Jump to content

Talk:Henry Nicholas

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

Untitled

[edit]

Daveburstein (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Sept 2012 THis page read as though Nicholas' pr person had edited it. The issues with Henry's financial conduct and behavior were massively documented in the LA Times, the indictment, and many other places. They should be included in depth. The pr stuff began at the beginning, which I edited to "founded Broadcom ..." That makes the point he's an entrepreneur, so there was no reason to include that as praise.[reply]

Yeah, this article needs considerable work. In many sections it reads more like a resume or ad copy than an encyclopedia article, breathlessly recounting exploits. The section on the rather controversial Proposition 9 (2008) doesn't read neutrally, either, but rather as some kind of David-versus-Goliath crusade. --Delirium (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phrenology (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC) The “Criminal Justice & Victims’ Rights” subsection of the “Philanthropy” section was by far the most problematic part of this article, and I have therefore made fairly extensive changes to it, in the interests of neutrality.[reply]
Firstly, few sources were cited throughout this section, and a number of the sources that were cited linked to pages that do not exist – I have therefore gone through and ensured that no statement is unsourced.
In the first paragraph:
I changed “He helped his parents—Robert and Marcella Leach” to the more precise “He helped his mother and stepfather—Marcella and Robert Leach”.
I removed “He was the 2005 recipient of the Ronald Reagan Award for Pioneering Achievement in Criminal Justice, and has been honored frequently by law enforcement organizations for his work supporting victims’ rights.” - the source cited was a blank page, and the Ronald Reagan Award is in any case mentioned further down the page, under “Awards”.
Paragraph 2:
Removed the phrase “seemingly insurmountable” - this is contributing to the feeling of “David and Goliath crusade” that Delirium has highlighted.
Added “which opponents argued” to “would result in thousands of felons being released from state prisons” - this was, and remains, disputed (see, for example, the title here - “Arnold Schwarzenegger Lies About Proposition 66”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F6PBldQxZc – NB: I do not cite this video as a source in the article itself – although I do cite this advertisement, I found a youtube video with a more neutral title to use as a citation).
Removed “with as much as 75% of the vote” - no source was cited to back this up. Since one of the article's other sources (12: http://articles.latimes.com/2004/nov/07/local/me-pete7) talks about a majority of 62%, I amended the sentence to include that figure and cite that source.
Changed “an 11th-hour television and drive-time radio advertising blitz” to “a television and drive-time radio advertising campaign” - the phrases “11th hour” and “blitz” were contributing to the feeling of “David and Goliath crusade” that Delirium has highlighted.
Amended “personally recording” to “recording” - again, I feel this is contributing to the feeling of “David and Goliath crusade”, and also perhaps playing down the involvement of others in the recording process (ie. presumably there were recording engineers, and so forth, involved).
“Prop. 66 was defeated with 53.2% of California voters opposing the measure.” - no source was cited here, and the figure is actually wrong. I corrected the figure and provided a source.
Removed “The defeat marked the largest reversal of fortune on record in California electoral politics, with Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, describing the outcome as 'unprecedented'.[12][13]” - this sentence not only contributes to the “David and Goliath” feeling of the piece, but also comes close to presenting opinion as fact, since one of the article's other sources states that “Several political analysts said the last-minute drop in support for Prop. 66 was not unusual. Opinions can be swayed quickly on ballot measures that receive little attention until the last few weeks before an election.” (http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/PROPOSITION-66-Efforts-to-reform-three-2638541.php)
Removed “In February, 2005, Nicholas was presented with an award by the Southern California Association of Broadcasters for his effective use of radio advertising during the campaign [14]” - this contributes to the feeling of “breathlessly recounting exploits” highlighted by Delirium, and the source cited does not in fact mention an award.
Paragraph 3:
Added “Nicholas went on to campaign for Marsy's Law, a bill of rights for the victims of crime, named after his sister.” - this section failed to explain what Marsy's law actually is, so I added this sentence in the interests of clarity.
Removed “easily” and “despite a well-financed media campaign against it and opposition from nearly every major newspaper in the state” since this contributes to the “David and Goliath” feeling of the section, and is not backed up by any sources.
Gave the more precise figure of 53.84% (rather than 54%), and provided a citation to support the figure (no source was provided in the unamended article).
