Talk:David D. Smith

Reviving the article

This article had been converted to a redirect to his company, but now that he's much more visible politically, I converted it back to an article. John Nagle (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the content that's about Sinclair but NOT Smith should be kept in though - that seems like it should go in the Sinclair article only.Yellellellow (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.advocate.com/media/2018/4/11/sinclair-broadcast-group-porn-prostitutes-and-propaganda

Here is an article on David Smith by the Advocate Im not sure how you want to run with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:429F:87FF:FE0B:3663 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Undue content

User:Rocko1124: I object to this edit. The "controversies" section is not about Smith, but about the company, and it is irrelevant here. It should appear in Sinclair Broadcasting Group perhaps, but not here. As for the "arrests", now that the Salon article has been cited, it could perhaps appear in this article as one or two sentences in his "personal life" section, but certainly not an entirely separate section.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is all quite excessive, and have raised it at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#David_D._Smith Edwardx (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The arrests section was a blatant copyvio, and I have deleted it. This is not to say that there can be no mention of the arrest, that's a larger discussion, but it cannot be copyrighted material copied as a block. (And it made no sense copying an old story that said it happened "yesterday".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Even worse than I thought. And the "controversies" section is still off topic...Zigzig20s (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Partly resolved, but I still think the content in the "controversies" section could be moved to the career and personal life sections...Zigzig20s (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/sinclair-chairman-broke-restraining-order-and-allegedly-threatened-neighbor/ar-AAvKIlB?ocid=mmx . Now a restraining order has been issued on David Smith the Sinclair leader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.51.131.145 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm deleting this entry in the Controversies section: it's inappropriate to WP:BLP, and an antiquated shaming, as such acts are no longer illegal. The 2018 objection to it was not taken up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive267#David_D._Smith

"In an August 1996 prostitution sting, Smith was charged with committing an "unnatural and perverted sex act" (oral sex)..." AHampton (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And I'm restoring it. The 2018 objection, which said "Per WP:BLPCRIME, he does not appear to have been convicted of anything, so at most, we should have a few sentences, not six paragraphs," was effectively addressed, as we no longer have six paragraphs, but a mere two sentences. It's false that there was no conviction; a "plea agreement" is where a defendant agrees to plead guilty to a crime, generally in return for a pre-negotiated sentence. And the conviction being of lasting note is demonstrated by the fact that Salon was bringing it up eight years after the incident. As for the claim that the crime is antiquated and such acts are no longer illegal, according to this page updated earlier this year, "unnatural and perverted sex act" remains a crime on the books in Maryland. Hiring a prostitute also remains illegal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)