Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Halbrook: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Justanonymous (talk | contribs)
2,872 edits
m →top: -dup blp params
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|blp=yes|listas=Halbrook, Stephen|1=
{{WikiProject Biography
{{WikiProject Biography}}
|living=yes
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Firearms|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}}
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership#David%20%26%20Goliath%20Award|David & Goliath Award]]</nowiki> The anchor (#David%20%26%20Goliath%20Award) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/1170040750|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"David & Goliath Award","appear":{"revid":863982083,"parentid":859795173,"timestamp":"2018-10-14T09:43:03Z","removed_section_titles":[],"added_section_titles":["David & Goliath Award"]},"disappear":{"revid":1170040750,"parentid":1096359885,"timestamp":"2023-08-12T21:35:08Z","removed_section_titles":["Disagreement with the Anti-Defamation League","Bill of Rights Sentinel","Bill of Rights Day","Gun Confiscation Clock","Aaron Zelman letter to Ted Nugent","David & Goliath Award","Don't Inspire Evil Initiative","JPFO on \"Never Again!\"","JPFO Rabbinic Director","Founder Zelman's death"],"added_section_titles":["History","Activities"]}} -->
}}
}}


== Amusing removal of well-sourced material -- midsentence! ==
==Harcourt material==

[[User:Justanonymous]] added the entire Bernard Harcourt quotation on Halbrook to the article with the edit summary ''per WP:BLP we have to be discrete here about exactly what was said. Took the actual quote and source.'', but [[User:Capitalismojo]] removed it[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Halbrook&diff=588868950&oldid=588864910], saying "''remove unrelated neo-nazi material from BLP''". This is some '''extremely funny stuff'''. Removing part of a quotation '''mid-sentence''' because it contains "unrelated neo-nazi material"! And he is backed up by [[User:Gaijin42]][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Halbrook&diff=next&oldid=588870118]. The patent abuse of [[WP:BLP]] policy here is simply boggling. &mdash; [[User:Goethean|goethean]] 21:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

:So your interpretation of BLP is that the part of a sentence NOT talking about Halbrook is relevant in an article about Halbrook? [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 22:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

::My interpretation is straight-forward. There's no reason to chop up a quotation &mdash; in the middle of a clause! &mdash; because you personally dislike the contents of that clause. There's no other reason to remove a few words. The sentence '''doesn't even make sense''' now that you've butchered it &mdash; one of the dashes is now missing. Let's just excise a few words ''out of the middle of a clause'' because we don't like that they discuss ''our favorite'' gun control ideologue in connection with a controversial figure. &mdash; [[User:Goethean|goethean]] 22:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

:::The conflation of an unrelated white-power neo-nazi with a prominent attorney in a quote adds nothing to this BLP. The opinion of one professor/lawyer concerning another former professor/lawyer is a barely defensible addition to a BLP without the unrelated junk included. [[User:Capitalismojo|Capitalismojo]] ([[User talk:Capitalismojo|talk]]) 17:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

::::Utter nonsense. There is nothing in the Harcourt material which comes close to violating BLP. Your chopping up a sentence and sticking it back together in an ungrammatical and unreadable way does not improve the article and should be reverted. &mdash; [[User:Goethean|goethean]] 18:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

==Undue==


Is there any evidence that the opinion of one lawyer/professor (absent a pattern of similar RS criticism) is an appropriate addition to a BLP? Should the criticism from Harcourt be included at all? I am doubtful. It seems [[WP:UNDUE]] [[User:Capitalismojo|Capitalismojo]] ([[User talk:Capitalismojo|talk]]) 23:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the opinion of one lawyer/professor (absent a pattern of similar RS criticism) is an appropriate addition to a BLP? Should the criticism from Harcourt be included at all? I am doubtful. It seems [[WP:UNDUE]] [[User:Capitalismojo|Capitalismojo]] ([[User talk:Capitalismojo|talk]]) 23:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Line 30: Line 24:


Since this is a BLP, let's be extra careful as the policy requires. Being RS is not enough.-[[User:Justanonymous|Justanonymous]] ([[User talk:Justanonymous|talk]]) 19:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Since this is a BLP, let's be extra careful as the policy requires. Being RS is not enough.-[[User:Justanonymous|Justanonymous]] ([[User talk:Justanonymous|talk]]) 19:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

