Talk:Joseph Farah/Archive 1

Archive 1

question

How to determine Farah's credibility? What does "intelligence contacts" mean? Incidently, the commentary from his readership was to me, almost, if not more bone chilling than his al Qaida nuke story. I hope it is not true...

ZabMom: I just want to say that the article you had about him was defamatory. This is the problem with the internet. It seems that when I look up right of center personalities there is always something extreme about them. But when I look up someone like "Al Franken" he is made out to be mainstream. This is unfair. Also if you want to make Farah out to be a murderer you should at least cite where he made these statements.

There appears to be multiple edits to this page presenting rather extreme accusations against Farah. While most would agree that he is very right-wing (and I am certainly no fan of the man), an extreme claim like "he advocated the nuclear annihilation of Mecca and Medina" needs to be sourced with proper links, or it shouldn't be here at all. --Soultaco 19:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

A bit biased, perhaps?

Being a bisexual socialist, I can say with all certainty that I despise everything WND stands for. However, this article does seem a bit biased against him. I would normally expect people of his type to be fairly far-right, but this seems a bit extreme. Some sources would be appreciated, if you are able to get ahold of any.

Very Biased, virtualy no sources

This stub is an almost verbatim copy and paste of the article presented on sourcewatch.org. The article listed there takes the majority of it's information from conwebwatch.tripod.com, a liberal watchdog site who targets conservative news sources. This is hardly a balanced view and does not provide an unbiased source base. Furthermore, charges of racism and extreme adherence to republican agendas need to be documented before accusations can be leveled. When reading through Worldnetdaily.com, I found the articles to be as equally critical of President Bush as they are of other topics. Especially as in the case of the nomination of Harriet Miers as shown[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47091 "HERE"], as well as in other articles. While it is uncontrovertibly true that Farah and his World Net Daily site are definitely right-leaning, to generalize such views into the categories of racism and bigotry are hardly befitting an unbiased encyclopedia. The role of Wikipedia is to inform, not coerce. Further revisions need to be made to the article in order maintain an informative stance. --Coldbourne 28 October 2005

Does He Deserve His Own Article?

It says on WorldNetDaily that most of their content isn't produced in house, and from reading this article, i'm not convinced that he's notable on his own if he doesn't write that much of the reason why he's notable. I might be wrong, but I have no interest in expanding it. Karmafist 07:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with you, but I cannot find any sources that substantiate that claim. A look at the World Net Daily site seems to indicate that he writes his own column almost daily, listed as Joseph Farahs Between the Lines. Also, a Google search has a good many articles listed on various sites as originating with Worldnetdaily.com. This Site claims that World Net Daily has been listed as one of the "stickiest" sites; purporting that CNN, NBC and others use Farah's articles on their own sites. However, I cannot find the source of that information. --Coldbourne 07:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge removed

Article expanded about personal unrelated to WND. The individual is now more distinct from the WND webpage.

This article is so obviously biased it is sickening, and this is coming from a staunch conservative. Unless somebody can submit a nuetral article, this one should be deleted.

More Detail Needed

This site seems a bit slanted towards the leftist perspective. Someone who is independent needs to revamp this entire site. Also, some more background info on his education and childhood would be desirable.

NPOV completely lacking

The bias present in this page absolutely reeks. Much of this page contains text copied almost verbatim from ConWebWatch, an organization that is unapologetic about being critical toward WorldNetDaily and other conservative media. Said text has an inherently negatively-critical (as opposed to simply analytically-critical) tone which has no place in an encyclopedia article meant to take a NPOV.

It might also violate the copyright of ConWebWatch for their text to be reposted almost verbatim here.

I see from the history that an anonymous user (63.168.141.31) tried repeatedly in 2006 to remove said text, replacing it with a text that, while shorter and less detailed, was relatively NPOV and (IMHO) much more appropriately toned for an encyclopedia, than what is there currently, only to have said replacement reverted. (It's possible that this anonymous user was Farah himself - in [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55633 an article on WorldNetDaily] he writes "no matter how many times I correct the record, some Wikipedia jokers decide they know me better than me" implying that he tried to change the page himself, only to have it reverted.)

