Talk:Scott Horton (attorney)

message: * Contributing editor and writer for Harper's Magazine, the second-oldest magazine in the US.
* Notable human rights lawyer considered an expert in ongoing current events including Bilal Hussein, Blackwater, foreign events , US Attorneys , and Dick Cheney , and Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic Magzine said that "Scott Horton has as much integrity as anyone I know."
* Adjunct professor at Columbia University.
* Numerous publications.
* Significant online presence, use of multiple sources in wiki article.
I didn't think that this would be contested at all, let alone within milliseconds...Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for notability

message: Should sourcewatch be used as a source (specifically for the number of publications he's made)? WP:V says that wikis should be avoided. Andjam (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of sources 

message: I really don't see any instances of NNPOV here. What exactly about it reads like an advertisement? Can you cite some examples? I'm going to remove the tag until some explanation is made here in talk.Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What's with the addition of non-relevant tags? Now, the refimprove tag has been added, but everything on the page has a reference. Now that only bare references are included, how about just using a Stub tag?Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the references are to self-serving biography pages.  There are no references with significant independent coverage; the one independent source mentions Horton in two sentences.  I'm returning the tag. THF (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement tag

message: The contributor who made this edit changed Horton's work for Harper's from "articles" to "blogs".  In my opinion this edit suggests a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RS.  
Publications with responsible editors are considered WP:RS because responsible editors try to make sure authors aren't just making stuff up, and do a reasonable job of checking their facts.  
The traditional blog is written by an amateur, in their spare time, has no fact checkers, and may feel free to make stuff up.  That is why they are not considered WP:RS.
Print publications are having trouble adapting to the age of the internet.  One of their adaptations is to call thing "blogs" that are really the online column of a professional -- with just about the same editorial support as their print columns.  When a professional  writes a column, under the same kind of editorial control as a print publication, it should be considered a WP:RS, just the same as a print publication.
Similarly, some individuals with a solid established professional reputations publish their views online.  Even if the online publications of these professionals with established reputations are called "blogs" they should not be dismissed as being unreliable, non-notable, solely for that reason.
Only those blogs which are not referenced, not supported by professional editorial support, written by amateurs who might make things up, should be discounted as blogs that aren't WP:RS.  That is probably 99+% of blogs.  But, I suggest, it is highly misleading to discount Scott Horton's online writing as a blog, when he is an established professional.  This assertion suggests a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RS.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A deep and fundamental misunderstanding 

message: Add a section on the latest news of a turning point in how America fights peace as seen with Leon E. Panetta going to the Pentagon. Horton has written many many pages which should concern the posts of CIA Director and Secretary of Defense. Government Motors has appointed new agency heads to these posts. Are these heads in compliance with Horton?
Also Government Motors has introduced new torture techniques. Many civilians around the world protest torture. Does Scott Horton have any comment?
There are millions of people in countries like Egypt. Like Europe, such countries are decoupled from the US and most of the population has probably been tortured and maimed, possibly by Government Motors itself. So according to Government Motors, the 800,000,000 men and women of Europe are high value detainees- but most Europeans do not want to be Obama's high value detainees. They want to get a job, earn a living, protect their patents and not be forced into the American Way of Life. They do not consent to any form of maiming whatsoever. They do not consent to any form of Americanization whatsoever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.146.159.114 (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Torture No Exceptions Toolbox