Talk:Joseph Farah

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

Cleanup[edit]

Why isn't this guy labeled as a pro-white, anti-gay paleoconservative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.214.230 (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC) He is not labeled as such because he is none of those things. However, he is a noted homosexual. Why isn't this reported?[reply]

This line doesn't make much sense: "Farah is among those who have questioned whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States and is consequently eligible to serve as U.S. President...." It should be changed to: 'Farah is among those who have questioned Barack Obama's undocumented claim to be a natural born citizen of the United States and his consequent eligibility to serve as U.S. President...." Why am I locked out from changing it myself? --MaxwellSchmart (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because using terms like "undocumented claims" pushes a clear point of view, which is something wikipedia articles should not do. Dayewalker (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed per MaxwellSchmart. It is undeniable that the short-form birth certificate's from Hawaii in 1961 are inconclusive evidence. rossnixon 01:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted. There is no consensus here, or on any other page that the evidence is in any way inconclusive and to say so is POV-pushing. I'd suggest you check out the FAQ at Barack Obama and the many discussions that have taken place there. Dayewalker (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dayewalker is correct. Both forms of birth certificate are self-authenticating and prima facie proof. And Obama's short-form, contrary to what the serial liar Joe Farah claims, is just as valid as the long form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.27.174 (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Widely debunked[edit]

When the AP is describing your conspiracy theories as "widely debunked", not acknowledging that fails WP:VALID. It stays. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess "widely debunked" doesn't have to stay verbatim, but it's not simply enough to call them "conspiracy theories." It is a violation of WP:VALID to not acknowledge the "proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." In this case, the entirety of established scholarship and reliable third party sources regularly describe these theories as "widely debunked" (or "repeatedly disproven", &c). It would be nice if we could discuss this on talk, rather than repeatedly drive-by revert. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

requesting revert[edit]

I'm going to go ahead and request that User:Steven Walling self-revert this edit, and bring the discussion about it's merit to this page. Per WP:SELF, it's acceptable for inclusion, because it meets WP:DUE. Wikipedia is second only to Barack Obama in the list of Joseph Farah's longest running attacks. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree. The issue is not just that it is stupid to argue that a self-reference Wikipedia is important in the context of Farah's politics and publishing, but that your addition is being used as an excuse to directly quote the vandalism which inspired Farah's attacks on Wikipedia in the first place. Let's be realistic here. He's not famous because he attacked Wikipedia, and repeating the vandalism as if it were legitimate encyclopedic material is a ridiculously cyclical argument that will only serve to inflame his attention further, thus repeating the cycle of stupidity. Steven Walling 02:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't a requirement for sourced facts in articles, it's a requirement for the creation of articles in the first place. See WP:N: "notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list." IOW, there's no requirement that article content only describe the reasons that the subject is famous. You, of all people, should understand that. You should also understand that characterizing my argument as "stupid" comes perilously close to a personal attack. As the content meets WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, and WP:BLP, I'm going to revert your content-blanking. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia is not censored. Your assumptions about his reaction to this article has absolutely no relevance to or bearing on questions of whether or not sourced content should be included in the article. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstating commentary on a minor issue which includes direct quotes of previously deleted vandalism is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Even if cited, to make a self-reference to slander and quote it again in the article which it originally appeared in is not acceptable. End of story. Steven Walling 20:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Describing as "slander" the characterization of someone as a homosexual is, itself, bigoted, as it implies negative connotations to homosexuality. I suggest you refactor your remarks.
What's more, you are not the sole arbiter of content acceptability. If you are exercising your authority as a WMF employee to make a summary judgement as to the appropriateness of inclusion, please do so with your official Wikimedia account. If you are not, please avoid giving the impression that you are exempt from Wikipedia's requirements for consensus-building. The material is sourced, verifiable, and NPOV; it hence satisfies the requirements for inclusion under WP:BLP. Whether or not is it "minor" is a matter of opinion that has no bearing on the question of inclusion; much of the article is "minor." I'm reverting you again, and admonishing you to act judiciously, lest it appear that you are abusing your privileges as a WMF employee and admin to push a false consensus. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a volunteer editor I am allowed to get in disputes just like anyone else. If it was a work issue, I would edit with my work account. As it isn't, I'm not. It's not any more complicated than that, and I suggest you stick to commenting on content, not making ad hominem arguments. As your edits violate the BLP policy, I have brought it to the BLP noticeboard for further attention from other editors. Steven Walling 23:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) SW has brought this topic up on the BLP noticeboard here [1], which I think is a wise move. Not giving my opinion on this just yet, but until there's a clear consensus to add and quote the disputed material, I've removed the material for now. As this is a BLP, we should always take caution. Dayewalker (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this issue had only ever been covered by Farah himself, I would say leave it out. But it's clear this isn't the case, and I think coverage in Slate in particular justifies its inclusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Including a mention would be a agreeable compromise for me if we don't directly quote the vandalism. Repeating vandalism in the article it was in originally is what I think is the real BLP problem. Steven Walling 23:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a two-word quote. Would you be satisfied by leaving out the word "noted"? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't. It's not about the number of words or how emphatic they are (especially since it's juvenile vandalism). It's the fact that it's included at all. Steven Walling 06:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to repeat the vandalism on the current page. The event itself appears to be sourced, but I'd have serious reservations about repeating the offending material on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain those reservations? So far, it's sounding like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and that's not legit. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. How do you plan to reach an "agreeable compromise" including a mention of the incident without using the words "noted" or "homosexual"? Can you offer a suggested wording? 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Example: "Farah began an editorial campaign against Wikipedia after vandalism appeared in his biography on the site." Steven Walling 07:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's vague to the point of being unclear. "Vandalism" can mean anything, from section blanking to defamation. Farah explicitly claims to be a victim of the latter, believes it to be a problem endemic to Wikipedia, and repeatedly quotes the vandalism of his article to the end of illustrating that. I don't see that your example is adequate in describing the circumstances and effect. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree that it's vague. The phenomenon of malicious Wikipedia editing is widely known and the example in question does not have to be repeated verbatim to give an understanding of the word vandalism in the context of the site. In any case, like I have stated before and Daywalker just said, repeating vandalism in the article it appeared in is not something we're okay with, especially in a biography of a living person that requires special strictness according to the policy. Steven Walling 17:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what part of WP:BLP does an accurate quote from verifiable secondary sources conflict with? I still feel like all I'm hearing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and, as discussed on WP:BLP/N, that's not an acceptable reason to engage in content redaction. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop wikilawyering with the acronym soup. It's not a quote from a secondary source. It's a secondary source quoting this article, a quote which happens to be vandalism that caused a lot of distress in the subject. The letter and the spirit of the BLP policy is that articles should strictly do no harm, i.e. not repeat slander like Wikipedia vandalism. To repeat the quote is not necessary to tell readers that Joseph Farah doesn't like Wikipedia. Steven Walling 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(out-dent) Wikilawyering is a perjorative; please content on contributions, not contributors. I'm happy to spell out acronyms if you like; all you had to do was ask. The letter of Wikipedias Biographies of living persons policy is, and I quote: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." The spirit is that content must meet Wikipedia's core policies, to the end of the protection of Wikipedia itself, and the WikiMedia Foundation. "Do no harm" is not a component of the Biographies of living persons policy, rather, the policy states that BLPs must be written "with regard for the subject's privacy" and that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." The subject's privacy is not at issue here, as he repeatedly quotes the vandalism himself. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15 000 dollar pledge[edit]