:The issue is that it helps readers to understand how Halbrook's work has been received by the legal community. Since Harcourt's article is the only really good academic piece about Halbrook's work, keeping the Harcourt material -- in its previous non-butchered state -- is helpful to the reader. The source is reliable and academic. It discuses Halbrook's academic work in a professional manner. It does not assassinate his character, it does not attack him personally, it makes no accusations at all about Halbrook. It simply responds to his academic work. This is what academics do. Please return the content to the article as it will help readers gain an understanding of the academic reception of Halbrook's work. &mdash; [[User:Goethean|goethean]] 00:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

::That is incorrect. He is covered in detail in several of the encyclopedia type gun control sources. Guns in american society I know has an extensive article, as well as several others. Beyond that, a one line statement from a single paper by a single author that is about halbrooks argument and not halbrook - tells us about that one authors opinion, not a general understanding of his academic reputation. [[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 01:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A few of the sources covering halbrook personally.
* http://books.google.com/books?id=QeGJH48PT0kC&pg=PT532&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OALKUvy6H4bJ2wX62YHoCw&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=stephen%20halbrook&f=false
* http://books.google.com/books?id=DhRzjUeZK4oC&pg=PA249&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SQLKUvDmKuaw2QX7noCQAQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=stephen%20halbrook&f=false
* http://books.google.com/books?id=Pay2y0nvVDEC&pg=PA265&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SQLKUvDmKuaw2QX7noCQAQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=stephen%20halbrook&f=false
* http://books.google.com/books?id=iYMYAAAAIAAJ&q=stephen+halbrook&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YQLKUpiTD4jt2wXkl4CwAQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCDgU

*http://books.google.com/books?id=hVMqAQAAMAAJ&q=stephen+halbrook&dq=stephen+halbrook&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lgPKUp38EIfP2QWxmYH4Cw&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCDge
[[User:Gaijin42|Gaijin42]] ([[User talk:Gaijin42|talk]]) 01:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Latest revision as of 10:31, 16 November 2024

Harcourt material

[edit]

Is there any evidence that the opinion of one lawyer/professor (absent a pattern of similar RS criticism) is an appropriate addition to a BLP? Should the criticism from Harcourt be included at all? I am doubtful. It seems WP:UNDUE Capitalismojo (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same reservations. Could be construed as libel particularly where the source was coming from.....looking at white supremacists. We might want to consider removing. The criticism came in one paper in 2002-4 where Halbrook is lumped with white supremacists and interestingly the JPFO. I'd like to get consensus here before we remove. -Justanonymous (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the content given that this is a BLP. Putting the halbrook criticism here for discussion:

Criticism University of Chicago Law School law professor Bernard Harcourt wrote in a 2004, Fordham Law Review article titled, On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars (A Call to Historians) wrote about Stephen Halbrook that his, "...ideological commitments are so flagrant - Halbrook as a pro-gun litigator" that he could not "be trusted entirely in these historical and statutory debates."[1]

Issues:

  1. Undue- this appears to be a minority held viewpoint, there aren't a lot of WP RS that claim this that I could find. Maybe someon else can
  2. Libel - the article that mentions this lumps Halbrook with white supremacists....I think that could be libelous.professor Halbrook has given testimony in Supreme Court appointments and won 3 cases against the Supreme Court. It could be seen as a smear campaign to lump him with white supremacists.

Since this is a BLP, let's be extra careful as the policy requires. Being RS is not enough.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it helps readers to understand how Halbrook's work has been received by the legal community. Since Harcourt's article is the only really good academic piece about Halbrook's work, keeping the Harcourt material -- in its previous non-butchered state -- is helpful to the reader. The source is reliable and academic. It discuses Halbrook's academic work in a professional manner. It does not assassinate his character, it does not attack him personally, it makes no accusations at all about Halbrook. It simply responds to his academic work. This is what academics do. Please return the content to the article as it will help readers gain an understanding of the academic reception of Halbrook's work. — goethean 00:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. He is covered in detail in several of the encyclopedia type gun control sources. Guns in american society I know has an extensive article, as well as several others. Beyond that, a one line statement from a single paper by a single author that is about halbrooks argument and not halbrook - tells us about that one authors opinion, not a general understanding of his academic reputation. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the sources covering halbrook personally.

Gaijin42 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bernard E. Harcourt, April 5, 2004: Hitler and Gun Registration Retrieved 2012-12-16
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Halbrook&oldid=1257728461"