Talk:Lloyd R. Woodson

Restart

Woodson is back in the news with national coverage by multiple notable / reliable news sources, originally international coverage. Deletion objections used to originally delete the article were largely based on initial news reports and the stub article. Bachcell (talk) 00:33, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Subsection

This subject was inserted to obtain a Contents box on this page. Greg L (talk) 07:03, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Middle Eastern head dress

A Keffiyeh is much more commonly worn in Middle Eastern countries, therefore I strongly suggest linking it there instead of to Turban. I would have simply made this edit myself but last time I did so this was reverted so I decided to discuss it first.--Supertouch (talk) 02:28, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:59, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate article title

Since the article does not really discuss Woodson, it would be better if it were renamed to something more appropriate by adding one of arrest/investigation/case/incident. _wjemather^bigissue 19:03, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree. I think it's an entirely appropriate title. The main subject of the article is, in my opinion, beyond doubt Lloyd R. Woodson and his actions. Adding arrest or similar is simply unnecessary. Yes, the article is mainly about that incident but that's quite appropriate given it's the only thing he's notable for. Dpmuk (talk) 19:58, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

The notion that this article “does not really discuss Woodson” seems beyond bizarre to me. The article is nothing other than an account of all-things-notable about the fellow. The article certainly does not deserve to be tagged for such a preposterous reason, which I will remove in a moment here. I suggest that the editor who slapped this tag take greater care in the future with his tags. Slapping unfounded and absurd tags like this provokes unnecessary debate, degrades Wikipedia, and leads to a perception that the editor’s judgements deserve some sort of special consideration that are in need of immediate attention. Greg L (talk) 20:36, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

As you (Dpmuk) note the content is almost entirely in relation to the incident, as are the sources. Woodson is therefore not the subject and as such, renaming is entirely appropriate in the same manner as Hasan Akbar case for example.
I suggest you (Greg) pull your neck in. The issue was first raised during the AfD and support was expressed, so it is entirely appropriate to have this discussion now. _wjemather^bigissue 20:51, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

By restoring the tag, you seem to be willing to edit war over this absurd notion of yours. I have no stomach for such silliness. I think the long-term solution to your chronic use of tags as a tool to force discussion on topics where others disagree with you is to have your tag privileges yanked. Greg L (talk) 21:26, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Tags are designed to be a tool to prompt actions, including discussion, and they should be left in place until resolved. As for you opinion on the idea, you're entitled to it, but your tone could do with some work, as could your checking of the facts before making accusations. The issue was not raised by me (diff), and it was seconded by your friend Epeefleche (diff), who has been the major contributor (by edit count) to this article. _wjemather^bigissue 21:46, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

I can agree that you give a good example there. I'm fairly confident that I have seen counter examples but given the AfD I feel it is currently not worth my effort to find them. Can I suggest that, if it survives AfD, a requested move discussion (i.e. a contested move) may be the way forward as it would likely attract more participants. There seems little point moving forward on this to the result of the AfD is known as we may all be wasting our time. Dpmuk (talk) 22:29, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Dpmuk. On all counts.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:37, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Should the article survive this second AfD, I would like you to expand given your comments on the suggestion during the first AfD, but as per the above, it is an avenue that is best left alone until such time. _wjemather^bigissue 07:50, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: While I have said at AfD that this article is BLP1E, I think there is potential for this article to be developed under its current title by restructuring; biographical details will certainly appear following further investigation. I will look at it in greater detail on my return from break to see how mather's concens can be addressed. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:12, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd R. Woodson (2nd nomination):

I agree with a SNOW closure, but I would not remove the “The title of [the] article seems not to accurately describe the article's subject matter” tag. I think that there is still some concern (Expressed by people on both sides of the keep/delete aisle) about whether this should be titled something that relates more to the crime he committed rather than just him (as I stated above). The criminal acts guidelines state that a perpetrator needs to be more notable than committing a crime. However, this type of renaming discussion does not belong here at AfD. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:50, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

