Talk:Robin Long

Please explain the reason for the "notability" tag

At this edit a tag was left asking for notability. Please be more specific in your reason for including such a tag in this article. Thank you. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe that Long is notable. Long was completely before his crime. Everything he has been covered about is due to his crime and the legal battle. You can't really count the trial etc as seperate events. It all stems from a single event, his desertion. The case itself may be notable enough for an article, but as a bio, this looks more like a case of BLP1E than anything else to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Niteshift36

The "BLP1E" policy (at this link) doesn't apply to Long because he has continued to be covered in the press even after the "one event." which originally launched him into notability.

For example, consider this press link which contains these quotes about Long's activities after his release from prison:

"As he tours the country speaking out in opposition to the war..."

"He is being sponsored on a trip to Israel and Palestine in October [2009] to speak to Army resisters there and meet with high school students."

Also, even after the verdict was handed down, and the legal proceedings against him were complete, he continued to be "active" even while in prison. While in prison, he spoke to elected representatives from Canada. His words were then read in the Parliament of Canada. Four days after Robin Long's words were read in Canada's House of Commons, on March 30, 2009, the House of Commons again voted in a non-binding motion 129 to 125 in favour of a committee's recommendation on Iraq war resisters. The press then covered the Parliamentary activity on this issue after Long's "post-verdict activism."

Wikipedia is a work in progress - The history of Iraq War resisters is not nearly over yet, and is still being written. Coming up on May 25, 2010, the Parliament of Canada will be debating the issue in the second reading of Bill C440, which deals precisely with Iraq War resisters. On March 19, 2010, Robin Long spoke to a meeting in Canada via a conference call see link .

Also note that the committee's recommendation has implications far beyond the Iraq war. ie. "all wars not sanctioned by United Nations."

Also consider that "Aggravation" (legal term) in Long's US military Court martial had subsequent implications for other US Iraq War Resisters.

On the issue of notability: The protests against the Iraq War have set all time records: The Feb 15, 2003 protest in Rome involved around three million people, and is listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest anti-war rally in history.

References

Sincerely, - Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, most of that isn't terribly notable. The most notable stuff is the parts that are directly related to his case. Again, the case itself may be notable, but I don't see his notability beyond the attachment to the case. And no clue what you think that Guiness entry is supposed to show.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• To expand, Ref 1 is a story in his hometown paper (even the headline brings up his desertion). Even then, it's about his desertion (his one event) and the effects of it on him. Numbers 2,3 and 4 are about the case (which is an extension of the one event), not so much the man and number 5....well, I'm still wondering what that has to do with this. Again, the case looks more notable than the individual. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• • I dont think that Toronto Star link supports the claims you are making either. I have to agree with niteshift, if this person were not in the news for desertion, they would not be notable at all. Making a few speeches doesnt change that, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia policy excludes press references from one's hometown? If there is such a policy I would appreciate a link to it. Thank you. If there is not such a Wikipedia policy, then my above evidence against "BLP1E" still stands. (See evidence in above quotes from this press link) If my evidence against "BLP1E" still stands, then you will have to provide a rationale which is not based on "BLP1E." So far, I have not seen any rationale which is not based on "BLP1E."

A similar case is Cindy Sheehan whose activism would probably not be noted if there were not an initial event (ie. her son being killed in Iraq.) Yet she went beyond that event to become active. Long is similar. He went beyond that event to become active. The point here is that the press is covering activities of Long which are not part of his legal case. (By that time even his prison term was complete and in the past.) Therefore the article is not about only Long's legal case: It goes beyond that. Therefore logic dictates that the article must be about something larger than Long's legal case: namely about Long himself. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• No policy excludes the local paper, but you do need to look at it in context too. Local papers have to write about local people, that's what makes readers buy the local paper instead of USA Today. If we went with your line of thinking, could you imagine the number of bios we'd have for high school football players etc? Regardless, your "evidence" doesn't prove anything. If you take all the sources, exclude everything connected with his case, what would you have left? A completely non-notable person is what you'd have left. Cindy Sheehan is a poor comparison. She started notability over one event, but has gone far beyond that. Perhaps some day Long will too, but going to a protest now and then isn't notable. You say that this is about Long himself, but I challenge you to do what I suggested above. Take out everything about his crime and the connected court happenings and see what is left. Nothing of notability. The true test of BLP1E would be to remove that single event and see if they'd be notable beyond that. I think you'd find it very difficult to write a supportable bio based on what you'd have left. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Niteshift. I see nothing here that satisfies notability above and beyond the one event. If we cut out all the references that dont mention Long, only mention him in passing, or only mention him in relation to his court case you would not have enough to establish notability, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E also states: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, [...] fit into this category". I think the ongoing story of Canada and Iraq War resisters is significant enough to apply this second clause and make a separate BLP. After all, Long was visited by two Members of Canada's Parliament, and was quoted at length during the official Question Period of that Parliament (as is mentioned in the references). Therefore he has had a significant influence on the politics of Canada. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't agree that he's had a significant influence. To me, He's on the edge of notability, but iss still a one trick pony. Everything about him is tied to just being a deserter. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)