Hi. The Birth cert was released - was the 15 000 dollar pledge honored? Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found no reliable sources that it was or that it was not. 24.177.120.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Soapboxing self claimed pledges that the subject fails to follow through with are worthless self propaganda worthy of removal. I will give a million dollars if johnny does that ....yada yada yada - soapboxing promotional claims. Such Harryson said he will give everything he owns to the world food program when he dies....yada yada yada. Policy and guidelines at wikipedia require also common sense and the editorial considerations of experienced contributors - WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are not gold badges for guaranteed content addition. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that "Policy and guidelines at wikipedia [sic] require... the editorial considerations of experienced contributors" is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy. I've repeatedly asked that you avoid giving the appearance of condescension; my contributions to this article are as valid as your own, and I do not require Wikipedia's policies to be explained to me by you. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you clearly do - you are in a total minority and disrupting multiple locations because you can't add what you want to. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Please stay on topic. If you would like to discuss the Joseph Farah article, this is the place to do so. If you'd like to cast spurious aspersions, take it to one of those other locations I'm disrupting, such as WP:WQA. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this section about? Is anyone proposing an edit? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Off2riorob appears to be proposing the removal of the $15,000 pledge. It's well-sourced, but it may be better to remove if we can't find a reliable source that asserts its fulfillment, or the lack thereof. I was unable to locate one in 10 minutes of googling. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we leave it in, perhaps someone who reads the article will wonder what happened, do a more successful search, and edit the article to reflect the outcome. I don't see a problem, really. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. It's no BLP violation, it's interesting, he made the pledge, it's well documented. It doesn't matter whether we can find a source to say whether he fulfilled it or not. It should stay in.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 2 August 2012[edit]

His columns are syndicated by Creators Syndicate Wikicreate91 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Adding the same link to multiple articles has the appearence of advertsing. RudolfRed (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest:[edit]

Washington Post reports that a Josheph Farah has been arrested for trying to bring a gun into an airport:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/06/23/loaded-handgun-in-carry-on-snared-at-dulles-airport/

SPLC says this is the very same Joseph Farah who runs WND:

http://splcenter.org/blog/2014/06/24/birther-leader-joseph-farah-caught-with-loaded-gun-at-dulles-tsa-checkpoint-faces-weapon-charge/

Is this enough for inclusion in the article or do we need more sources to confirm it is the same person? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of mainstream news outlets, only the Washington Post has given any significant coverage to the events. Other left and right non-mainstream outlets covered the incident, but I could not find anything in-depth on the incident after mid-July 2014. Therefore failing WP:PERSISTENCE, I have removed the content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needing to label WND as far-right in lead[edit]

I removed the text in the lead that describes WND as far-right: i.e. "Joseph Francis Farah (born July 6, 1954) is [...] editor-in-chief of the far-right website WorldNetDaily (WND)".[2] There is discussion on the WND talk page about just how WND ought to be described and there are multiple sources that give a number of descriptions: e.g. conservative, Christian, fringe, and far-right. My edit summary gave my basic rationale ("WND can be described on its own article page") but it was reverted by User:Volunteer Marek: "please stop removing well sourced info". Only including one description of the website makes the description one-sided. That does a disservice to readers. However, instead of spending effort in the Joseph Farah article, referencing controversial tags for how WND is described, why don't we let the reader view the WND article to read more about WND and what type of website it is? There we can go into the detail about WND and what it is. --Mrtea (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about we just list it as "conservative/far-right"? (Though I think actual conservatives may be offended by sites like these being called "conservative").Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signed: stupid leftists.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Farah. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021[edit]

in the Personal life section, change the words "and currently serves as" to "and later worked as the". 24.63.168.177 (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Farah&oldid=1195558643"