• Can you point to genuine concerns regarding the article title that are shared by those on the “keep” side of the issue, Fiftytwo thirty? Most of what I see would fairly be described as “If this article should be titled after an event rather than a person, then rename it.” Those “if” caveats in the posts denotes “I don’t personally see the problem here but knock yourself out if you wanna.” I see no point in dragging this out. Pithy alternatives, to “Lloyd R. Woodson getting arrested for being in possession of terrorist-type stuff but wasn’t charged with terrorism” are not only hard to come up with, but don’t really make sense; our I.P. readers are just going to type the guy’s name into the Search field as their first guess. No need to make things any more complicated than that. Greg L (talk) 21:28, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there really isn't another good title, but the article does cover his arrest and plots ect. more than it is an article about him, and then we get into all of the BLP notability problems. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:51, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

• Which is why our Timothy McVeigh article is titled as it is. He would be but a bug splat on our windshield of life were it not for the Oklahoma City bombing; his arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing; and his incarceration and execution. But all that is in connection with whom(?); McVay. I wholeheartedly agree, there isn’t another good title for Woodson. This is the way our Wikipedia naming convention best works for these sort of things (KISS). Greg L (talk) 22:00, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

To me, just like you said earlier about others, I really don't care how this article is named. I just feel that there is not consensus to keep the name (but there is not consensus in the other direction either). It is fine though if you want to remove the tag. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:16, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

I would remove the tag, but like Fivetwo thirty said above, let's continue this on the article talk page; not the AfD. –BLM Platinum (talk) 22:28, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

I’m perfectly fine with that. I am opposed only to the general principle of WJE’s continued use of tags in this instance to force discussion. Am I reading correctly that you both feel fine with the following:

1. Snowballing this AfD,
2. Removing both tags that WJE and/or Ridernyc placed on the article (AfD and article name),
3. Allow Epeefleche or someone else who has been active in improving its content remove the “rescue” tag if they see fit,
4. And continue civil discussion on the Woodson talk page in search of what seems to be an increasingly elusive alternative title for the article

Is this what you agree is the proper way forward? Greg L (talk) 22:38, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, You have hit the nail on the head. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:52, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

---

• Well, gee. Judging from comments by Dpmuk, Fiftytwo thirty, Epeefleche, BLM Platinum, Ohconfucius, and myself, I’m seeing a developing consensus forming here. None of us can really think of a better title for this article. Let’s invite Wjemather to offer up a highly specific alternative title for us to consider and see where we go there. Wjemather? Greg L (talk) 07:12, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

• Something along the lines of [Lloyd R. Woodson firearms incident] might fly. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:49, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see that as superior to the present title. I think -- if the consensus is in agreement -- that the present title is fine. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:52, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

• Besides, Ohconfucius, that really runs counter to what we do for other articles. Take Leonard Peltier as an example. Our readership is not accustomed to typing Leonard Peltier, shooting of FBI agents incident nor will they ever adopt such practices. For that reason, we keep our article titles simple unless a distinction is required in order to land on the correct article—such as Cobalt, which is distinct from Cobalt (CAD program). Besides, what is notable about Woodson is far more extensive than a “firearms incident.” We all know what our readership will do if they see something on the news about this guy: if they go to Wikipedia, our I.P. editors are simply going to type “Lloyd R. Woodson” or “Lloyd Woodson” into the Search field and nothing more; just as they would with “Leonard Peltier”. “Lloyd Woodson” (without the middle initial) already re-directs. Sure, we could always provide redirects that take them to Lloyd R. Woodson, the big, hairy totality of terrorist-related evidence surrounding him and his subsequent arrest but what’s the point? I think KISS and common sense are more than adequate here. Why is this being made any more complex?? Greg L (talk) 15:36, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

