Jump to content

Talk:Jack Abramoff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.6.211.228 (talk) at 14:35, 8 May 2012 (response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Nobody ever called Abramoff a writer

Hello. Abramoff has been called many things, but “writer” isn't among them. But a very aggressive IP insists, that Abramoff is a writer and wants it mentioned in the lead. Would somebody be good enough and explain to this IP if need be, because I'm going to remove it from the lead, that the producer and coauthor of a film (IMDb), and what's commonly called a “writer” are two entirely different things. Thank you, Ajnem (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a solid source from IMDB that states he is a writer. He has also authored 2 books. Look at the 3rd paragraph of his page where it states that he authored, "Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Corruption From America's Most Notorious Lobbyist". Not sure what else you have to do in life to be called a writer but he is a writer. So what you are saying is if you write a script for a movie, Red Scorpion, and author 2 books, you can not call yourself a writer. That doesnt make logical sense. You are ignoring my source and basing your rewrite on your opinion and not facts. You think it is above him to be called a writer because you dont personally like him. If you look at your rewrites you are trying to paint him in a negative way and that is not what Wikipedia is about. If you dont like him go post on some blogs or forums what you dont like about him, Wikipedia is about facts not opinions. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the IMDB source closer. You are saying it only shows him as the producer. He was the producer and the writer of the film. You must have overlooked this. Even the wikipedia page for Red Scorpion lists him as a writer for the movie. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abramoff is a screenwriter and author. Screenwriter for the movie Red Scorpion and author for 2 books. If you look at the Wikipedia page for these two professions they are considered writers.
Screenwriters or scriptwriters or scenario writers are writers who practise the craft of screenwriting, writing screenplays on which mass media such as films, television programs, comics or video games are based. The term writer is customarily used as a synonym of author, although the latter term has a somewhat broader meaning. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also screenwriters are not called coauthors of a film. A screenwriter is a writer and an author is a writer. Abramoff has done both. If you went up to a screenwriter for a film and called him an author of the film he/she would laugh at you. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont call me a "very aggressive IP". I am not even aggressive and please dont talk down to me with a condescending tone. I could label you that because your the one making the rewrites without legitimate sources for your rewrites. You are suppose to be civil and starting off your comment with this language doesnt follow Wikipedia rules of civility. I am firm on keeping this written the way it is so if you plan on rewriting it again I would suggest getting an admin involved. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No OR

No original research, dear IP, that's the issue. If you find a reliable source which calls Abramoff a writer – not your source, which names him as the author of a specific film, but a source that says: "Jack Abramoff ... is a writer (among other things)", you may put it in the lead, otherwise, it's called edit-warring, Ajnem (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB does call him a writer and also a producer. Are you ignoring the fact that he is also wrote a book? Get an admin involved. You are being aggressive by rewriting without having any solid source for your reasoning. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer I put screenwriter and author? Or should I ignore the fact that he has done both? Your ignoring facts. If you change it again I will contact an admin. Last warning. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added 2 additional sources. Both are links to Wikipedia. One for him as a writer for Red Scorpion and one for being an author of a book. Is Wikipedia a valid source? 199.209.144.218 (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No 199.209.144.218, Wikipedia is no source for Wikipedia. And by the way, what's so great about Abramoff's co-writing for the defunct South African Apartheid regime “basically a comic book or a Saturday morning cartoon masquerading as a feature film” [1]? Or do you allude to Abramoff's literary e-mail-writing by calling him a writer? But by all means, contact an administrator. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last time Ajnem. We have discussed this enough. I have provided you with plenty of sources. At this point you are not making any sense and are injecting your personal bias. I WILL contact an admin if you change it again. Your waiting for time to pass and your coming back and vandalizing this article. An admin will be contacted if you change it again. Eelnire (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ajnem is engaging in an editing war. I have reasoned with him by changing "writer" to "screenwriter & author", provided additional sources and he continues to delete edits based on his personal opinon. He is changing this information every 2 or 3 days so he can fly under the radar and not get flagged for vandelism. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

