Talk:Al Hubbard (activist)

Untitled
Defenition of plagarism,

Not only are you an idiot for failing to see the what you are doing is plagarism, I suspect you do realize that what you are doing is plagarism and are think you can pull one over on people.
 * The use of mere facts, rather than works of creative expression, does not constitute plagiarism. For the latter, the issue of public domain works versus copyrighted works is irrelevant to the concept of plagiarism. For instance, it is legal for a student to copy several paragraphs (or even pages) of text from a public domain book, such as Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and then directly add these quotations to his or her own paper. However if these quotations were not clearly identified as to his or her source, then the student would be guilty of plagiarism, using another writer's work as if it were his or her own.


 * I see no use of "creative expression" in your misquotes, just a brief statement of facts. Please, tell us again just where this plagiarism is?  -Rob


 * Alfred H. Hubbard entered the Air Force in October 1952, re-enlisted twice and was honorably discharged in October 1966, when his enlistment expired. At the time of his discharge he was an instructor flight engineer on C-123 aircraft with the 7th Air Transport Squadron, McCord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Washington.

Now from a National Review article :
 * Alfred H. Hubbard entered the Air Force in October 1952, re-enlisted twice and was honorably discharged in October 1966, when his enlistment expired. At the time of his discharge he was an instructor flight engineer on C-123 aircraft with the 7th Air Transport Squadron, McCord Air Force Base, Tacoma, Washington.

The NRO article is quite specific on its source, and does not try to pass it off as original work as you are trying to do.

I would also point out that the user in question has had a long history of plagiarism in VVAW related articles. TDC 16:27, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your "Defenition of Plagarism." You might check the spelling of the word "of." Next, you might wish to recheck your supposed quote from the wiki-article - it is inaccurate, and not a quote at all. Or are you attempting to "pull one over on people?" Third, your edits contain deletions of significant content completely unrelated to your above listed complaint. Was this an oversight on your part, or are you attempting to implement "stealth edits" without having to explain them? Forth, calling editors "idiot" isn't very productive, and could be construed as a personal attack. Finally, in your allegations of "history of plagiarism," might I suggest you be more specific in indicating the "user in question?" -Rob

Rob, dont be stupid, if that is possible. I used an advanced IP trace. I know your name home adress and telphone number. All the anons are you. TDC 06:21, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course you did. You caught me.  I am every anonymous editor on Wikipedia. -Rob

