Jump to content

Talk:Daniel Hale

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

File photo

[edit]

This article is in desperate need of a file photo, and while a mugshot exists, and can be seen in this AP article, I'm unsure of what the copyright situation is here. AP Images calls it a "publicly distributed handout photo," but also seems to require licensing and mandatory credit. Can this photo be used, either as free or non-free content, and if not, are there any replacements that exist?Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshots from the feds (they're taken by the U.S. Marshals Service) are in the public domain. Activist (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 September 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Pages moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Primary topic based on page views. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kleinpecan: queried move request :: Daniel Hale is a disambig page with 4 choices. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RECENT. Although there is a current spike in interest, there is no indication that subject's historical legacy is so immense that the name will represent him over all others bearing that name for decades to come. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there would be another Daniel Hale in the future that would be equally or more notable, we can open another discussion. Opposing on this basis is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support strongly. The other three articles in disambiguation are extremely obscure. the "David Hale (politician) is a stub article created in 2008 about an particularly obscure politician who died 200 years ago. His great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren likely miss him greatly. That article has been edited by 11 users, including its creator, who hasn't edited it after the day it was created, and another editor who touched it up three years ago. The other nine edits were clearly minor. I think it should be considered for deletion as a space waster. The next is not an actual person, but rather a very minor occasional character in a series, Prison Break, who was killed off I'm sad to say, fourteen years ago. I'm sure his fictional relatives, if he has any, still mourn his passing. The third was best known as "Danny" Hale, reflected in the title of his article. He was a NCAA Division II (small college) head coach for two teams and had a remarkable record at both, making it all the way to the national Division II final in 2000, though his team lost. He's been retired for nine years. The good news is that I updated the article which had him as still coaching, though he retired nine years ago. He's still alive, 74 years old, so mourning is on hold. Now the views for these two people and the fictional character are very few and are likely Wikipedia viewers who are looking for the article on D.H. (intelligence analyst), before hopefully realizing that it's elsewhere. Hale is an unfortunate who was outed as a whistleblower during the Obama administration, prosecuted by Trump's DOJ, but finally took a plea this year. His whistleblowing had to do specifically with civilians killed by mistargeted drone strikes a subject of considerable international attention right now. He has yet to be moved from a county jail to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. which delay has not been explained to date. There were many whistleblowers prosecuted by the Obama/Biden administration, i.e., Thomas A. Drake, one by Trump, Reality Winner, who has been released to a reentry program, etc., etc. There should be no question that this article should be under his name, without the (intelligence analyst) identification, and I hope that this can be resolved quickly, so other Wikipedia readers are not diverted to a politician who has been dead for two centuries, a long retired football coach, or a non-person who only existed as an obscure character in a script. I expect it will get substantial views until long after he's released from prison, or hopefully, has his sentence commuted. Activist (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as article creator. I wanted to do this in the first place, but wasn't sure about it when I made it. Now the article is the most viewed and the others seem barely or don't even meet the WP:GNG, it should be moved. (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PhotographyEdits, (talk. I only get to vote once, but I agree with the article's creator. I just looked at the Thomas A. Drake article's page views. He was charged similar to Hale, eleven years ago. His article got almost 800 page views in just two days, a week ago. He was originally charged with 10 felonies all of which were dropped, and he pled guilty to a trivial misdemeanor use of someone else's computer. I read the sentencing transcript. The federal judge was extremely unhappy with Attorney General Eric Holder's office for pursuing the case. Drake's career was destroyed and his defense cost him most of his life's savings. The attention to Daniel Hale's revelations and his ultimate fate are not going to slip quietly away into the night. Activist (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why does the same statement appear in this article twice in succeeding paragraphs?

[edit]

@Burrobert: The article now has essentially the same statement appearing twice in this article with one sentence and a paragraph break separating them. May I humbly beseech thee to eliminate this redundancy?

I very much appreciate your work to make sure this article contains the most important information about this case, but this redundancy seems inappropriate to me. I'd be happier if you'd fix it. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I hadn't noticed that Marjorie said the same thing later in the section. I think we should eliminate Marjorie and leave Jacobin's statement. What do you think? Burrobert (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I liked pieces of both statements. Also, I think we should keep both references, because it adds weight to the statement.
I just rearranged the text to keep what I think was the best of both while also keeping both references.
Please revise as you see fit. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Hale&oldid=1207515655"