In addition, the page contains very poor grammar and at least a few markup errors; however, given the NPOV and copyright issues, any cleanup effort would better be spent on a total rewrite. At the very least, the NPOV tag should be readded to the page.

Arabic name

Rossnixon, please discuss your reasoning behind removing the Arabic name of this person. Being born and raised in New Jersey doesn't make his name less Arabic and his origin less Lebanese and Syrian. And according to the article you refer to, "[h]e is very proud of his Syrian and Lebanese heritage. He has even named one of his daughters Jihan, after Anwar Sadat's daughter." Jihan is another Arabic name. That being said, the Arabic name seems very relevant. Regards, Fjmustak (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He never uses anything other than his "English" name. Also, this is an "English" encyclopedia. If there are Arabic versions of Wikipedia, that is where an Arabic version of his name would belong. ^rossnixon 01:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

rossnixon, Farah is an Arabic name, not an "English" name. This is an encyclopedia, you're right and the language articles are written in is English. The body of the articles is written in English, but it can have non-English content where relevant. There is an Arabic version (not versions) of Wikipedia, and it has an article written about this guy (I just added his name in English there, because he is an American after all, even though he has an Arabic name). --Fjmustak (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Farah originates from Arabic, because (for example), the names John, Joseph, Matthew and Michael (and dozens more) originate from Hebrew. Note that we don't put the Hebrew text next to the names of Michael Jordan, John Kerry, Joseph Smith or Matthew Shepard. ^rossnixon 01:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I read this wrong? He has no daughter named Jihan as far as I know. I have the details from the alumni directory of his alma mater, and all the names of his daughters are quite American.

DevorahLeah (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It is common practice in the Wikipedia to give the birth name in a biography. If the Wikipedia article on Jamie Farr says his birth name was Jameel Joseph Farah, then why is it forbidden to give the birth name of Joseph Farah? See also Marylin Monroe and Lenin. This is rampant double standard.Kevin (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC) OK, I see the issue now. Unless ar:جوزيف فرح is on his birth certificate, then it's irrelevant to the article.68.143.253.133 (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure

Today I came across [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640 this article], in which Mr. Farah (who I'd never heard of before) complained about his treatment at the hands of Wikipedia. After reading it and this article, I concluded that his complaints were extremely valid and contacted him to offer my assistance in rectifying things. Accordingly, I am in communication with him about his edits and listening to his complaints about the article. That said, I am not editing on his behalf, but on behalf of our core content policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:RS. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've noted your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please revert your against-consensus blank of the article. 76.210.68.126 (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No edits were against consensus. Please read WP:BRD for a description of the bold-revert-discuss editing cycle. However, before you jump to step 2 of the cycle, please note that consensus does not trump WP:BLP, WP:V, or indeed any of our core policies. Sarcasticidealist's edits were good, well in line with policy, and absolutely required. // roux   05:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

DevorahLeah (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)If I can help to write a more accurate bio of Mr Farah, I would be happy to work with anyone else on it-- I posted in another section on this page that I am a media historian and I write entries for numerous textbooks, encyclopaedias, etc. I try my best to be both accurate and fair to everyone I write about, whether I personally agree with the subject's views or not. Is there a committee doing the revised bio, or should I just write it, post it, and hope for the best?

Be bold. But please make sure that anything you add is sourced to reputable, reliable sources, and doesn't place undue weight on anything, and falls within our biography of living persons policy. Also, unrelated.. please sign your posts at the end of the post, not the beginning. It's easier to read that way, and less chance of posts being misattributed by readers. // roux   18:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just remember, that Farah's own rag does not count as a reliable or NPOV source. 208.94.184.249 (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And referring to his publication as a 'rag' is not productive. // roux   19:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

DevorahLeah (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Oh I'm sorry-- I was taught that you sign 'em at the beginning of the post, rather than the end, so I'll do both on this one. I only use reliable and reputable sources, and whether I like the person's views or not, I promise I'll provide copious documentation that is fair. Disclosure: Mr Farah and I are cordial to each other and he has published one of my essays, even though our views could not be more opposite politically. That said, I plan to treat my research on him the same as I would treat any research on any educational topic. My only problem is I've never mastered the wiki way of doing endnotes (I'm a bit of a luddite), so if I insert them internally, can somebody fix them so they are at the end? Also, if I have interviewed Mr Farah, may I quote him, or is that not permitted? [DevorahLeah]

