Talk:James G. Lindsay

Writing an article

I'm in the middle of writing the article. I understand that there is bitter history about this article, but after reading the deletion arguments I believe my version will stand on its own and would not be merge into another. Let me finish writing and then you can re-suggest deletion. Nik Sage (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There isnt a single third party source here, this is of much lower quality than the original. Additionally, you are now edit warring over the article. nableezy - 18:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Help:userspace draft is your friend in this sort of situation. Rd232 ^talk 18:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy and Rd232, please AGF. No reason to speedy delete anything. --Shuki (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

CSD G4 is fairly clear, AGF does not enter in to the discussion. nableezy - 22:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

?? WP:AAGF. BTW Nik Sage if you want I can email you the deleted version of the article. I don't think your new version is different enough, given the deletion arguments, to escape WP:CSD#G4, and seeing it would make it easier for you to understand that. Rd232 ^talk 22:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That isnt necessary: User:Wikifan12345/James G. Lindsay. nableezy - 22:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

! Get it while it's there - I've MFD'd it. Rd232 ^talk 22:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting James G. Lindsay

Hi, I've created a new article List of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East employees. What do all of you think about moving James Lindsay link there as a former official? I also have another suggestion. What about writing about the Lindsay report as a seperate article. Nableezy, I've found ample third party sources for this report so it's notable enough in my opinion for a seperate article (see for example [1],[2],[3], which actually appears in the UNRWA article). Nik Sage (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The list skirted WP:NOTDIRECTORY; refocussed as List of Directors and Commissioners-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. (Lindsay wouldn't have made it onto the employees list, BTW.) Rd232 ^talk 12:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on both counts. UNRWA officials list is definitely not WP:NOTDIRECTORY. These officials are dominant in the news and represent a very unique and interesting UN organization. List of employees or officials are common in wikipedia for "important" subject like List of Iranian officials, List of Nazi Party leaders and officials, List of descendants of Nazi officials, List of elected officials in Los Angeles, List of Directors General of CERN, List of Chinese film directors, List of Indian film directors,List of The New York Times employees and "less important" subjects like: List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees, List of Ring of Honor employees, 2010 FIFA World Cup officials, List of NHL on-ice officials, List of NFL officials and even List of Super Bowl officials. I'm sure that if I'll seriously look up inside wikipedia I'll find hundreds of other lists. To sum up, a list of UNRWA's officials doesn't skirts WP:NOTDIRECTORY and will include current officials who don't get full entries on wikipedia. Lindsay will fit this list as a notable former employee (and other interesting people like Chriss Gunness and Andrew Whitley will have small section about them). Nik Sage (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally lists like that are either (a) elected officials or prominent political leaders or (b) the leaders of notable organisations or (c) some kind of sports figures (sports tends to have its own notability rules). A handful of exceptions doesn't change the general rule, especially as those lists may be doubtful themselves (cf WP:OTHERSTUFF). PS I'm ignoring the list-by-occupation film-director lists you mention, which aren't comparable. Rd232 ^talk 15:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe my argument falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. I think UNRWA's officials deserve a list because the organization is very interesting, very unique and with a very high media profile. some of the officials have extraordinary history themselves - one had two assassination attempts on his life, one was a curator of an art show as part of her job in UNRWA and one played in a one man play about a warehouse. But, even if all of the officials would have had boring resumes it's still interesting because of the organization itself. The examples I gave was meant to establish precedent. There is no general rule against lists about personnel of improtant and interesting organizations. I could write personal articles about every notable person in UNRWA instead but I still believe the organization really deserves a notable officials list. BTW, what about the suggestion to write a seperate article about Lindsay's report. I haven't written even half the staff into the UNRWA article - and I think all of the relevant information will make it too lengthy and cumbersome. I'd like to hear your opinion about that too. Nik Sage (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A few prominent UNRWA people being individually notable has no bearing on whether there should be a list of all UNRWA employees past and present, which conceptually includes everyone who's ever swept their floors. If you want to hear this from someone else, try WP:CN. There is certainly too much Lindsay stuff in the UNRWA article. The report clearly doesn't merit its own article, it would go down in flames at WP:AFD. Rd232 ^talk 00:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I accept that UNRWA officials for themselves