For further discussion please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you, Ajnem (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing the story for a movie does not make you a screenwriter. Also, Wikipedia articles may not be used as references in other WP articles, so I have removed those sources. I left RottenTomatoes in.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This, dear SarekOfVulcan, is not helpful, as there are no more sources calling Abramoff an “author” – plain and simple: “Jack Abramoff is an author” – than sources calling him a “writer”. Ajnem (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to some of what you wrote here and at AN/I:
  1. What is a writer? (Rhetorical.) He has written a book. A published book. It's published by what appears to be a niche (but not vanity press) publishing house. Use the word "author" if preferred. In fact I see at one point the article has.
  2. Yes, multiple refs in the lead to cite that he's an author if the main body discusses his published writing are generally unnecessary. The lead should generally summarise the body not introduce other facts.
  3. As SarekofVulcan points out writing the story for a movie and writing for the screen are different. (Arne Olsen was the screenwriter of the film mentioned.)
  4. As for "sources" using terms like disgraced and ex-con, well it's not really neutral encyclopedic language.
Lastly, be cool – all of you – it's always easier. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screenwriters or scriptwriters or scenario writers are writers who practise the craft of screenwriting, writing screenplays on which mass media such as films, television programs, comics or video games are based. The term writer is customarily used as a synonym of author, although the latter term has a somewhat broader meaning.199.209.144.218 (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This SarekOfVulcan is why I had originally put writer in the title because he wrote the story for a movie and wrote a book. Ajnem is being unreasonable and that is why its obvious he doesnt want writer or any mention of writing for Jack Abramoff mentioned, because he has a Personal bias towards Jack Abramoff. I could list a dozen other people that have done the same thing as Jack and Ajnem wouldnt have a problem with it. Its obvious that Ajnem has a bias towards Republicans and doesnt want a Republican mentioned as a writer because he feels it is beneath non-Republicans. He is out to deface Jack Abramoff. That is why he tried to add Republican to his title even though the guy isnt a politican. Ajnem is making these edits on here to smear Republicans. I am not even a Republican but dont think what Ajnem is doing is following Wikipedia's code of conduct. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once you serve four years as chair of the College Republican National Committee and serve on a President's transition team, I think "add[ing] Republican to your title" is a fairly reasonable action. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I would add once you write one or more books published by a legitimate publishing house, I think "calling [yourself] an author" is a fairly reasonable action. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An author is a writer and I have provided Wikipedia entries explaining this. I am reverting writer back to the page. He is noted as a writer for a movie and writer of a book. This is enough resources to call him a writer. Eelnire (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SarekOfVulcan also removed my valid source for him being a movie producer. Restoring source. Eelnire (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll try to explain. In building articles it's important to always strive for reliable sources. SarekOfVulcan removed your sources through concerns on their reliability. a) Ref 1 that you added is to IMDb.com. Some editors believe this isn't reliable because some of its information is drawn from user-submissions. For a mainstream film it's probably possible to find a press source through googlenews to support the information. b) Refs 3 and 4 are cites to Wikipedia itself. Avoid those. c) Again, generally the Lead doesn't need citing because it's a summary of the main body and the points are cited there. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove IMDb and the Wikipedia sources and find valid news sources. Thanks. Eelnire (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluating sources can be difficult, it's something you improve on gradually. Seeing good faith efforts to add better ones is always encouraging.
The new ones are still somewhat weak. Wolframalpha claims it's an "answer engine". It appears to be a search engine that scrapes 'structured data' (e.g. in tables) from the web - which could include wikis; amazon.com being essentially a shopfront provides little as a ref. I suppose if the book had to be cited then the Washington Post article cited in the Criticism section would do, or if his producing the film needed to be cited the Prevue magazine ref used in the film article would do probably formatted something like:
<ref name="redsc">{{cite journal |editor-last=Steranko |editor-first=James |editor-link=Jim Steranko |title=From soviet assassin to commie crusher! Dolph Lundgren delivers the ... |url=http://www.dolph-ultimate.com/dolph-in/prevue.html |id=(convenience link) |periodical=Prevue |year=1988 |month=October |volume=2 |issue=73 |pages= |location=Pennsylvania, USA |accessdate=May 3 2012 |issn=0199-9257}}</ref>.
...Of course in practice I wouldn't have 10 cites in the lead myself. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved 2 sources to external links and added 1 source to lead. Eelnire (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understood what I saying about the sources. They don't add anything as external links. What fact is that new source intended to verify? --92.6.211.228 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The blind leading the lame

