Sohrab R
Welcome!
Hello, Sohrab R, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Guillermo Ford, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Yousou (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Google edit
I notice you removed some information from Guillermo Ford, and I'm not sure why; even if you didn't like the source there in the article, the quotation was instantly verifiable from other sources. Perhaps you're already aware of this, but one thing you can try in the future is search engines like Google if you need an additional source for information. In this case, it provides hundreds of results from reliable sources verifying the quotation, one of which I added to the article. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi and thank you. I am new at this and hope this is the correct way to reply to you. I did not intend disputing the sentence as historic fact and if it read that way in my summary I appologise for the misunderstanding. The source would have been a welcome improvemnt had that been the reason for the deletion, thank you.But I dispute the relevance of George Bush's quote and also argue that what he said was derogatory and reflects and through its quoting perpetuates a bias point of view only. Furthermore, insulting language by parties involved in a conflict situation, which did not have any specific verifiable and traceable concequence, have no place in an encyclopidia article.Can we aggree that it would therefore be appropriate to exclude the Bush's quote?Sohrab R (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, Bush's opinion is clearly relevant given the invasion he ordered not long after this incident. But it's fine to include comments on the attacks by other world leaders (including Noriega) to give a range of world opinion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- A World leader's opinion on Ford may be relevant to this specific article but I'd contest that a world leader's opinion on anyone else mentioned in the short biography article is not relevant. Or do you suggest that opinions on his predesessor, the men who swore him in etc is also relevant to this article? But as suggested by you II have added a published opinion piece to the article for balance. Can we at least aggree to deal with this with consistency?
- To me there's an obvious difference between including a quotation from a world leader about to invade the country, which was repeated in news sources around the world, and an unknown editorial writer in a minor US newspaper. I'm fine with including major coverage from reliable sources about Ford from whatever sources you can find. But this is an editorial, not reporting; it's from a minor source; and I'm not sure yet that these allegations are repeated significantly elsewhere. Can you find a major newspaper reporting this as fact? -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, I concede that I have not been able to verify the facts stated in the editorial. Having said that I still have an issue withthe Bush quote because the relevance of Bush's opinion is not clear from the article. I would aggree that a quoted opinion of Bush about Foord could be relevant but that is where I would draw the line. Bush expresses an opinion about someone else mentioned in the article. Should one now accept other leader's quotes about Bush as relevant to the article as well and then other leaders opinions about them? Are quotes from all leaders about everybody mentioned in an article, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, therefore relevant to articles? At worst the relevance should surely be clear from the article and not from someone's general knowledge of the context.Sohrab R (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Bush's opinion is about the attack on Ford. To me, that seems directly relevant to writing about the attack on Ford. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is not true. The comment was not made in relation to the attack but the article makes it sound like it was. Bush made the comment in a press conference on 13 May while the photo was only taken around 22 May. There is therefore no way that what you say could be true.Sohrab R (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Bush's opinion is about the attack on Ford. To me, that seems directly relevant to writing about the attack on Ford. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, I concede that I have not been able to verify the facts stated in the editorial. Having said that I still have an issue withthe Bush quote because the relevance of Bush's opinion is not clear from the article. I would aggree that a quoted opinion of Bush about Foord could be relevant but that is where I would draw the line. Bush expresses an opinion about someone else mentioned in the article. Should one now accept other leader's quotes about Bush as relevant to the article as well and then other leaders opinions about them? Are quotes from all leaders about everybody mentioned in an article, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, therefore relevant to articles? At worst the relevance should surely be clear from the article and not from someone's general knowledge of the context.Sohrab R (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- To me there's an obvious difference between including a quotation from a world leader about to invade the country, which was repeated in news sources around the world, and an unknown editorial writer in a minor US newspaper. I'm fine with including major coverage from reliable sources about Ford from whatever sources you can find. But this is an editorial, not reporting; it's from a minor source; and I'm not sure yet that these allegations are repeated significantly elsewhere. Can you find a major newspaper reporting this as fact? -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- A World leader's opinion on Ford may be relevant to this specific article but I'd contest that a world leader's opinion on anyone else mentioned in the short biography article is not relevant. Or do you suggest that opinions on his predesessor, the men who swore him in etc is also relevant to this article? But as suggested by you II have added a published opinion piece to the article for balance. Can we at least aggree to deal with this with consistency?
- No, Bush's opinion is clearly relevant given the invasion he ordered not long after this incident. But it's fine to include comments on the attacks by other world leaders (including Noriega) to give a range of world opinion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you're confused on the timeline. Per the linked Washington Post story of 16 May, "When he said "Doberman thugs," Bush was referring to the vicious public attack earlier in the week on Panamanian opposition leaders by men wielding staves. The appalling images of the anti-Noriega candidates, bloodied, dazed and staggering about in the streets while being beaten in full sight of Panamanian soldiers, made the front pages and were replayed often on television." -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I don't have access to the whole article but take your word for it and did a bit more reading on the internet. I thought that one of the existing sources gave a date of 22 May for the attack but must have been mistaken. I have added a source confirming the date of the Bush comment but the date for the attack and photo differs slightly between sources. Regarless of this I now accept your position because the dates rouhly correspond and the relevance is noted. II thank you for arguing your point.Sohrab R (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)