Devorah, all the help you could possibly want on making references can be found at WP:CITE. You can also install a helpful tool: click on 'preferences', then 'gadgets', and select the 'reftools' gadget and purge your cache (hold down ctrl while hitting the refresh button). You'll see a new button just above the editing window whenever you edit a page that helps you insert properly-formatted references into the text. As for the interview, you should only quote it if it has been published by a reliable source--but you should probably avoid it entirely as a conflict of interest. Perhaps post a link to the interview here and let other people evaluate how useful it is. // roux   00:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

DevorahLeah (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the help. And don't worry-- I will avoid any COI. (That's why I wanted to disclose that I know Mr Farah, and our many disagreements have been quite courteous. I also know many other people in media, since my work as a media historian and educator involves writing about and researching them!) I really do make every effort to be fair, and I will absolutely use only reputable source materials. I've been fortunate to bring a few articles up to GA status, so this is fun for me and I wanna do it right. If I have further questions, I assume I ask them here? [DevorahLeah]

This is as good a place as any. I look forward to seeing what you can contribute. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability discussion

As far as I can tell, the subject does not meet the criteria for notability. There is a distinct lack of secondary published material about him. The few sources given are either trivial or not independent of the subject. Please read the notability guidelines and discuss. If no one can come up with a valid reason to keep it, let's get this thing deleted. Krychek (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Did he threaten to sue wikipedia?

He wrote this:

"...I actually had to threaten a libel suit against Wikipedia to get the site to remove the previous attempt at defamation. It took days of waiting. It took hours of making corrections that were quickly replaced intentionally with the undocumented and undocumentable lies designed to hurt and humiliate.

Am I just bellyaching because I'm a victim?

No. There's a much bigger point to be made here. If ever there were a website to avoid at all costs, it's Wikipedia. No good can possibly come from using this vast wasteland of error and deliberate deceit. You should get off of it and warn others away. You should make sure your children and grandchildren know what a corrupt and morally bankrupt institution it truly is."

Is it even possible to sue wikipedia for what a vandal adds to a page?

In any case, this story is sweeping over the blogosphere. Mr. Farah is in danger of making this story notable enough to actually be included in his article permanently. Ironic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.126.180 (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In the past, people who have tried to sue Wikipedia have not been successful. If he does sue Wikipedia, and if that is covered by reliable independent sources, i.e., not WorldNetDaily, then it would be appropriate to include that in the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So since WND is not WP:RS, we can remove all the facts from the article that are cited to WND? 24.160.240.250 (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Text restored

The biography text seems to be sourced. Do not see any reason for that to be deleted.Biophys (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The biography was sourced to partisan, self-published, and otherwise unreliable sources. It didn't comply with WP:BLP. I agree that content should be re-added, but we should start from scratch using only unimpeachable material. I'll give it a go. Cool Hand Luke 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Google books search shows him as a notable author: [1]. To tell the truth, I know little about him beyond reading some of his opinion pieces in the internet. I agree, one should use better sources.Biophys (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he's certainly notable. The sourcing is the tricky part. I've added some more details back in. The Vince Foster issue is too tricky for me to tackle now. Perhaps some more material about WND—print don't cover it as well as his brief tenure at the Sacramento Union, but it's undoubtedly much more important in his life. Cool Hand Luke 01:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

DevorahLeah (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC) I've been doing a ton of research in newspapers and magazines from the 1980s and early 90s (none of which are internet , and I've tried hard to avoid overtly partisan ) but it's REALLY tough to find material that is neutral about Mr Farah. I'm going to add some material to what's posted currently, and I hope it'll be helpful. [DevorahLeah]

