Talk:Maulana Karenga

message: If some here are going to sprotect this article, at the very least, they should not do it immediately after doing a non-vandal revert. The last edit reverted and sprotected after was a valid edit which, if you assume good faith, requires dialog about on talk, not just revert on a knee-jerk basis. It's this precise type of reverting, that keeps me as an anon. I have no interest in polluting my log-in name arguing with rude editors. And frankly, some sprotect actions here have been very rude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.98.130.2040 (talk • contribs)  6:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprotect 

message: I am not sure how quotes are used properly in English, but would not it be right to put "US" in quotes where it stands for "US Organization" to prevent confusion with US (the United States) or a "US [reader thinks a word is missing here]" situtation? Because I just was in that last situation where there is "head of US", and I thought "What, surely he is not the President of the United States"...
45.94.118.47 (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The context makes it quite obvious. Who ever says "Head of US" for the President of the United States, anyway? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

text: @Alexandria Bucephalous This person was convicted and served time for his heinous crime. The facts aren't in dispute. The section is well sourced and it's a part of the biography that should remain. Nemov (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I could agree with the argument that it entire quoted passage is unnecessarily sensational and WP:UNDUE. We already say "stripped naked and beaten with an electrical cord" and "she sat on the other woman's stomach while another man forced water into her mouth through a hose." How much do we need besides "he was convicted of felony assault and false imprisonment"? Two paragraphs? Two sentences? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The status quo is fine with me. It offers more detail about what happened and it's well sourced. If he wasn't convicted I'd leave it out, but it seems due to me given the coverage. Nemov (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me it mostly serves to express a "bad man" POV. And we really should find a better source for the first sentence than the Dartmouth Review editorial opinion piece, while we're at it. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He went to jail for torturing and kidnapping two women. That's not in dispute. How people want to interpret that is beyond my pay grade. The conviction isn't why he's notable and it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph of the lead, but explaining why he went to jail is perfectly fine since it's sourced. Nemov (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Since its sourced" is not at all the point. Lots of things are sourced that don't belong in Wikipedia. The point is the editorial choices we make. I'm only arguing the WP:WEIGHT of having the full LA times quote as well as the material sourced to the Dartmouth Review opinion piece. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this was easy. I just got rid of the first description in favor of the LA Times quote, and got rid of the Dartmouth Review citation in favor of a later LA Times story. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, reads better as well. Thanks Nemov (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Correct Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation over US (e.g. "US")