Talk:George Szamuely

Reverted article to prior state and removed PROD

I restored the stripped out content and sources. If there are problems with specific ones please discuss it here. I removed all of the religion related categories. Jbh (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Global Policy Institute

No mention of him on GPI's website. Did he leave? Once this is established the article can be updated. https://gpilondon.com/our-people GorisGazoom (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Issues with links

There seems to be some problems with these two links in external links sections, some people are saying that the links violate WP:ELYES.

• Intervention, Immigration, and Internment
• The National Evisceration of Democracy

How does these two links violate it exactly? Can someone explain it to me? 175.156.145.10 (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Non-notable articles in a non-RS by the subject of this article which add nothing. Read ELYES and tell us which category they fit. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you point me to specific article and point in WP:ELYES that says that the links are in violation? Seems like you are making things up.175.156.145.10 (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:EL: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website, as if to provide a portal to that website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site... WP:ELYES says that normally the EL section would link (1) an official website (we've done that separately: Substack. See also WP:ELIM which says Normally, only one official link is included.); and (2) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons. This does not include randomly picked articles by the subject of our article. WP:ELNO further lists links normally to be avoided. This starts with Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links that may be used to improve the page in the future can be placed on the article's talk page. In short, we don't include articles of this type in this section. The BLP itself is already overly reliant on primary sources, and there is no need to proliferate them further in sections which are not used for this.

Furthermore, WP:ELBLP says External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP. and WP:BLPEL says Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, when including such links in other articles, make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. WP:RSP says There is consensus that Antiwar.com is generally unreliable. Therefore, we'd need exceptionally good reasons to include it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought this was about ELYES, how come you suddenly bring up all these other stuff? You deliberately trying to censor links here? These links on antiwar are not being cited as sources how does it violate? According to WP:RSP legend on antiwar.com table, antiwar.com "...may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content..." I feel that these links meet these conditions and are not in violation. 124.246.108.60 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies on biographies of living people and on sourcing, and try to understand the purpose of the External Links section. It is not a place to dump links to media articles by the BLP subject. The external links section can include unreliable and questionable sources if these fit the categories appropriate to the section, e.g. official websites, but there needs to be an exceptionally good reason to do so, and you have not provided one. To make an exception, the onus is on your to show that this link contains neutral and relevant material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, and that it is somehow impossible to instead include this material in the article. If you want to strengthen the article, it would be better to find secondary sources that talk about its subject. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"It is not a place to dump links to media articles by the BLP subject" I don't think these two links are considered as "dumping". And I read through the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, there is no mentioning of "dumping" of links on that page. Where did you come up with that from? Anyway, two links to articles by George Szamuely is "dumping" links? That seems to be over interpretataion. "Dumping" is to load the entire external links with dozens of his articles. No such case here.124.246.108.60 (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be new reasons being offered for blocking these two links. Antiwar.com as a source is no longer an issue. No problem there. The new issue is that the articles violate copyright of New York Press. I went to take a look at the articles and there is notice there saying that the articles are reprinted with permission from New York Press. Another is that there are no author's name appearing in the articles. Not sure where that came from, but George Szamuely's name appears in all the articles. 138.75.51.74 (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are multiple reasons not to include these articles: their inclusion violates a whole number of policies. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote when I removed the content:

The first link, "Intervention, Immigration, and Internment", is a copyright violation. It was first published in the New York Press. The attribution that it is reprinted by permission is not clearly evident. Regardless, if we want a list of articles published by the subject, we could list them in an appropriate section , and point to the original publication location. A selective list of one in the WP:EL is not the correct location. It is not relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues.

The second has no author. It should not be used anywhere on Wikipedia as it fails WP:RS and as such, EL as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that the articles violate copyright of New York Press? I see no evidence of that. There is notice saying that they are reprinted with permission. If there is violation, I think those articles would have been removed decades ago. George Szamuely's name appears in both articles, what are you talking about?175.156.150.25 (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You are clearly editing across multiple IP address over several days. You have been reverted by multiple editors so I suggest you stop adding these links back in until consensus has been reached.

There is no proof on the site that the publication has granted them permission, only the text. On Wikipedia we have proof for every copyrighted object that is published. It is either a release from the copyright holder or something similar.

But let's take the notice at face value. Why this one article out of all the articles they supposedly have permission to reprint? Why not all of them? Why not the exclusive article he wrote (but there is no byline crediting him and the HTML title is different than the title in the copy)?

So back to the question you asked: the site looks quite poorly put together. It is clues like the ones I provided in the previous section that make me think that they are not reputable in any way.

