Template:Did you know nominations/Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BencherliteTalk 17:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid[edit]

(
)
I withdraw the nomination. I disagree fundamentally with many of the assertions stated by some reviewers, which I do not believe are correct or reasonable interpretations of policy, and so accordingly withdraw. Neutralitytalk 05:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Reviewed: A couple of comments up this page.

Created/expanded by Neutrality (talk). Self nom at 01:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


  • : I don't see any problems with the article or the hooks (except for ALT 1, which at 222 characters is too long), but am not sure if the article or the hooks comply with the requirement that they should not "focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute". Essentially, the article and the hooks are pretty much entirely about Anas having been indicted for spying. Due to the early stage that the legal proceedings are at, there is nothing about Anas's side of the story, only a bare denial by the Syrian Embassy in Washington, D.C. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • To me, this looks like a 1E issue. It should at the least be more about him and not about his case if it reaches the main page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
More details about Soueid's life (from the Los Angeles Times have been added. As to the case - "X is charged with Y" is an objective fact. It does not pass judgment on guilt or innocence. And the activities that he is being accused - the case - is why he is notable. Neither the articles nor the clips promote one side or the other. Neutralitytalk 04:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to rename the article as I have suggested? I agree with Crisco that this may be a 1E situation. — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why we would, though; we have Clayton J. Lonetree, not Clayton J. Lonetree espionage case; Edward Lee Howard, not Edward Lee Howard defection; James Hall III, not James Hall III espionage case, and so forth. My reading of "1 Event" really is meant for cases where there is a single, transitory moment that sustains notability, like Steve Bartman incident. Here, we have a rather more broad topic with significant implications. To me, it seems renaming the article would make the title longer, but would not add any value. Neutralitytalk 22:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Well, I'm just the reviewer, so I'll leave it to the DYK editor who will be closing this discussion to make the final call. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Close paraphrasing issues:

  • Article: "Faraj told CNN after the hearing that he was considering appealing Soueid's continued detention to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, but acknowledged that such appeals are rarely successful."

    Source: "Faraj told CNN following the hearing he is considering whether to appeal Soueid's continued detention to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He acknowledged such appeals are rarely successful."



    See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Example for more information. The example there, like this one, has the following issue: "The structure of Wikipedia's statement is essentially the same as the original. Changing a single word and slightly reordering one phrase is not enough to constitute a paraphrase."

    During my spotchecks, I noticed a number of sentences that were uncomfortably close to the sources. The above is just one example. Please go over the article and fix any other examples of close paraphrasing.

    Additionally, I don't think the hooks are appropriate per WP:BLP and per Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria:

    "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided."

    ALT1 absolutely should not be used. ALT2's statement that he is "charged with, among other things, acting as a foreign unregistered agent" also focuses unduly on negative aspects of his life. The first hook is the best of three, though I welcome additional comments from uninvolved editors about whether it is acceptable per BLP and the DYK Selection Criteria. Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Re paraphrasing: I disagree. It is proper. Here, CNN is paraphrasing Faraj. (Every word of it is and always has been properly attributed, in both the notes and in the text itself "CNN reported..."). When reporting on what Faraj said, we need to stick close to his actual words (i.e., we need to adequately paraphrase the paraphrase so as not to take Faraj's words out of context). Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, I have reworded the article to make it an direct quotation of CNN's paraphrase.
Re hooks: I fundamentally disagree. Because the man is notable because of his arrest and prosecution, and how both affect international relations and involve the crisis in Syria, a hook focusing on the arrest is OK. It is not undue when this is precisely what he is noted for. To say otherwise is not an accurate understanding of the "undue" policy at all. An "undue" policy would come into play when, for example, an article about a member of Parliament with a five-year career focusing heavily on a minor or peripheral controversy from a campaign would be undue. Here, the criminal charges about Mr. Soueid are exactly what makes him notable, which is obvious from the international and national news coverage of the allegations, the pending court proceedings, the statements from the White House, Syrian government, Department of Justice, international relations commentators and so on. Nevertheless, if the original (first) hook is viewed as preferable to ALT 1 or ALT 2, I would be fine with that. There is a reason I have multiple hook suggestions, after all. Neutralitytalk 17:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Your justification closely mirrors the justification at Template:Did you know nominations/Johnny Basham. ("I purposefully kept to close paraphrasing due to the nature of this part of the article, and I did not want to misreport the facts regarding a legal judgement or the reporting of what happened by a journalist.") Neither is a justification for close paraphrasing. The information should either be correctly paraphrased per Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#How to write acceptable content or rendered a direct quotation to preserve the subject's statements. You have fixed the incident of close paraphrasing I pointed out. Please re-read the article and the sources and fix the rest.