Nice try, 92.6.211.228. However, from my point of view, an IP tutoring a newly registered user is rather like the blind leading the lame. I don't think that either Eelnire nor anybody else is going to learn much that is of practical use about Wikipedia:Reliable sources from an IP who refers to e.g. The New York Times and The Washington Post as “Yellow journalism sources” and claims that theirs “[i]s not really neutral encyclopedic language” (see above). You couldn't be more mistaken. These two newspapers, as well as others, whether or not you personally agree with the terms they use to describe a person, Abramoff in this case, but it could be anybody, are top reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. But be that as it may, this is the Abramoff talk page, not the Help desk. So I suggest you take your tutoring to Eelnire's talk page or to wherever IPs commonly do their tutoring – you'll feel much more comfortable. Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words into my mouth.
I did not refer to The New York Times and Washington Post as yellow press sources and claim they equal "[non] neutral encyclopedic language". Quite the opposite given I recommended the use of the Washington Post in a comment. [2]. Nor have I ever suggested the NYT doesn't meet our RS guidelines. I referred to lurid or sensationalist language ("yellow journalism") such as "disgraced" and "ex-con". Both terms were from your edits on ANI/articles. Newspapers, even reputable ones, may say all sorts of things. That does not mean we must repeat it when dealing with content on living persons.
It is appropriate to refer to a conviction, charges, and sentence using appropriate sources. However, it is not necessary to editorialise ("disgraced") like that—be it through own prose or arranging quotes to get the desired effect. Content on living persons, even those who've been subject of controversy, should be non-sensationalist, neutral and disinterested. The statement you inserted used an assertion by 1 source (NPR) to state unattributed: "usually described as a “disgraced former Republican lobbyist”". I've cleaned it up.
Editors do not get to pick and choose whether to follow policies and norms depending on the contributor. Please comment on content not contributors. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@92.6.211.228 Utter nonsense. I quoted you literally and correctly, adding the difflink into the bargain. As you obviously don't know, it's The New York Times and The Washington Post, yellow press using “lurid or sensationalist language” in your parlance, which describe Abramoff as “disgraced former Republican lobbyist” NPR refers to or as “ex-con” etc. I referred to. Either log in if you want to give advice, let alone determine what's “appropriate” for the English Wikipedia and what's not, not to mention doing any cleaning ups in articles, or please go play elsewhere, thank you, Ajnem (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like your earlier comment this is inaccurate. Please re-read the comment you replied to. Consensus determines what is appropriate for the English Wikipedia. Thanks. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
92.6.211.228, I understand your personal point of view quite well, I guess:
  • One: Newspapers call Abramoff “ex-con”, or “convicted” “disgraced” “corrupt” lobbyist etc. which you don't like.
  • Two: you called it “lurid or sensationalist language” and you called the newspapers using it “yellow press”.
  • Three: The newspapers in question are The Washington Post and The New York Times among others.
  • Four: Therefore, logically speaking, you called The Washington Post and The New York Times (among others) “yellow press” using “lurid or sensationalist language” – no need to re-read enything. As for “consensus”, I don't think that a new user with one single edit to his name reverting a correction made by an administrator after having explained it shows much consensus-mindedness, or any other attitude which should be uncouraged by anybody, IP or not IP. But just out of curosity: What is your reason for using an IP rather than registering/logging in? Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect Ajnem. I did not revert a correction from an admin. I changed the edit by adding more sources. And the person was not an admin but a regular user. I am also tired of you attacking people on here specifically me. You continue to call me a new user and demean me cause I am new. You have also repeatedly called me names. I have been in contact with other admins on here and logged my displeasure with being harassed. One more time and I am filing a complaint for harassment against you. Again there is no difference in a user who has made 1 edit or 100 edits. There is also no difference in users with an account and one without. If you dont forcus on content and stop attacking me cause I am new I will file a complaint for harassment and we will see if Wikipedia condones your conduct on here. Eelnire (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"IP's Are Human Too" Eelnire (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)
I don't think you (Anjem) do understand.
  • There's a subtle unfounded insinuation of POV-pushing with "personal point of view" & "which you don't like". Actually I've no personal point of view regarding the living subject, nor had I heard of him before seeing your AN/I post and coming here as an uninvolved editor.
  • Again, the media says all sorts of things and subject to certain limitations is free to do so: It doesn't follow we should repeat it. This is covered in relevant policies. You're again ignoring how I previously recommended continued use of at least one of the sources—hardly what would happen if I didn't think they were reliable/reasonable.
  • To date I've made zero edits to this article. On blp grounds I made one edit to the book article; you reverted it. I brought the specific concern ("disgraced") up at the relevant noticeboard. Another editor confirmed it unnecessary by re-removing, making additional useful changes in the process.
  • Quantity of edits (169 of all types on this IP prior to coming here in my case but that's by the by) isn't a license to circumvent policies or disregard contributions.
  • As for new users, who even if new we're obliged not to bite, "with one single edit", I find the comment somewhat disingenuous given the editor you refer to has stated on your thread two IPs were used as entitled prior to creating an account, not to mention swiftly after that edit she engaged in discussion of the sources here.
I had hoped after a different administrator advised you on your talkpage we could move on to concentrate on the content. I remain hopeful. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ever so much

Thank you dear IP so much for having made me laugh with all my heart. You have never even “heard of [Abramoff] before seeing [my] AN/I post and coming here as an uninvolved editor”! That's so hilariously funny. Ajnem (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside how inappropriate your posting haha after somebody expressed willingness to focus on improving the article is, I'm not interested in what you find amusing. Just cease making baseless accusations of personal bias or anything else toward others. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Abramoff&oldid=491389446"