Talk:Sharif El-Gamal

NPOV for criminal background section?

I don't really "have a dog in this fight", as we say in Texas, since I'm not a bigot, nor am I a muslim. So I hope this comes across as the objective discussion point it's intended to be...

It seems odd that there is a focus, let alone a whole section, on his criminal background. Since his notability is tied to the Islamic center/"ground zero mosque" issue, I'm not sure how such a focus is relevant to begin with, and I especially question the need for a separate section in an article this size.

I'm not making any assertions about the motivation, but this does sort of stick out. I can't think of other semi-notable/semi-public people whose criminal record has nothing to do with why they're notable , who have such a large portion of their article devoted to it. It almost seems as if it's there simply to discredit the man. Given that only a passing reference is made to other aspects of his life, this does not seem to be notable in and of itself, nor does it seem to be due weight.

I'd recommend removing the section altogether, or at least summarizing it in a sentence and getting rid of the separate section. I know emotions run high on the mosque issue, but this should be as neutral as possible, neither canonizing or demonizing him. If something is relevant to his notability, it belongs, If it's there just to push a POV agenda, then sorry, it needs to go. And I'd feel exactly the same way if some opposition leader to the mosque had a similarly large % of their article devoted to an unrelated criminal record.

Just my 2 cents.Jbower47 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's something that the press has picked up, including the RS press, and so I think it deserves reflecting. Some of those incidents seem more notable to me than others. Such as the one where he and his brother, who is his partner in his real estate business, accosted a barber for failure to pay his rent and he broke his nose/face. Or the arrest for a crime involving deceit. Soliciting a prostitute, while it deserves mention, is less significant relative to his real estate business. And perhaps the most interesting aspect on his background is that he was elevated from waiter for years at NY restaurants to being CEO of this real estate venture. My two cents. As to the header, if there is enough material below a header, I see it as simply an ease-of-reading device. I do think that other aspects of his life should also be discussed, but haven't seen much written about them in the RS press. As they come out, they should be reflected as well, but balance relates to balance relative to mentions in the press.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not be against personal life and biography being combined (under the heading personal life -- the entire thing is biography, imho), and the lower section moved up to and included in where the upper section is. That would of course relegate the criminal material to the bottom. Also, the taxes issue should imho be moved up, out of the criminal section.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the splitting of biography and personal life doesn't make sense. The legal issues should stay, despite the recent mentions of discrimination by edit warriors in their edit summaries--it is well sourced. That said, a separate subtitle for it seems undue. Therefore I'm going to merge the sections into the "Personal life" section. It does seem like the legal issues are rather deeply described, perhaps more so than necessary, but that is a discussion for those more familiar with this page's history. HotStuffNot (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds sensible.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has been active on this page for the last month or two, I agree with User: Jbower47. The section regarding his criminal record is too extensive and doesn't need a heading. I've listed below my main issues with his personal life section.

A) Why is the value of his home listed? I personally think there is no need for that information. The value of his apartment he was living in at the time has no place on Wikipedia

B) Currently the opening section of 'Criminal record' is unreferenced. I cannot see to find anything indicating he attempted petit larceny. I would suggest that this is referenced quickly (since its a bold statement), or if it can't be, removed or rephrased.

C) The extensive negative coverage regarding the sublet. Firstly he at the time owed taxes, that doesn't mean he still does, therefore it should be past tense. Also him stating in the deposition he hadn't previously committed a crime, I don't see why that is notable on an encyclopaedic article.

I think once these issues are discussed/addressed, it will improve that section of the article. 174.56.50.83 (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• — 174.56.50.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Again As someone who has been active on this page for the last month, his criminal record section is too extensive and doesn't need a heading. Also am trying to update his recent deals in the real estate market but user Patapsco913 keeps undo them, we can do this all day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Sababa (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is you have him saying he regrets the things he did in his past but you do not say what they are. You also say that the items included are not supported by the citations although they all are. What is the "heading" you are talking about? There is no heading. You have already violated the 3RR rule. As far as the real estate deals update, you did a cut and paste of a news article, a major copyright violation.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mohamed Sababa: you have a blatant WP:COI and are clearly trying to WP:OWN the page. You continue to revert other people's edits to make the page the way you want it to promote the subject. You need to read the warnings on your talk page and the pages I have linked to in this message. Continuing to revert in violation of WP:3RR will likely result in an admin blocking you. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)