It would be good to place more indisputable factual information about the person: his books, involvement in important meetings or international events, political activities, his allies and foes; any notable controversies he was involved in; perhaps a few his quotes that clearly express his views (what he stands for?), and so on. Factual information is neutral. Things to avoid: citations of other people who flatly claim that "he is great" or "he is evil".Biophys (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, It seems that he only became more notable in the 1990s, apparently with the Vince Foster thing. If I understand my sources correctly, he wasn't the editor-in-chief of any large paper before the Sacramento Union (USA Today says he was editor of a circulation-8,000 paper before that post, and a news editor at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner apparently some time before that). The Vince Foster thing will require a lot of care to sort out in a neutral way. Cool Hand Luke 04:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he was a reporter and also wrote free-lance opinion pieces, from a conservative point of view, in the 1980s. Before the Vince Foster thing (oh and I've dug up a really interesting link between Farah and Arianna Huffington, back when she was a conservative), he championed a number of conservative causes. Btw, if a conservative magazine interviewed him (and didn't say "wow he's great" but it's obvious they are on his side), is it okay to quote from that interview? DevorahLeah (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but interviews are normally considered primary sources—they represent the subject's own views, so we would not be source controversial claims about other living people through an interview. However, it would be a great source for background of Farah's own life. I haven't done an exhaustive search, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of straightforward material about his early career. He was in his late 30s when he became editor at the Union, and this article might benefit from earlier background. Cool Hand Luke 05:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've found all sorts of articles on him from Editor and Publisher, Columbia Journalism Review, and a few newspapers-- but none of them are on line, and I really do need somebody to guide me on how to get the citations right when it's a source NOT available on line-- I know how to get the URL of an online source into an entry, but alas, being the neo-Luddite that I am, I do the other cites wrong. Somebody else told me where the directions are for doing this stuff, but alas, I still couldn't figure out how to get the numbered footnotes right (in the world of academia, we use internal footnotes, like Smith, 39 or Jones 116) I also have several interviews he did with conservative, but reliable magazines (what I mean is, these are that are not considered "rags"-- they may have a conservative viewpoint, but are generally respected... And yes, when I quote from a liberal publication, I also factor in the ideological orientation of the publication, so in this case, I tried to use conservative sources that are known to have longevity and credibility). DevorahLeah (talk) 06:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see Columbia Journalism Review or Editor and Publisher articles before the 1990s. Anyhow, you can cite offline sources if they're verifiable—which published news articles certainly are. I added several such citations to the article. I use the "{{cite news}}" template, so citations are given in this general form:

<ref>{{cite news| title=At Sacramento Union, A Conservative Bent | author=Howard Kurtz, Charles Trueheart | publisher=''[[Washington Post]]'' | date=[[1990-10-23]]}}</ref>

You add these references after the punctuation. They create nice footnotes as shown in the article now. Other editors can look up and verify the references, and excerpts can be posted on the talk page if they're controversial. Cool Hand Luke 06:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I do research for a living and I write reference and text books (my 4th one just came out 2 weeks ago), so I have access to about 200 databases, including Lexis/Nexis, which give you Columbia Journalism Review and Editor & Publisher for the 1980s onward. Being a professional reseacher, I try to use only verifiable and reputable sources. Thanks for the help-- I asked on your own page, Luke, for some guidance, and I appreciate your providing it. I have some of his early years information too, and am just fact-checking it with the college he is said to have attended. DevorahLeah (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a forum

I removed a post. Just a review, please see WP:TALKPAGE and WP:NOT. Thanks, --Tom 22:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless/until there is actual evidence from a reliable source to consider this issue, there is nothing to discuss and per WP:BLP, this discussion is now removed. 24.x, if you find a reliable source on the issue, please feel free to raise the question. --B (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse B's action, final warning given (diff). R. Baley (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing

I think the anti-Wikipedia story is interesting, but I couldn't find a great source. This story from the LA Times [2] and this [3] story from the Sacramento Bee look interesting. I don't think the Bee likes him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Slate too. Queer Eye for the Libel Guy [4] Mentions Farah threatening to sue Wikipedia over the homosexual claim. Satanico (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Creationist

I added his support for creationism and his reason behind it.[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41977] This is relevant since many of the articles on WND support creationism and he hires many creationists, such as Ray Comfort, to write for articles. BBiiis08 (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

More sources:[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=88598][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41961][http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43642][http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24851]

WP:RS allows self-references on his opinions.BBiiis08 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

He's a columnist who writes columnists on a wide variest of subjects. In determining which of his views are worth including in the article, we should see which have been covered by secondary sources independent to him. Primary sources are suitable for substantiating material already in the article, but should not be used to drive content, especially with regards to contentious information about living people. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) WP:WEIGHT problem; especially in an article so brief. We need secondaries to establish that this is a WEIGHTy opinion. Writers say a lot of things in their career, and cherry picking sources is a very real risk in such biographies. I am also unimpressed with how you characterized his position in order to ridicule him. Cool Hand Luke 17:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Threats?