• I really think that we should just leave the current title alone. It is the easiest way to go about doing this. However, ideas would still be welcome for a new name. –BLM Platinum (talk) 19:53, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. The AfD closes at 21:49, March 27, 2010 (UTC). Let’s keep an open invitation until then for an article name that makes more sense than the current one. The consensus here is sufficiently clear that we could delete the “name” tag now. It wouldn’t matter if there proved to be a hold-out who wanted to keep “discussing” things if the community consensus is that the current name is fine; tags are not to be used as a tool to force discussion by minority voices to say “I DON’T LIKE IT (and insist we keep talking about it)”. But I see no harm whatsoever in waiting another two days. Clearing out all the tags at one time has a fitting neatness to it. Greg L (talk) 20:34, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

• The question here is what is the article really about – is is about Woodson? No. So there is clear justification for seeking an alternative title. Of course the easiest course of action is always to do nothing, but that is rarely the best option. As I suggested above, Lloyd Woodson case or perhaps Lloyd Woodson incident may provide the most neutral alternative, which would both be in line with other articles. While this discussion is ongoing, the tag should remain in place so as to invite passing visitors to give their views, unless you want to try and conceal this from eyes that may disagree with you. _wjemather^bigissue 10:35, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

• That is a good point. The article is about Woodson, and not completely about this arrest. To rename this article we would have to remove a lot of information which would be helpful to our readers regarding Woodson's early life and desertion from the navy. So, in a nutshell, I think that it would damage the encyclopedic quality of the article to rename it. –BLM Platinum (talk) 15:49, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

• I completely agree with BLM Platinum. Were Wikipedia to follow Wjemather’s suggestion, we would have articles like Leonard Peltier incident with FBI agents and Akmal Shaikh drug trafficking incident and Lloyd Woodson incident and Howard Brennan, witness to JFK assassination. Wikipedia does not work this way when we have a single article that covers both the man and the related non‑minor events that made him notable.

  WP:People notable only for one event is the governing policy here. It addresses …whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. It says …when an individual plays a major role in a minor event … the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. It then gives an example: Steve Bartman incident, which is an incident in a baseball game that made him notable (several spectators attempted to catch a foul ball off the bat of Marlins' second baseman Luis Castillo). The policy also provides examples of non‑minor events like Rodney King and Howard Brennan. As the Lloyd R. Woodson article says:

An editorial in The Washington Times drew parallels with Nidal Malik Hasan. It said "When a man is apprehended with a cache of weapons, body armor, a map of a military installation and jihadist personal effects, the natural response of most Americans is to assume the situation is terrorist-related" and suggested the Obama administration's definition of terrorism was too narrow.

This is obviously not some minor incident involving a fan who touched a descending foul ball in a baseball game. Common sense can suffice here. The FBI was involved in a terrorism-related investigation. Accordingly, it is Leonard Peltier and Lloyd R. Woodson and Akmal Shaikh and Howard Brennan. Moreover, just typing the individual’s name is precisely how our I.P. readership will seek out these articles. I see no need to make this any more complex.

I think it unfortunate that so much time-wasting wikidrama has arisen so needlessly. I would suggest editors who who are highly mobile on Wikipedia and who hand out unsolicited advise to others by slapping tags on articles and insist that his (or her) concerns be addressed by the community before the tags are removed should be exceedingly well versed in current Wikipedia policies. It wastes less time of others, many of whom are spending tens of hours building new content.

There has been an open invitation for days for others to participate in this discussion and it is clear that only seven editors really have the stomach for discussing this issue. Moreover, current Wikipedia policy is sufficiently clear on this issue. The consensus (six to one after a full and fair exchange of views and vigorous debate) is that there is no enthusiasm for changing the name of this article. I’m removing the “name” tag but will be leaving the AfD tag as that can only be removed by an Admin.