don't justify the list of UNRWA employess, but I think the organization for itself does. Again, it is a very interesting organization with a high media profile and hence all the info we have on individual officials. Do you know another UN organization that its spokesman or public information official recieve so much press? Do you think that Directors in UNICEF or UNESCO recieve so much television time? The organization deserves a lenghty article - which it already has, but also a complementary list of notable employees. Of course I don't think we should write about the thousands of employees UNRWA has, but a management tree and other notable employees seem like an interesting article (at least to me). And as far as the other subject, why do you think the Lindsay report doesn't merit its own article? Its very interesting and there's a lot of third side sources who wrote about it. Forgive me for using the comparison method again, but I've googled "Palestine, report, wikipedia" and "Israel, report, wikipedia" and found a few instances of similar reports like Sasson Report, Mitchell Report (Arab–Israeli conflict) and Balen Report and others (the last one especially seems lest important than the Lindsay report. Nevertheless, if you think it doesn't deserve its own article, I'll take your word for it. I could expand it a little inside the UNRWA article. One plea if I may, if you use wiki acronyms, please try to be more specific. For example, I don't understand where you referred me with that link WP:CN - Content noticeboard? And when you said AFD, did you mean that it will be deleted by a vote? I'm apparently not as fluent as you in wiki protocols, so bear with me and explain a little more. Nik Sage (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - yes, I meant Wikipedia:Content noticeboard (I thought WP:CN links there), and AFD means the WP:AFD process for reviewing articles for possible deletion. The report doesn't merit its own article; Balen Report was commissioned by the organisation being reviewed and had some legal implications, it's clearly more significant than Lindsay's. And for God's sake don't expand coverage of Lindsay's report in the UNRWA article, it's already a violation of WP:UNDUE. PS You can ask for another opinion at the content noticeboard if you want. Rd232 ^talk 11:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of third side publications about this report, so where do I put them? You say I can't do it in an article about Lindsay, nor in an article about the report, nor in the UNRWA article. It's surely not a violation of WP:UNDUE, since it is not a minority report or something like that. It's very relevant to something because a number of UNRWA's officials chose to comment about it and it had a considerable appearence in the media. That makes it both relevant and notable and it's not esoteric nor minor. Suggest me an outlet for writing about it, since it clearly deserves an detailed reference even if as part of another article. What do say about an article Criticism of UNRWA or something to that effect that will include all of the relevant section in the UNRWA article and that will enable a lengthier version of the Lindsay article? Two more comments if I may. Since I've started to show interest and write about issues concerning the Israeli–Palestinian conflict I've read dosens of wiki protocols and spent much of the time writing in the discussion page rather than the article page. It was a much simpler time when I've wrote just about ancient weapons and the medieval Middle East. It's not a criticism towards you, since I understand it's a volatile subject. Besides, the discussion with you is much more educating and civil than I've encountered since I've delved into the ocean of hostility which characterizes the above mentioned subject in wikipedia. The second comment is - man ,that OD line trick is cool. Nik Sage (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE means that within an article content needs to be given "due weight" in terms of the overall article topic (here, UNRWA); the current coverage exceeds that already. And it is a minority report - by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which was established by AIPAC. "Criticism of" articles exist, but are generally deprecated, since sooner or later they invariably turn into low-quality WP:COATRACKs. If you're really that keen, the best thing I can suggest is to try writing an article on the report, and see if it can survive AFD, where it'll probably end up sooner or later (use a userspace draft so you can work on it at your own pace before moving it into article space). As to to the notorious "I/P topic area" - by and large I avoid the topic as simply not worth the stress. I come across it occasionally, just often enough to remind me of why I avoid it! Rd232 ^talk 11:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I haven't noticed WINEP was established by AIPAC, but as someone that practically lives in universities for over a decade it's not so astonishing. Every research group has funders with agenda. I'll take up your suggestion and try to write an article about the report, but before that I'd like if you suggest me a proper forum to ask if people are interested in such an article (Wikipedia:Content noticeboard?). Like you I think that after I'll finish expanding the UNRWAverse, which I've recently took fancy to, I leave the I/P topic area and return to the greener pasture of ancient and medieval warfare. Nik Sage (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can't think of a better place than the Content Noticeboard. PS The I/P topic area is not quite so bad in small doses... Rd232 ^talk 14:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 November 2014

Change the link to UNRWA to resolve a double redirect. spiderjerky (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)