Removed “Since its passage, Marsy's Law has had a major impact on California's justice system, as victims exercise their legal standing and 17 enumerated rights in the judicial process. Prosecutors now undergo training in Marsy's Law and law enforcement personnel promptly apprise victims of their Marsy's Rights, just as they inform the accused of their Miranda Rights. Marsy's Law has resulted in much longer denials of inmate paroles and has played a pivotal role in several high-profile cases. In the case of Chelsea King, who was raped and murdered in San Diego in 2010 by paroled sex offender John Gardner, the new law was applied to protect her family from the release of autopsy photographs to the media. [15]” - the web page cited gives no information whatsoever on Marsy's Law. All of these statements are, therefore, unsupported by any sources.
Removed “In the most significant case to date relying on Marsy's Law, the California legislature passed, and Gov. Jerry Brown signed, a bill requiring the state's sitting governor to notify victims and their families before commuting an inmate's sentence. Earlier, San Diego's District Attorney, citing Marsy's Law's notification requirements, sued to nullify former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s decision on his last day in office to cut the sentence of the son of former state Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. Estaban Nunez pleaded guilty in the 2008 fatal stabling of Luis Santos outside a fraternity party in San Diego. [16][17]” - although the sources cited do back up what this passage is saying, there have been a number of prominent cases involving Marsy's Law, all of which are detailed on wikipedia's Marsy's Law page. It seems to me that what's required on the Henry Nicholas page is a brief, general overview of Marsy's Law, rather than detailed descriptions of cases in which it has been used. I have therefore also included a summary of key rights bestowed by Marsy's Law, which I based on the summary given on wikipedia's Marsy's Law page.
Ammended “which is dedicated to providing expertise and resources to empower victims’ rights organizations nationwide” to “which provides expertise and resources to victims' rights organizations worldwide” - the words “dedicated” and “empower” seemed superfluous, and were perhaps also lacking in neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phrenology (talk • contribs) 00:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having addressed the neutrality problems in the “Criminal Justice & Victims’ Rights” section of the article in yesterday's edit, most of the remaining neutrality issues were in the “Federal Investigations” section. This section was chaotically organised, and contained repetition of material, unsupported assertions of fact, and neutrality problems relating to the amount of space given to the judge's remarks in dismissing the charges against Nicholas. I therefore rewrote the section from scratch, to address all of these problems. With regard to Daveburstein’s comment that “The issues with Henry's financial conduct and behavior were massively documented in the LA Times, the indictment, and many other places. They should be included in depth.” – I have given an overview of the charges, subsequent court proceedings, and scandal in the press, rather than an in-depth account, because Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons guidelines state that “a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law”, and given that all the charges were dropped, to give too much emphasis to the scandal surrounding those charges seemed to come too close to the “scandal mongering” and “gossip” that the “What Wikipedia is Not” page prohibits. I did, however, mention that a scandal was caused, and provided citations that gave examples of the kind of pieces in the press concerned with that scandal, so that the article makes no attempt to ‘sweep it under the carpet’, and those who wish to learn more of this side of the story can do so if they wish.
I also made some small changes elsewhere in the article. I added a brief sentence stating that Nicholas is a philanthropist and leader of the victim’s rights movement to the introduction – whilst Daveburstein’s criticism of the introduction’s use of the term “entrepeneur” seems entirely justified (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Nicholas&diff=511785317&oldid=508511758), his removal of the introduction’s references to Nicholas’ philanthropic activities seemed more questionable, since Nicholas is a noted philanthropist, as many of the article's citations attest. I also removed five awards from the article’s “Awards” section, because no citations were provided to support their inclusion.
I think the neutrality issues with this piece are now all resolved. Could somebody remove the neutrality tag, please? Thank you. Phrenology (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I waited 48 hours after requesting that someone consider removing the neutrality tag. No one responded so I've removed it myself. Please feel free to leave me a talk page message. Phrenology (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Nicholas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philantropy

[edit]

The philantropy section is bizarrely long. This should be a minor part of his personal life, not the majority of the article. /Julle (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am so shocked this has stayed in the article for so long. I have heavily cut down on this section, but the article needs an overall rewrite. I would not be surprised if there was significant conflict-of-interest editing on this article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henry_Nicholas&oldid=1207214440"