Talk:Patrick Syring

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)

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)

Merge proposal

• Oppose: Not quite why a merger of this article into James Zogby is being proposed. – ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This article, in my estimation, falls under WP:OneEvent and is not suitably notable (See WP:Notability). Much of what is in this article should be in a section in the James Zogby article and perhaps also in the Arab American Institute article. Also, see WP:What Wikipedia is not. This individual does not merit his own article, but this incident is worth mentioning in the James Zogby page. ShamWow (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments about notability and one event have been rejected in the two previous deletion debates. There's too much here to merge into James Zogby. Dlabtot (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I really have a hard time believing that this minor incident merits its own article and beyond that, an article of such length. ShamWow (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, those previous arguments don't apply because they were in regards to a proposed article deletion. This is a different proposal - a merger. It is notable to mention in the articles James Zogby and Arab American Institute, but does not merit its own article. ShamWow (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose:anti-Arab advocacy is much broader than the issues mentioned above. Retain as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.75.103 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not much of a response. Syring wasn't advocating a position as much as just blathering hateful speech. The page should redirect to James Zogby, as he was the recipient of those threats. ShamWow (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: article is pertinent to the trials and tribulations of one man; it doesn't make any sense to merge.George Al-Shami (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I don't think the previous commentators have reviewed Wikipedia's policy on WP:ONEEVENT. This clearly should be merged, although I'm not sure if it should be merged into the James Zogby article, or a broader article on threats made against Arab Americans. ← George <sup>[talk]</sup> 21:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not sure if this merge discussion is still open, but it doesn't look to me like he's really notable enough to deserve his own article. Robofish (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Quotes

If any of these particular quotes are that notable, they should be moved to Wikiquote, not plopped into the article.

WP:LONGQUOTE

• Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations.

WP:NOT

• Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.

Based on this, I will remove the quotes. Again. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

They aren't "loosely associated topics", they are the specific threats that led to his arrest. You seem to be hung up on the word 'quotations' which really is not the best word choice anyway. Later when I have more time I will pursue some form of dispute resolution on this. Dlabtot (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not try and propose some alternate text? Seems much easier than WP:DR. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Patrick Syring. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615031330/http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/l/7929.htm to http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/l/7929.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)