To get to WikiPedia, I just search "WikiPedia" on Yahoo and click on WikiPedia and choose English, but I noticed there was hate talk about WikiPedia.

• Here's the article: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640
• Here's where I found it: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=WikiPedia&ei=utf-8&fr=b2ie7 - Eugene Krabs (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's well-established that Farah didn't like his Wikipedia entry; can you blame him? It said that he was a homosexual for quite some time, which is baseless and to him highly offensive. Are you making a suggestion about improving this article? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I just didn't want WikiPedia sued because it's a great website. :) - Eugene Krabs (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama birth

The following 1849 characters were removed with a 6 char edit summary "rv POV"

Farah has been a leading proponent of the widely debunked Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, stating, "It'll plague Obama throughout his presidency. It'll be a nagging issue and a sore on his administration, much like Monica Lewinsky was on President Bill Clinton," and "It's not going to go away and it will drive a wedge in an already divided public.". Even though candidate Obama made avaliable birth certificate for the website FactCheck.org to photograph, Farah has demanded that President-Elect Obama release his official birth certificate. Farah has been criticized by many for being a conspiracy theorist, and on Monday January 5, 2009 Countdown with Keith Olbermann named Farah the "worst person in the world".

Please discuss what you find WP:POV about this information, and why it was removed. Additionally that category of conspiracy theorist was removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conspiracy_theorists should be added to his article, the category states that "For purposes of article inclusion, this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories. " and Category: Conspiracy Theories includes Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I spent a great deal of time locating RS material and crafting NPOV language, I would appreciate a more detailed description why content is POV and was removed. Cheers. TharsHammar (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The KO material is not notable. Maybe use sources like NY Times ect? Tom 22:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

