Talk:Ishmael Beah

message: A fictionalized version of Ishmael Beah, named Apollo Bukenya, was the focus of a storyline on the May 15, 2007 episode of Veronica Mars. RahadyanS 13:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: fictionalized version of Ishmael Beah

message: I read a lot of him! If you have questions, I´ll try to answer you!
* Tough to ask questions of you if you don't sign your posts. :) Wilybadger 23:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information 

message: I just really think that we need to split up the article into various sections, i.e. How He Got To New York, Activites in US, Personal Life, rather than having this humongous contiguous block of text that says markedly little and has next to no chronological significance. Elakhna 21:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need More Organization 

message: I have retitled the section on the dispute with The Australian, since the "credibility issue" seems to have no other source.  I have also trimmed out some of The Australian's follow-up; as usual with a newspaper, they have committed themselves to an agenda and will now have a vested interest in trying to prove themselves right (human nature, actually).  We need to use secondary sources as much as possible and avoid repeating he-said-she-said from the original primary sources.  There should be coverage of this in the literary press and perhaps in the news periodicals that we can use.  The subject's publisher has registered disquiet with the weight we give The Australian's account here ().  WP:BLP applies, of course, but so does ordinary common sense: we should always be somewhat skeptical of campaigns run by a single newspaper and should look elsewhere for coverage of the incidents described, just in case the paper has got it badly wrong, as they have been known to do.  A spirit of obvious extreme fairness is what makes us look best, so please let's not get carried away with enthusiasm for the story. Thanks.  Guy (Help!) 21:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very little text got removed, the balance tells the story adequately. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the  to the criticism section, and I am tempted to cut out portions. 203.129.45.211 was inaccurate. Slate and other media sources published articles detailing the fight between Beah and the Australian. Now that it's been two years, I think it's time to give this section less prominence as no new material that I've been able to find has arisen. Daskos99 (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Australian controversy

message: While much of the material on Beah (from both supporters and otherwise) has been speculative, the material just deleted - apparently after complaints from Beah's publisher - was referenced to an established newspaper. That doesn't make it true but it was also placed in the context of being an ongoing controversy. I am also puzzled by the criticism that the entry is overly reliant on primary sources - an over-reliance on secondary sources is problematic but an over-reliance on primary sources is not. There is no shortage of secondary sources (Slate, the Village Voice, an the Sunday times have all had lengthy features) but I don't really see the point of drawing on them extensively when they don't add much in the way of primary data (although they have re-checked some of the sources cited by both the Australian and Beah's publisher).
I understand that Beah's publisher is unhappy with the entry, but that is to be expected and should not in itself be cause for deletion. Their problem is with the Australian and the other publications that are reporting on this issue (Village Voice had a lengthy feature just the other day) - Wikipedia should present all the relevant data, and the deleted material is certainly relevant. The entry is certainly far from perfect, but the answer to that is to add further information, not to delete past info.
As to the reference to anonymous edits -  I wasn't logged in when I restored the entry last night, but that wasn't a conscious attempt at anonymity - it was just late I had forgotten my password - remembered after a good night's sleep. Most of my contributions were not anonymous. Anyway, I don't see the problem with anonymity on a referenced entry.
There has been speculation on some blogs that Beah's Wikipedia entry has been altered at the instigation of his publisher. See for example http://oneminutebookreviews.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/has-wikipedia-been-hijacked-by-ishmael-beahs-pr-machine-the-online-encyclopedia-abandons-neutrality-and-regurgitates-the-young-author%E2%80%99s-view-by-editorializing-that-%E2%80%98it-is-important/
(note that the author of this blog has been quoted on the issue of Beah in the Village Voice). I have left comments saying that I don't think this is so (and to date, I don't think it has been so). But I think it would be a great shame if relevant, referenced material were to be deleted at the instigation of the publisher, who has a clear vested interest. If there are legal issues, they are with the Australian and other media sources - Wikipedia is currently summarising material from elsewhere, with references, at a point where no legal action against those sources is underway.
* Speculation on blogs is useless.  This has caused complaints to the foundation, extremely good sourcing is required, and that means secondary sourcing, not blow-by-blow reporting from the original newspaper reports. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not relevant.  This is a living individual, and caution is demanded.  Please read WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Do you now.  I think, as it happens, that the Australian have painted themselves into a corner.  Regardless, we do not engage in blow-by-blow accounts of disputes between a newspaper and an individual.  Secondary sources, no blogs.  Guy (Help!) 10:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate deletion 

message: I'm going to nominate this entry to be split into two separate articles. I think "A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier" should be on a separate page than the entry for Ishmael Beah. The book has garnered enough praise and notability to merit a separate article. 64.80.233.194 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split 

message: I have been a bit ruthless with the external links and boldly removed most of them. I don't think we need links to interviews, if there is relevant informations in them it can be incorporated into the article and the link given as a ref. I also removed all the links to sites related to child soldiers as they don't seem directly connected to the subject and don't add anything relevant to the article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ishmael Beah. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070303091851/http://www.nyc24.org/2006/newnewyorkers/childsoldier/index.html to http://www.nyc24.org/2006/newnewyorkers/childsoldier/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified