly by RS references. Your deletion was not proper. You can't just go around deleting stuff you don't like that is properly supported saying "give me a good policy argument." If you think that is how it works, lets bring in an admin to tell us what they think. 2604:2000:E010:1100:45BC:4AF1:1705:5CE9 (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

My claim has never been “I don’t like it.” Its always been solidly rooted in policy, it doesn't seem like you reviewed WP:VNOTSUFF. Per WP:BRD my reversion was entirely "proper," what was not “proper" was reverting back to the challenged version before reaching a consensus on the talk page although you are in fact allowed to do so even if it may be considered WP:EDITWARRING depending on the circumstances. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Since you think that it is "entirely proper" for your to delete RS-supported text, from RS articles specifically about the subject, without good reason, even where you yourself say "Many of these edits were good" (and they were all good), we have a problem. That's not right. I think we need other eyes here, because my attempt to speak to you is not getting anywhere. Perhaps instead of going to ANI, one of our recently active admins can help - I'm pinging User:Berean Hunter, User:Bearcat and User:Acroterion as possibilities.2604:2000:E010:1100:45BC:4AF1:1705:5CE9 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

What I’m asking you to do is to take a moment to explain your edits, thats not a big ask. Per WP:VNOTSUFF "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You already admitted that many of my additions were good. Yet you deleted them. That is not appropriate, and no further discussion is needed on them - you should just restore all my edits that you do not have a disagreement with. And you failed to say why you disagreed with any remaining edits. On my part, I have explained my edits already. Just read above. There is not, as you assume, bad faith on my part. There is not basis for you to assume that. My edits were all appropriate. Copy-edits were appropriate copy-editing. Additions were all verifiable to RSs, and improved the article, providing further information along the lines that were already being discussed and/or were appropriate for a bio on wikipedia, and should therefore be included. There are no issues of neutrality, or original research. All the material comes from articles in RSs about the subject. Please restore it all, for the above reasons. If not, let's go to an appropriate board where there are admins to review your approach here - I do not feel it is proper. You can't simply say, as you have, in effect "many of your edits are good, but I dont like them so I will delete them all, and not give a reasonable reason for deleting anything ... " 2604:2000:E010:1100:E1BA:9AD8:54D4:B8BF (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that it is nonsensical to ask me to restore your edits to the page when you have already done so, all your edits are live. None of this is hard, all you have to do is make specific short arguments for the changes you made which were challenged... It certainly would have taken less work than your current tactic of insisting that you simply won’t follow any wikipedia policy or guideline you consider to be inappropriate. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

First point taken. And I have repeatedly made my "arguments." 2604:2000:E010:1100:E1BA:9AD8:54D4:B8BF (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Which edit were you making these arguments for? You made a number of edits and have not addressed any specifically as far as I can tell. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

All. Which edits of mine did you not find to be "good"? And why? And - once again - why did you revert all my edits that you found to be "good"? And do you view that as appropriate behavior? 2604:2000:E010:1100:E1BA:9AD8:54D4:B8BF (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do view it as appropriate behavior, I reverted all your edits because the sheer number of them and their overlapping nature made individual reverts a technical impossibility. As I said in my OP I have POV and editorializing concerns, neither of which you actually addressed you just dismissed them. In this case reverting was entirely appropriate, please provide any wikipedia policy or guideline which back up the assertion you made on my talk page and appear to be continuing to make that "it is a violation of wp rules to revert appropriate edits." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"A technical impossibility?" Absurd. Just a suggestion - if you continue to engage in that behavior, silly baseless assertions like that will not shield you from being blocked. If you think it is fine to revert appropriate edits, you will be blocked. You seem to be a bright person, so of course you know this already, but at WP there is a leaning to making sure editors were alerted to the consequences of their actions. 2604:2000:E010:1100:4821:A007:1268:1328 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

All you have to do is cite one policy or guideline that supports your rather extreme position re reversion. Please don’t threaten me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, I agree with much of the improvements you made, but stuff like "who struck a militant tone when referring to Israel" is just off (it's also in Wikipedia's voice, and really should be in quotation marks, and properly ascribed--better yet, it shouldn't be in here). In addition, I am concerned that a lot of significant geo-political material is sourced to the San Diego Union Tribune, which is a fine newspaper, but not a national one, and I also believe there is too much of that material (about Fatah, about his grandfather) in your edits: it's UNDUE. BTW, please cite that better--you got a half dozen bare URLs to the same article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• For the record, here is the IP's range. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. I'll take a look at the points you make. As far as the San Diego Union Tribune is concerned, as you say it is a fine newspaper though not a national one. But that is hardly surprising - the subject of the article is running for a fine office representing people in the same geographical footprint of the customer's of the newspaper. Certainly, it is common for coverage, as here, to be deeper in fine papers in the same city, than in national newspapers. I believe this is common, and the key then is whether the newspaper is a fine one. I'll take a look at the other points. On the bare url, I ran reflinks, and it did not suggest any further ref changes, but I see that it didn't work with one article and fixed that now. BTW - do you have any comments on the other editor as he states above (and believes is fine to do) reverting edits that he himself believes "were good?" 2604:2000:E010:1100:88B1:D582:4EC7:9A0F (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of RS-supported text

An editor for some reason saw fit to just now delete RS-supported text. He even admitted that much of what he deleted was proper. IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to delete such text. These are NPOV edits. The deletion is POV. I have reverted him. If this continues, let's seek other editor input from a proper admin or noticeboard. --2604:2000:E010:1100:45BC:4AF1:1705:5CE9 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If anyone wants to as has been sought delete perfectly referenced (in RSs) text from RSs that report this information relating to the subject of this article, lets bring this to the proper noticeboard rather than get into a back and forth based on "no need for this" policy-less IDONELIKEIT mass deletions. 2604:2000:E010:1100:701E:78B4:AA4D:262B (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 Protection Discussion

Hi all. I had protected the article further to a request for protection made on 7 March by @KidAd:. It was a semi-protection for one week against further disruption. I was asked by an IP editor on my talk page (discussion here) to consider, amongst other things, the effect of the protection when the last edit was redirecting the entire article. Although the edit in question was restoring a previous version, that previous version was from September 2019. This reversion by @John from Idegon: is WP:BOLD and is something that should probably be discussed and backed by consensus, which I do not readily find here (or any discussion on this point for that matter). I also do not find evidence of an active dispute on this point, and as such I am less confident protection is necessary at this stage. Having considered the impact of protection, the actual level of pre-protection disruption and the boldness of the edit that gives us the current version without consensus, I have decided to repeal the protection. Although this may lead to a revert by a user (registered or otherwise), all users are reminded to use this page to discuss consensus, failing that to seek assistance and to not allow themselves to edit war. All the best, N.J.A. | talk 14:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The reversion by @John from Idegon: was more than bold, it was blatant editing against consensus. If they wanted to take it yo WP:AFD that would be fine, but turning an article thats been accepted for creation after a long draft process back into a redirect is not a bold edit, its a bad edit. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Please point to the consensus discussion to remove the redirect as we have not one but two discussions listed at the top of this page showing consensus to redirect. John from Idegon (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A discussion took place at Draft talk:Ammar Campa-Najjar, while the page was in draft purgatory. Circumstances had changed since the article was redirected (more had been written about him in reliable sources), and arguments emphasized WP:GNG. The consensus was that the page deserved a third chance in article space. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A discussion in an extremely obscure place that had specific people invited is not a valid consensus to discount WP:NPOL and the "closure" was in effect a supervote. It's back at AfD. John from Idegon (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Your failure to understand basic wikipedia policy is glaring, WP:GNG overrides WP:NPOL in all scenarios. You also appear to yourself be discounting WP:NPOL specifically "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest

It looks like Ammar or possibly someone in his campaign is editing the page creating a conflict of interest, User contributions for 2600:8801:C820:AE00:8890:540A:30FA:45D1. I rollbacked to before their edits as it was poorly sourced and had a lot of first person sources. Spongie555 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)