Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

I have restored the material in because I don't see an argument for undue weight here. If anything, the undue weight would be all the details from the prosecution's case in Billington's trial that Will has added. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a TV appearance on an obscure Iranian talk show. It's hardly worth mentioning at all. Has it been mentioned in any 3rd-party source as being a "debate" or even being significant? Do you really think that it's more important than crimes that led to a 77-year sentence? Giving it a whole paragraph does give it excess weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing the "Four Corners" program as "an obscure Iranian talk show" is a classic example of WP:BIAS. --Niels Gade (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Among English-language TV shows across the globe, are you saying it's "prominent"? It's not even in the native language of its country. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that an important indication of the "prominence" of the show was the presence of Billington's opponent in the debate, London School of Economics Asia expert James Putzel. It seems odd that you would delete that, and then turn around to call the program "obscure." Most larger nations produce foreign language broadcasts -- the U.S. certainly does -- and they attach a lot of importance to them, considering them to be one of the techniques of diplomacy. --Terrawatt (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Category:American criminals removed? Is there any question about whether the subject was convicted of a felony? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it after Category:Political prisoners and victims was removed. The subject's notability stems from the controversy over whether he was unjustly imprisoned. That controversy is unlikely to be settled here at Wikipedia. Therefore, Wikipedia should acknowledge the controversy by placing him in both categories, or neither. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each cateogry stands on its own. There is no legitimate reason to remove the subject from the category. I dispute your assertions about the other category, but that's not relevant to the matter of whether Category:American criminals is correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to restore it unless there's a reason not to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you restore it, be sure to restore Category:Political prisoners and victims as well. I see that new documentation has been added to support that category. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different issue. Category:Political prisoners and victims has a problem in that it's a subjective designation. It's the equivalent of "Unfairly imprisoned people", but there's no objective determination of who belongs. It would be a contentious category for this article. OTOH, no one argues that the subject was not convicted and served time for felonies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I'm pointing this out to you, because it should be obvious, but the designation "criminal" implies that the subject was "fairly imprisoned," which would be a contentious category for this article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone uses 'criminal' in the 'people LaRouche says are part of the conspiracy' sense. 'Criminal' 'implies' that the subject was convicted in a court of law, and has not successfully challenged the verdict in the legal system. John Nevard (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that definition? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placing Billington in the category of "Criminals" does strongly suggest that he was guilty (I'm not suggesting that this is Will Beback's intention...) It also suggests that being a "criminal" is Billington's sole claim to fame. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your last point first, categories are not limited to sole claims to fame. There are categories for date of birth, ethnic heritage, religion, alma mater and many other biographical details that no one is famous for. For the other point, Billington was found guilty twice. The category does more than suggest he was guilty - only people who have been convicted are included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, his criminality is the Billington's only claim to fame, as confirmed by the wide variety of reliable sources on his conspiracy to commit mail fraud. John Nevard (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC) and the lack of any attention from the real world to anything else. John Nevard (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All political prisoners have been convicted. Re-add Category:Political prisoners and victims, problem solved. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two categories are separate. I didn't delete the political prisoner category. I'm asking why the subject shouldn't be in Category:American criminals, but I don't think that anyone has shown that the subject doesn't belong. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A political prisoner is someone held in prison or otherwise detained, perhaps under house arrest, for his/her involvement in political activity." That's a conviction for "counter-revolutionary activities" (Azem Vllasi). Or "leaving the country illegally" (Nelson Mandela). Or "political activities" (Takna Jigme Zangpo). It self-evidentally doesn't describe those convicted of mail fraud for defrauding the elderly. Perhaps if his master acted in a less objectionable way he would have gotten away with it -- that hardly makes it a 'political' crime. John Nevard (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All smugness aside, one would hardly expect the U.S. Government to advertise the fact that someone was being imprisoned for political reasons. Martin Luther King was convicted of exceeding the speed limit, conspiracy to hinder and prevent the operation of business (the Montgomery bus company,) and loitering (later changed to “failure to obey an officer”.) These are all obviously standard, mundane criminal acts with no political overtones. --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MLK was never convicted of a felony, and is not categorized as a political prisoner. Equating Billington to MLK is a bit of a stretch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You occasionally seem to miss the point in these matters. I was addressing John Nevard's comment above, where he asserts that politically motivated prosecutions are always proclaimed to be such. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, Billington is indisputably a person who has been convicted of felonies. Unless someone can pride reliable sources to the contrary there is no excuse for deleting the category from the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's contentious because Billington's guilt is disputed, but adding the "political prisoner" category along with it would be an acceptable compromise. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When hell freezes over and pigs fly and Billington is pardoned, he will no longer be an American criminal. When the real world stops recognizing Billington as a criminal, the category will no longer be appropriate. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow compromising between now and fantasy land/the New Economic Order after the final economic collapse that's been coming next year for thirty odd years. John Nevard (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]