Talk:Aidan Delgado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My revert[edit]

Added an update on biographical data as well as clarifying the statement of the ARMY CID team... hopefully this will help clear up some of the POV issues. Also by the way, it turns out New College is the state honors college of Florida... not a diploma mill as asserted by Sherlock Holmes of the previous post. Kaiser187 12:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did a little more checking on "New University". It's not a diploma mill, but barely. Claims to be exclusive (New University is the only one claiming that) and bases this "exclusivity" on admitting ONLY 60% of applicants.

My suggestion. Instead of investigating a school w a dubious past and a marketing oriented presentation, why don't we remove all the gushing adjectives from the article and just plain say he attended "New University in Florida"? This is apparently true, accurate, and not spin doctored to a dowdification67.174.53.196 03:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New College of Florida (I don't know where you are getting this "New University" stuff) is not a "diploma mill", but rather is by all accounts a first rate public liberal arts college. New College was recently ranked the #1 Public liberal Arts College in the United States by US News [1], has a well respected faculty, and is generally considered to be one of the better liberal arts colleges in the South East.--199.94.18.246 04:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of an entire paragraph on criticism is very suspicious, especially by an Anon. --Davidstrauss 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me Mr. Strauss, what part of the added paragraph is incorrect?24.10.102.46 04:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies. NOT Mr. Strauss, Mr. Kaiser.24.10.102.46 04:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the part that said that he "provided no evidence" given that the Army CID has stated that they recieved photos and a sworn statement from him and that this claim was backed up by teh Simpson and DElgado law firm which witnessed the interviews (simpsonriecks.com). Also the tone of the middle paragraph in its old form was obviously written by an axe grinder, you can still make the point that the army rejected his claims, but you can do so without the partisan language "but UNFORTUNATELY, he provided no evidence." that's a pretty sweeping statement and pretty obvious as POV.

One of the guys who's been following Delgado's case gave me the contact info for CID Agent Lindstedt, if any of this is in doubt: CID Agent David Lindstedt (941 993 3935) (813 828 4666).

Checked it out. Those are pretty anemic references. Simpson and Delgado practice social law in Florida, and are probably the last legal firm you would want in anything this sensitive. The rest of the allegations are Mr. Delgado saying Mr. Delgado is telling the truth. Pictures? Delgado was the motor pool mechanic. Where did he get pictures of spontaneous action on the street?

When Delgado hit the news, he was described as a student at a "selective" university in Florida. I checked it out. 60 fields of discipline and 30 professors. ONE professor for each two disciplinary fields? You bet it's selective. Anyone as dumb as Einstein can't cut it there.

He may be a saint, but you haven't provided anything that convinces me.24.10.102.46 02:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not trying to convince you he's a saint, but my so-called anemic references are a thousand times more convincing than your lack of references and implied conclusions.... number of professors at his college? god, give it up, you guys are really digging to find something to say against the guy.

also, guys, before you bash the guy at least watch his presentations. he explains exactly where he got the photos, and he has never claimed to have witnessed the riot only that he got the photos from one of the sergeants in his unit that was there. Damn, this entry is getting partisan... let's remember that we're trying to build an encyclopedia entry and not a rant of our own views. myself included, let's just stick to the facts and not what WE think about the subject.

Sorry, but that number of "professors" screams "diploma mill." --Davidstrauss 10:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what exactly is disputed?[edit]

What exactly is disputed in this article? Its big problem is that it's very vague, but the criticism was the vaguest of all—if specific people have criticized him, who are they? NPOV requires that we give the views of all sides, but Wikipedia:Verifiability still applies. -- SCZenz 23:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's disputed is what criticism to include. It's related to the lack of citations, but the ongoing (but slow) edit war influenced me to slap up the disputed template. --Davidstrauss 00:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an NPOV dispute. The issue here is that most of the facts about this guy that aren't criticism are pretty clear statements of fact; likewise, the army concluding his account was wrong is essentially a statemnt of fact, and clearly relevant. All of these should be cited, but I kind of doubt they're incorrect. However, some of the criticism has been extremeley vague; no Wikipedia article should say "some of his allegations were called into question by knowledgable people," because either those knowledgeable people can be cited in a reliable source or they can't. Has anyone even tried to provide cited criticism? -- SCZenz 00:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article was highjacked by POV critics a long time ago...

Siiiiiiigh. Why doesn't anyone try looking up some reliable sources, rather than removing only the facts they don't like? Are the lot of you going to make me rewrite this article from scratch? -- SCZenz 04:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

changed Abu Ghraib wording[edit]

some POV editor has changed the Abu Ghraib "abuse" to "frat house pranks." reverted this. I think by now, we can all agree that whatever you want to call what happened at Abu Ghraib it is not a "prank." The term "abuse" seems both accurate and reasonably NPOV. Kaiser187 14:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iraq War Resisters[edit]

The list is getting so long, I added a link to a page. rewinn 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

propose removing NPOV tag[edit]

the article has been stable for some time now... I propose the NPOV tag be removed for now... Kaiser187 09:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're missing something awfully important[edit]

The article talks about revelations about Abu Ghraib. As I understand it, the really sensational stuff was his claim to tank drivers deliberately hitting dogs, and soldiers in humvees breaking glass bottles over the heads of passing civilians. When a few people pointed out the physical impossibility of such actions with the equipment described, this part of the controversy was quietly dropped.

IT STILL BELONGS IN THIS ARTICLE.Aaaronsmith (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why notability questioned?[edit]

This guy seems to have obtained a pretty high profile as an anti-war veteran. While lots of people may disagree with his views or question the factuality of his allegations, is whether the man was in some fairly high profile films on the topic of antiwar protests really in question? The notability tag does NOT seem applicable in this case, IMO. 75.225.71.143 (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has nothing to do with his beliefs. His notability is based primarily on being a conscientious objector. There isn't a lot of significant third party coverage by reliable third party sources in this article. In fact, the article has very few sources. If you added more reliable sources, maybe the notability would be more apparent. Additionally, simply appearing in what you call "high profile" films doesn't make him notable. The Godfather was much more high profile, but appearing in it didn't make Frank Macetta notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed this header which queries he notability. It's clear - for example, from his New York Times and PBS interviews - that Delgado had a prominent role in bringing the Abu Graib scandal to light. This qualifies him for notability (IMO). Captain Wanga! (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • And I restored it. Again, he's bordering on one event notability. We don't know to what extent he was covered on the PBS documentary. The NYT "interview" is a short op-ed piece. Everything seems to really center around his one action of becoming a CO. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=1799
    Triggered by \bbeacon\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 06:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aidan Delgado. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aidan_Delgado&oldid=1201434530"