Talk:Faisal Gill

References

Instead of getting into a revert war on this page, if someone feels that a section isn't factual, appropriate or otherwise worthy of being on this page we can discuss this. Don't just delete sections because it doesn't necessarily serve the interests of the Faisal Gill campaign. This is not a campaign website, but an encyclopedia entry which should provide balanced information from a neutral point of view.

OK, so everything is now properly references with newpaper articles. Is that in your opinion sufficient? Gletiecq 18:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There may be an easier way to resolve this -- the original article really merited a db-bio tag. Now that there's more content, an Importance template is probably meritied at the top. Given that we're trying to calm down I'd like to at least get someone else to weigh in begore placing either of these tags. No other candidates for VA HOD have articles, and only a couple of currently serving delegates have wiki articles, many of which are just minor battlegrounds between partisans. At any rate, Faisal Gill just really doesn't pass the noteworthyness test. Thoughts? Gletiecq 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Actually this guy was involved in something that got national attention, and probably merits an article. But can someone put an end to the vandalism? 71.114.108.244 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The referenced sources say that Gill was spokesman for AMC and director of government affairs for the islamic institute. The edits seem to go back & forth, and I'm going to identify these roles for each organization. If anyone finds conflicting information, feel free to correct it but please leave a note on this page explaining why.Gletiecq 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim Huber, who is a paid political consultant for the Faisal Gill campaign has decided that Faisal Gill's participation in a disatrous political campaign is irrelevant to a discussion about him, and has deleted that information without any discussion. I believe the information should be restored, but instead of getting into another revert war on this would like to see if some sort of consensus can be reached. Gletiecq 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

After leaving requests on the talk page for JimHuber and getting no response in over a week, as well as putting a request on this talk page and getting no response, I am restoring the content that was removed. I'm open to discussion about the content of this article if anyone feels that I'm in error. Gletiecq 19:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get the message sooner - I don't live here. Like I said in the edit summary, I removed the 2006 Steve Chapman Campaign section because it is irrelevant to Gill's bio. If this were Steve Chapman's bio, it would be appropriate. It's not even about what Gill did in the campaign, it's about what Chapman didn't do... It's not Gill who failed to file for Chapman. I believe the section is a biased attempt to negatively associate Gill with a campaign that didn't even occur.

Please don't characterize the motivation to this "paid political consultant"'s decisions here. The "Faisal Gill Affair" section, which is supposedly the bad stuff (though really much ado about nothing), I left untouched. I long knew that was going to be added, and that's fine, provided it's neutral. Not sure at what point in the "revert war" I saw it, but I thought it was written fairly objectively.

I am re-removing the Chapman campaign section and related links, and I will check back here sooner for follow up remarks. Jimhuber 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Gill's involvement as a senior advisor to the Steve Chapman for Delegate campaign is absolutely relevant as it's part of his political resume, albeit not a bright spot. Chapman filed with the State Board of Elections, filed campaign finance reports, held political events and distributed campaign materials, so he clearly did run. If we're going to include biographical information on Gill's other activities, it's worthwhile to include articles in newspapers where he is quoted as representing the Chapman campaign and discussing his own activities on Chapman's behalf. It's interesting to note that your company hosts Faisal Gill's campaign website and that you're conducting campaign activities on Faisal Gill's behalf, but you apparently are a disinterested observer here. This is outrageous.Gletiecq 00:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I just moved some reference links around for organizational consistency and I noticed some inaccuracies in the Faisal Gill Affair timeline and events. The letter was submitted on August 9, 2004, and the investigation was announced on August 12 exonerating Gill. The entry describes the letter as following the investigation results and asking for clarification on it as well as other issues. But in reality the results cover some of the questions, though not a question-by-question response to the letter. The entry suggests that the Senate committee questioned those results and never got an answer.

I haven't made the change to the entry on this. Would you like to have a go at it? Jimhuber 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• The purpose of a discussion page is to have a discussion prior to taking unilateral action as a paid consultant to the Faisal Gill campaign. I'm going to ask Dar-Ape for his opinion on this, and continue my attempts to obtain some sort of consensus before altering content in such a controversial manner. Gletiecq 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Visiting via WP:COI: I think the references need more balance. Currently, three are from Fox News (generally pro-Republican) and one is from a neocon online magazine [1]. Tearlach 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

As posted in the Faisal Gill section on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard:

"Gletiecq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the defendant in a suit filed by one of the clients of Faisal Gill's law firm. Gletiecq wanted a section about that client's 2006 campaign, allegedly derailed in part by Gletiecq's blog, in the article. Alleging COI (while neglecting to disclose his own COI) Gletiecq reported the user who removed it.

"Majwooten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was another SPA with related issues, which he explained in a post to Dar-Ape, about blog content (guess whose blog) repeatedly being added to this BLP article. — Athænara ✉ 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)"

Restoring Content from More reverts

I am restoring some of the deleted reference to Abduraman Alamoudi, since without it the "Faisal Gill Affair" makes no sense whatsoever. That was the central theme to the entire issue, and removing that reference is clearly not NPOV. Similarly, referring to Frank Gaffney as an "anti-Muslim activist" is purely subjective, and not NPOV. Gletiecq 20:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faisal Gill. 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/20061016175656/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128743,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128743,00.html

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) 08:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)