KO material was used to support the claim that he has been criticized as a conspiracy theorist, you can see the video here. Maybe just use it as a ref and remove the text? I doubt the NYT has spent any ink covering his kind. TharsHammar (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Widely debunked"? Did you think this was neutral. Just let the sources speak for themselves. I've removed the dangling "conspiracy theorist" remark as well, which is implicit in any case. Cool Hand Luke 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Debunked [5] and debunked [6] and debunked [7] and debunked [8] and debunked [9] and debunked [10] and on and on, Politico even called it "a widely debunked rumor held over from the presidential campaign. " [11]. Taking all that into account and WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE I really think the wording of that is neutral. TharsHammar (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny that it's "debunked," but shoehorning those words into the article isn't even close to neutral. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. We error on the side of caution in BLPs, even for alleged conspiracy theorists. Cool Hand Luke 02:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Now the category is gone? Please see above where I describe why the category was added. The category states that "For purposes of article inclusion, this category specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories listed in the articles under Category:Conspiracy theories. " and Category: Conspiracy Theories includes Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. TharsHammar (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He also falls under the Mexamericanada conspiracy theory per [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57862] [12]. He also falls under the Homosexual agenda conspiracy theory, per [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33826] [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28069]. He is also under the Global warming conspiracy theory per [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21075] and [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48855]. He also falls under the Waco Siege conspiracy theorists, per [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=1430] and [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=1440]. I am sure these are just a few of the conspiracy theories that Mr. Farah subscribes to, I do not want to litter the article with these stories, but for all these reasons, I think the category tag is justified. TharsHammar (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a tricky situation, and while the guy is probably basically a conspiracy theorist, in cases such as this, particularly when we have issues if BLP and a history of potentially libelous problems with the article, it's better to err on the side of caution. Categorization policy says that categories should be self-evident and uncontroversial, and this one really isn't either. Covering conspiracies Farah adheres to in the article is fine, if it can be done devoid of OR and synthesis, using reliable sources. Categorizing him as a conspiracy theorist strikes me as more of a label than a navigational tool, which is not what categories are for. -R. fiend (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick question, what is the link to the category policy, I am finding all sorts of policies, so I would like to know what is the "one." And in my book, anyone that says "In other words, what is happening in North America and Europe and Africa and Asia – breaking down the barriers of nation-state sovereignty – is not that much different from what happened back in the days of the Tower of Babel. It is, ultimately, about moving away from differences between nations that God Himself created for His own divine purposes. It is about following the path of Nimrod and all the others who have attempted to build super-states in defiance of God. " is a conspiracy theorist [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58858], same goes for a guy who says "Since homosexuals don't reproduce naturally, they need to recruit – not to be their children, mind you, but to be their prey. That's why they care so much about what happens in schools – where they obviously have few of their own children. "[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51994]. I do not think it is a point of view to label him a conspiracy theorist, I think it is a point of fact. TharsHammar (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CAT. Categories are for defining characteristics that are neutral and self-evident. Farah is a conservative publisher—that's what he's known as. In a newspaper story he would be defined as "Farah, the publisher of the conservative WorldNetDaily." He would not be introduced as "Farah, a conspiracy theorist." Neither would Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, or any other people who have expressed views alleged to be conspiracy theories. Cool Hand Luke 02:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely with Luke. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there should not be an article on this subject if it is going to be glossed over. I realize the subject of the article has threatened Wikipedia with libel, so maybe it would be best just to delete the whole article instead of presenting a distorted reality. I am going to look into the policies regarding this and article deletion and I might nominate this article for deletion. As said above, "We error on the side of caution in BLPs" so maybe we should err on the side of deleting the article completely. TharsHammar (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is no more of a distorted reality than every other mainstream source on the planet which describe him as "Joseph Farah, editor and founder of the conservative WorldNetDaily." Neutrality is a pillar principle. We should cleave to facts, not derisive labels. Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this "if we can't skewer him let's just delete the whole thing" theory is going to grow wings, so you might want to save yourself the trouble of an AfD. If you think his batshit craziness is not given proper coverage in the article, then we can work at covering some of his ideas, as long as we keep to reliable sources, and avoid undue weight, OR, and synthesis problems. It might take a little while, but that's how it goes. But we're not going to turn this into a hatchet job, and we're not going to focus solely on his craziest ideas. If your attitude is that it's preferable to delete the article than have it without a conspiracy theorist category you might want to reconsider if an NPOV project such as this is what you want to devote your efforts to. There are plenty of places on the net that welcome highly critical analysis of characters like this. -R. fiend (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I take umbrage at your characterization of my intents. In was not suggesting a theory of "if we can't skewer him let's just delete the whole thing." I want to work towards a page that is as detailed, NPOV, and well sourced as Jerome Corsi. I based the deletion suggestion on the idea that in a recent column he said "I actually had to threaten a libel suit against Wikipedia to get the site to remove the previous attempt at defamation. It took days of waiting. It took hours of making corrections that were quickly replaced intentionally with the undocumented and undocumentable lies designed to hurt and humiliate." [13]. Also a threat against me personally, on this posting [14], by someone I highly suspect to be an employee of Mr. Farah. So please do not add duplicitousness where there is none.TharsHammar (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I mischaracterized your intent, but my point is that deletion is not a viable option here, so we should work towards improving the article. I don't know the details of the previous version of the article, but it certainly sounds like WP dropped the ball. Long term semi-protection and lots of eyes on this article should keep anything like that from happening again, but we still need to be wary of less blatant but still problematical issues, such as NPOV and tone. I see no reason why we can't have the sort of article that both Farah's supporters and detractors think is basically fair. -R. fiend (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

rumor

I heard he was gay. I tried to add this to the article, but it got reverted and I got warned. Could someone run down a reference on it and add it back to the article, pls? 76.208.67.130 (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You will be reverted and warned again if you try to add this. Wikipedia doesn't report rumors, espcially defamatory rumors about living people, see WP:BLP. Also if you want a reference about Farah's sexuality, see [15] and note the particular wording he uses about libel suits, and then remember that you are responsible for the content you upload to wikipedia. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 06:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You may be surprised to find that Wikipedia's liability for disseminating this rumor isn't as limited as you think, if, indeed, characterizing someone as a homosexualist is libel. Which, clearly, it isn't, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating those heterosexist threats. Also, my second edit clearly wasn't vandalism, as I characterized him as a "possible homosexualist", which we all are. Your edit summary was wrong. 76.208.67.130 (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And it is possible that my Tiger Protection amulet has kept me safe from Tiger attacks, but we don't put that into the article on Tigers. Your edits are vandalism, and you have been reported. 06:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TharsHammar (talk • contribs)