Having reviewed the comments by Smuconlaw (talk · contribs) and Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs), I agree that this article is misnamed. Because only a few sentences in the article are not about the espionage allegations, it should be renamed to Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid espionage case or expanded to include more non-espionage biographical information (e.g. "early life" and "career"). The examples you list above are misnamed if they contain only biographical information about the espionage allegations against or convictions of the subjects.

The DYK Criteria states (my bolding):

"Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided."

That this article about a living person is primarily negative indicates that it does not meet that criterion.

In summary, I recommend (i) a rename because the article is not about Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid but about the allegations against him or an expansion to include additional information such as his "early life" and "career" and (ii) corrections of the close paraphrasing material through rewriting or direct quoting. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
This edit, which created an "Early life and career" section, is an improvement. However, in a 1724-word article, the "Early life and career" section is composed of 77 words, which is only about 4% of the article. The rest of the article is about the espionage allegations. Cunard (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I added more details. It's about 10% of the readable prose now (excluding references as not prose). And, as mentioned above, he is mainly notable for the pending charges and the political background and reaction, not for his personal life, just as a basketball player article will focus mainly on what the basketball player is known for (playing basketball). While personal details are important and should be included to the extent possible, there are not the most important part of the article. Neutralitytalk 05:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
That the non-espionage allegations comprise only 1/10 of the article, which is titled as a biography, is problematic.

The comparison to a basketball player article is flawed. This article mostly contains highly negative content whereas basketball player articles do not.

If this is to remain a biography of a living person instead of an article about the espionage allegations, more personal details (at least 50%—if not more—of the article should be about non-espionage biographical details) are necessary to balance out the negative information.

The close paraphrasing issues must also be resolved. Cunard (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"At least 50% must be about non-espionage biographical details"? This "rule" seems plucked out of the thin air, and there's zero policy to support it. The fact that someone is notable based on alleged participation in espionage or criminal activity does not mean that the biography must be a certain percentage about the allegations and a certain percentage not about the allegations. That makes no sense at all. The readable text of Leopold and Loeb (a dual biography article) is about 80% about the pair's crimes, criminal proceedings, and imprisonment). Would you suggest that the article is therefore unsuitable? Neutralitytalk 03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I have asked the previous reviewers, Smuconlaw (talk · contribs) and Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs), to revisit the discussion. I also ask them to review whether, in their opinion, this article fails WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Did you know#Selection criteria:

"Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided."

I will close the discussion after they provide their opinions. Cunard (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I've asked for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Does MOS:RETAIN override MOS:LQ?. Cunard (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the logical quotation format per the discussion here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Cunard (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
To state for the record: I believe the article should retain the punctuation inside the quotation marks in keeping with the universal North American English practice and our own longstanding retain the existing variety policy. The details of that may be discussed at the relevant talk pages, however. Neutralitytalk 03:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • In response to the request for comment on my talk page, I think it is a bit better, although I am not quite sure that he would pass WP:1E. If every person charged with espionage were noteworthy... Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Mohamad_Anas_Haitham_Soueid&oldid=1020518112"