Please don’t restore the tag, Wjemather. Tags are to be used to highlight an issue to invite editors to join in debate and share views until a consensus has been arrived at. Tags are not to be used to force discussion for as long as you want to disagree and argue over some issue (or, as you like to say, While this discussion is ongoing); not in the face of a clear consensus after six days of debate. Nor are you to just “get all creative” and whip out something new like a “{multiple issues}” tag (something you did over on Cobalt after the consensus turned way-against you as regards notability). To edit against consensus would amount to WP:Disruptive editing. You are, of course, perfectly welcome to keep writing your thoughts here. If others want to respond, that is their prerogative. If, at some date in the future, the tide of debate changes and the consensus reverses, then, by all means, the community consensus rules on Wikipedia at all times and the article can then have its name changed. Greg L (talk) 17:38, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

• Agree w/BLM, for reasons stated above.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Should the tag be removed? We appear to have reached a consensus. –BLM Platinum (talk) 20:20, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

• *Consensus*—the only applicable litmus test here—is clear. Removing now… Greg L (talk) 20:31, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism-related articles in the lead

Ohconfucius, I don’t understand why you would want to remove mentioning the terrorism-related materials in the article’s lead. Without mentioning the “various materials suggesting Woodson sympathized with terrorist ideology”, the following paragraph quoting the FBI spokesman about how Woodson didn’t appear to have any connections to known terrorist groups looks oddly out of place. NPOV doesn’t mean “leave off germane and true information that were essential elements of why the story made it into the national news” and it certainly doesn’t mean “ignore the 800-pound gorilla in the living room.” Having a military-grade arsenal and jihadist literature and maps to a nearby military facility are all common-sense evidence that alarmed the authorities and caused the FBI to investigate whether Woodson was part of a larger conspiracy.

The key issue here is whether extraneous, inflammatory information is in the article—which is typically the product of an editor with an agenda. Note that many Americans have a “semi-automatic rifle” in their closets—they’re known as .22 LR “plinker” rifles. Mentioning that Woodson had a semiautomatic rifle—in effect—neuters the article to the point that readers could have a hard time understanding the full nature of the incident and why authorities would be deeply alarmed. That he had a military-style (assault-style) semiauto is a key piece of pertinent evidence that A) made it into the news and B) was mentioned in the legal complaint against him. AK-47-type rifles are a whole ‘nother animal. So too was the Middle Eastern headdress and jihadist literature found in his motel room. Accordingly, it is not only highly appropriate to mention that here in the lead, it is important to do so in order that the reader can get the essential “Ah, HAA” as to what is notable about Woodson without having to wade through the rest of the article. Wikipedia is famous for its pithy, tight lead sections.

I agree with you 100% that we need to expunge needlessly inflammatory details from our lead sections. What was originally there (“Officers found in his possession and in his motel room a large weapons cache that included illegal weapons and ammunition, a detailed map of the Fort Drum military installation, and a traditional red-and-white Middle Eastern headdress”)… (my emphasis) could clearly be improved upon and reasonably smacked of POV-pushing. With my edit, I think I’ve struck a balanced, encyclopedic tone with “and various materials suggesting Woodson sympathized with terrorist ideology.” Now the reader can quickly and fully comprehend why Woodson attracted so much media interest and why the FBI launched a thorough investigation into him. Greg L (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with the FBI dismissing the terrorist link being mentioned in the lead, and there is no inconsistency in so doing, with the current state of the article. I think the authorities would be rightly alarmed when finding the map and such a large cache of weaponry of the type Woodson had, irrepspective of the other circumstances. The only "material suggesting Woodson sympathized with terrorist ideology" which was mentioned in the media was in fact, as you pointed out, a traditional red-and-white Middle Eastern headdress. The latter description is factual and neutral — it is not for us to put any nuance on it (i.e. Middle East -> Islam -> Jihad), and so I cannot see any WP:NPOV issue with that. The one 'official' commentary which suggests any terror link was in fact a loose-mouthed FBI agent who is not named, and it is quite natural that the media jumps up and reacts to that. It is important that a formal FBI commentary contradicted that individual and unrepresentative view. Let me conclude by borrowing your analogy - seeing the soft toy as an 800 pound gorilla would, I feel, be in violation of WP:UNDUE. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Help me here. 1) My recollection is that the FBI said not only what its initial knowledge was, but also indicated that it the issue was under review -- and more than one source corroborated that. That balancing statement, even reflected when the FBI first spoke, seems to be missing in the lede. 2) There was, according to I believe a local NJ enforcement authority (not an FBI person--loose lipped, or not), additional items in Woodson's belongings that they apparently were not at liberty to disclose to the public of possible Islamist leanings and link to a militant Islamist group(I am working off memory here, and that may have been cut by someone in the editing). 3) We have whatever the RS media such as the national talk shows (e.g., Wolf Blitzer's CNN show) were saying days after about the continued focus in that regard. I think if the official source is reporting x, and off-the-record sources and RSs are reporting something more, its appropriate to reflect them. This isn't like some 9/11 conspiracy theorists, after all -- we're talking about officials and the country's top RSs. All, of course, IMHO, and no disrespect intended. As long as we reflect the RSs, and the weight in them, we can't get into trouble. Once we start using our own views to sift which info is relevant RS info, and which is not, the trouble starts.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, my recollection at the moment is that the only mention was from an unnamed FBI agent. I'll have to comb through the sources again, one at a time - because most of them seem to be variations on a theme, and citing or paraphrasing each other, and - but I'm working on something else at the moment. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think we must be talking cross-purpose here, Ohconfucius, because I’m only seeing near-complete agreement. I have no problems with what is in the article now (after you made your latest edit). What I had last written (“various materials suggesting Woodson sympathized with terrorist ideology”) seemed perfectly consistent with what is in the body of the article: “New Jersey law enforcement source [said] that other items [were] recovered … radical Islam” (my emphsis; note the plural “items”). The distinction between the headdress (a singular, well-identified item) and a plurality of items (unidentified other than the headdress) isn’t all that important to me that I won’t compromise; it’s fine and I don’t want to oppose a good wikifriend.

  As for the “FBI” paragraph, I apparently wasn’t making myself clear. I have no problem with the second paragraph where the FBI spokesman stated that they found no terrorist links. If neutered too far though, we’re at risk of making Woodson come across in the lead as just another survivalist kook who was armed to the teeth, ready for WW III, and got caught. I was simply pointing out that we needed to mention the AK-47-style of the semi-auto (semi-auto by itself isn’t sufficiently descriptive; I have a “semi-auto” 22 LR in my closet) and also mention that they found materials in his room indicating he fancied terrorist ideology. That, along with the maps, sets Woodson apart from your generic survivalist kook and is why there would be a Wikipedia article on him. Fairly conveying the gist of this is important in order for the reader to properly appreciate why the FBI would have been dragged in after his arrest to investigate possible connections to terrorists. The art in capturing the totality of the evidence and summarizing it in the lead, is in accurately communicating the essential and basic nature of what the authorities disclosed without exaggeration or prejudice; ‘just the facts, ma’am.’ I’m not seeing a disagreement here.

  Wrapping this up (I hope): What is in the lead is, IMHO, sufficiently complete and factual to provide the reader with a fair, accurate, and clear understanding of the basic nature and importance of Woodson’s alleged crimes and his arrest without having to wade through the rest of the article. As I wrote above, pithy, clear leads, is one of the virtues that made Wikipedia famous (that, as well as often featuring content from I.P. editors who write that “Dick Cheney is really a robot”). Greg L (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lloyd R. Woodson. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/cms/story.php?id=1010
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nbc29.com/Global/story.asp?S=11880907
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714174659/http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/lloyd-woodson-arrested-by-police-in-somerset-with-grenade-launcher-weapons-maps-of-a-military-site to http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/lloyd-woodson-arrested-by-police-in-somerset-with-grenade-launcher-weapons-maps-of-a-military-site
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100214231858/http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/press/files/pdffiles/woodsoncomplt.pdf to http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/press/files/pdffiles/woodsoncomplt.pdf

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) 18:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)