Your Tiger Protection amulet sounds awesome. Do you know where I could find a TharsHammar Protection amulet to protect me from your content fascism? 76.210.64.229 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, try going to Milwaukee Public Schools, they will teach you how not to start unsubstantiated and slanderous rumors about living people, and that is the only TharsHammar protection amulet. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You should probably check yourself before you make another gay-bashing comment like that one. Wikipedia has no place for you bigoted views. (P.S. I graduated from MPS years ago.) 76.210.64.229 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IP: there has been no gay-bashing in this thread. Your edits are inappropriate. Stop now. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Widely Debunked

The word "widely" is optional. The word "debunked" is not. It could be sourced differently for every day of the week, and there are still plenty of other sources out there stating the same thing. Remember, WP:NPOV doesn't mean that WP:FRINGE views need to be presented as valid, or even possibly valid. There's no WP:BLP issue with pointing out that Farah's pet theory is factually inaccurate. 76.210.64.229 (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Debunked [16] and debunked [17] and debunked [18] and debunked [19] and debunked [20] and debunked [21] and on and on, Politico even called it "a widely debunked rumor held over from the presidential campaign. " [22]. Taking all that into account and WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE I really think the wording of widely debunked is neutral. We could just use quotations and attribute it to the Politico article. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 19:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

Wikipedia articles are supposed to rely on reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The use of some primary sources to supplement those secondary sources is acceptable—for example, in this article, I see no problem with the use of the two "birther" WND articles to supplement the coverage of Farah's involvement in the birther movement, since that involvement has been covered by secondary sources. However, the use of primary sources in an apparent effort to fabricate controversy from whole cloth, as in the cases of Farah's views on Palestinian people and North American Union, neither of which appears to have been covered by secondary sources, is not okay. Accordingly, and especially in light of Wikipedia's past abuse of Mr. Farah, I have removed all material from this article that does not appear to have been covered by reliable third party secondary sources. If you disagree with this removal, please discuss it here before reverting it, as is demanded by the restraint component of WP:BLP. Steve Smith (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I must say that your allegation of "fabrication" is offensive. I really do not see how quoting the person himself can be considered "abuse". His views about the Palestinians are also widely documented in secondary sources . For example refer to the book "Arabs speak frankly on the Arab-Israeli conflict: with original documents", By Naomi Comay, 2005 page 84. Marokwitz (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, you're correct; that was an unwarranted assumption of bad faith on my part, and I apologize for it. On the second, I have no objection to including his views on Palestinians in the article if they're sourced to secondary sources, though the source you cite does not appear to be a secondary one, but merely a collection of quotes. Steve Smith (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We are just trying to accurately depict the views and opinions of Farah. At the very minimum, this history book is checked to contain accurate quotes. What more accurate source do we have better than his own words ? How can anyone refute the fact that these are his true views ? Marokwitz (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with accuracy; of course his columns reflect his true views. It's a question of importance: he's written (I assume) hundreds of columns over the years, expressing who knows how many viewpoints, so how do we decide which we should include? Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, relies on secondary sources to make that decision for us: if he is noted for holding a particular view, as he is with the birther stuff, we should include it. If not, not. Steve Smith (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I am relying on a secondary source: Naomi Comay, who decided it is notable enough to include in her history book. Isn't that enough to assert notability ? Furthermore, a quick Google search would show you that it is not just an article, the guy is quoted literally hundreds of times on this subject by many sources. I believe this it is one of the fundamental points needed to understand what this guy is about, and the article is not complete without it. Marokwitz (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If he's been quoted by a reliable third party secondary source, go ahead and put it back in. Comay's isn't one, though: first of all, there's no evidence that she's an authority on this subject, and the book appears to have been published through a vanity publisher. Moreover, a collection of quotes not accompanied by any kind of commentary or narrative is not a secondary source; a primary source does not become a secondary one by virtue of who publishes it. Steve Smith (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)