The key for me on this one article is that you have selected it out of the 18 on that site. Why that one? Why not "Proud To Be Un-American" or any of the others?

I am glad you're not arguing about the other one, but yet you are still edit warring to keep it in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You have no real arguments to delete these links, you are just making things up and using pretexts, how come I am suddenly blocked? You are acting in bad faith and censoring links. How come I am making disruptive edits? All my edits are backed up with arguments, while the other side is using fake reasons to censor links.138.75.30.208 (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"...I am glad you're not arguing about the other one..."

What do you mean by that? All your arguments are drivel with no facts or logic backing them up. You are just making things up and using fake pretexts to censor links.138.75.30.208 (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I have given you valid, cogent reasons. That you don't like them is not my problem.

I did not request that the page be locked but an administrator looked at your actions and determined that the page should be locked.

I have given you a suggestion for how you can appeal to a wider audience. You can either take my suggestion or you can keep trying to insult me. I will follow the advice given at WP:DFTT.

Care to answer my questions or are you just going to continue insulting me? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

lol. Doesn't change the fact that all your arguments are drivel does it? We'll see how this goes once this page is unblocked. You have no arguments at all. They are all garbage. Copyright issues, page without author name, none of that sticks, all is just nonsensical garbage and fake pretexts. Everyone can see it. Don't try to pretend as if you are somehow correct.Suggest what suggest to wider audience? You are just making rubbish up and removing links at whim. 138.75.30.208 (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The IP appears to be correct that Antiwar.com at http://www.antiwar.com/rep/szamuely/szamuely18.html claims that the content is reprinted by permission of the New York Press. If it were being used as a ref (it is not) it would be better to cite the original source so there would be no question of whether antiwar.com really had permission. The IP is also correct that http://www.antiwar.com/szamuely/sz-col.html does appear to have been written by George Szamuely, but it is not at all obvious, as has been pointed out. I'm also not convinced that this site is a reliable one. Despite what the IP claims above, wrt Antiwar.com WP:RSP actually says "There is consensus that Antiwar.com is generally unreliable. Editors consider Antiwar.com to be biased or opinionated." Regardless of authorship, copyright, or site reliability issues, neither of these links belongs in an external links section. I agree with User:Bobfrombrockley and user:Walter Görlitz that the links should be removed. Meters (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Why doesn't they belong to external links section? What is the violation exactly?138.75.30.208 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you. Meters (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:RSP legend on antiwar.com table, antiwar.com "...may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content..." I feel that these links meet these conditions and are not in violation. And I feel that the authorship of George Szamuely is obvious. There is a banner on the top of the page with Szamuely's name. And so what if the authorship for whatever reason is "not obvious" to some people? George Szamuely is the author of the article. That is beyond doubt from the article. It doesn't violate any wiki rule. I think I am going to solicit the views of more pople on these links and whether or not they violate any rules.138.75.30.208 (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether these links should be used in the external links section. You are not attempting to use them as references, Read the explanations above. I'm not going to repeat them. Please drop this. You do not have consensus for your edit, and valid Wikipedia rules have been given. Continuing this might be WP:IDHT or WP:CIR (or trolling. as someone else has suggested). I'm not going to spend any more time on this. Meters (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

If you have no time, then please stop replying. I am going to solicit more people on this. If antiwar.com can still be used as a source according to legend on WP:RSP, then how come it cannot be used for external links? Makes no sense. There is nothing in WP:RSP that says that antiwar.com CANNOT be used in external links. Nothing. If antiwar.com CANNOT be used in external links, the table on antiwar.com would indicate that. There would be reference to that fact. There is NO indication of that on the antiwar.com table. This means that antiwar.com CAN BE USED in external links. It is completely, totally, fully, wholly and utterly incorrect to say that antiwar.com CANNOT be used in external links.138.75.30.208 (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Arrest for overdue library books sub-section

Per WP:BLPCRIME "For individuals who are not public figures ... editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured", I think the Arrest for overdue library books sub-section should be deleted.

The cites we have (and I've googled for better) merely say he was arrested and "had not been arraigned" [3, NYT]. There is no cite saying he was arraigned, brought to trial or convicted. The NYP says Szamuely "would renew books on their due date" [4], which rather brings into doubt that any books were indeed stolen. What we have is entirely compatible with the police/DA deciding not to prosecute, perhaps having taken the view this wasn't a crime but a civil matter or even a misunderstanding.

Unless more RS cites are found deepening our understanding, I think this is far too trivial for us to override the advice in WP:BLPCRIME. Unless anyone objects, I'll delete it in a few days. Rwendland (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No objection. Was one of the books Tropic of Cancer? Burrobert (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)