Back to your old Tricks Rob
You remove the information that he was a Panther, as well as the more detailed explanation of his “war injuries”, when he got them playing B-ball. You then introduces the “inconclusive” nature of his records where it pertains to Vietnam, when those records are very conclusive in the fact that there is no mention of him ever being there. Hubbard dod claim to have been wounded in Vietnam, as the Meet the Press interview has him stating this very matter of fact. Would you like to see the video of it? Ten Dead Chickens 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Hubbard Rewrites
As part of the Arbcom ruling you cannot perform a content revert without discussing it in talk. Ten Dead Chickens 21:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If Rob removed information that he was a Panther, fear not, cuz I put it back for you. But in a more correct form - he was a sympathizer, and even recruited vets from their meetings, but was never a member.  Have info to the contrary?  Sources please.  The records do look inconclusive, with DoD talking heads saying so: "Despite that, Defense Department officials stressed it was still possible Hubbard could have served in Vietnam, flying in and out from Tacoma." and "...he could have been in Vietnam for brief periods during cargo loading, unloading operations or for crew rest purposes." (see your linked article).  Can I also see this video you mentioned above? 165.247.219.220 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He started a Black Panther Chapter in VVAW, 53-54 Nicosia. Ten Dead Chickens 22:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean he started a Black Panther chapter of VVAW in Harlem, correct. But he wasn't officially a Panther.  He also started several Campus chapters of VVAW, but he wasn't at that time a student.  And he started the first VVAW PAC involved in congressional elections, but he wasn't a congressman.  Same Nicosia source. 165.247.219.220 22:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "There was Al Hubbard, who was a Black Panther who was also pushing the organization toward violent confrontation," Nicosia added. Ten Dead Chickens 22:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Perhaps Nicosia has learned more about the man subsequent to his published book; good enough for me, so I put it back in the article.  (Until I discover that Nicosia was misquoted, or simply incorrect.) Can I see the video you offered to Rob above? 165.247.219.220 23:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No Evidence of Vietnam Service
I removed the following because there is no sourcing, and Hubbard's failure to produce a Vietnam Service Ribbon makes this information almost certainly false. "He was a flight engineer with the 22nd Troop Carrier Squadron at Tachikawa Air Force Base, Japan and made frequent flights into and within South Vietnam." I also removed too much and am putting back the part not about South Vietnam. Gustnado (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the cited source,
 * At what time did Hubbard fail to produce a VN Service Ribbon, and for whom did he fail to produce it? (A source would be great, thanks.) Xenophrenic (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the specific reference to the regulations, which are relevant to the strong suspicion that he is not a veteran of the American Vietnam Conflict - which is relevant to his participation in VVAW. The suspicion is strong because this pentagon provided a list of his award, which include neither a Purple Heart or a Vietnam Service Award. Is the service award information in this article wrong? A reliable source (footnote #1) indicates no Purple Heart and no Vietnam Service Award. Xenophrenic, please explain the reasons you keep removing information that is relevant, or do you think it is irrelevant that his supposed service in Vietnam would have qualified him for the ribbon, but the Pentagon (per source #1) indicated he did not have it. I won't again take out the pentagon statement about possible flights now that I know the source - which is the same one that shows that he does not have the award, nor the purple heart that would have been a result of the supposed shrapnel injury. Adding quote from another reliable source. Gustnado : ►Talk  06:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer the two questions. But the link you provided does answer a question I had about the AFEM. I can remove a comment from the article text now, as it appears that medal did indeed exist. As for deletion of the regulations on medals, it is irrelevant to Hubbard in and of itself; I saw no mention of Hubbard in those regs.  Now introducing that same information through a secondary source would be more appropriate, if the Weekly Standard met the reliable source concerns expressed in WP:BLP. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a question for you regarding those medal regulations you linked. It says, "Service members who earned the AFEM for service in Vietnam between July 1, 1958 and July 3, 1965, may elect to receive the Vietnam Service Medal instead of the AFEM. However, no Service member may be issued both medals for service in Vietnam."  Now the Overend source says the DoD stated Hubbard had a AFEM already, so how could he possibly have a VSM even if he wanted one? I also note it is an elected medal that must be requested; it doesn't just automatically appear on the service record.  Am I reading that correctly? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have added defamatory information to the biography of a living person in violation of WP:BLP. It has been removed.  Please read Wikipedia's policy regarding questionable information and non-reliable sources in BLPs.  Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First, we have no evidence that the AFEM is for service in Vietnam, as opposed to Korea or elsewhere.
 * Incorrect. The AFEM, according to your source, wasn't being awarded until after 1958, well beyond our active participation in Korea.
 * Even if it were, he could have a VSM simply by asking.
 * Incorrect. He can receive one or the other, and the records show he received the AFEM.  Also, you are talking about a vet that tossed his medals back on the Capitol steps, he didn't request more.
 * That he did not casts doubt on his credibility, as the VSM is the gold standard for Vietnam Veteran status for the American portion of the war (which is what this atrocity stuff is all about - i.e. VVAW/WSI).
 * Incorrect. It is his conservative, pro-war detractors that are casting the doubt, not his honorable service record.  Hubbard claims Vietnam service (and maintains this even after people started pulling his records and reviewing them because of his rank misrepresentation); the DoD stresses he could have served in Vietnam, too.
 * He could ask for it today if he is actually eligible.
 * Actually, he couldn't. And why would he if he could?
 * There is every reason to believe that Al Hubbard did not serve in Vietnam during the period of controversy (when US troops were on the ground).
 * There is no reason not to believe it. Further more, his AFEM indicates that he was in a combat situation post-1958 as well.
 * As for the reliable source concerns, WP:BLP certainly doesn't exclude TWS.
 * Incorrect. The Weekly Standard is a neo-conservative opinion magazine, and does not qualify by Wikipedia's standards as a source supporting factual content.
 * In fact, the vulnerability to TWS to liable suits, and their high visibility, should add credibility to the source.
 * Incorrect. As an opinion magazine, their blatherings are recognized as mere opinion, and are thus more resistant to libel litigation.  Regardless, neither that, nor visibility equate to editorial oversight, which TWS lacks, for reliability concerns here.
 * They report that he claimed a 1966 DaNang plane crash, and the Pentagon says nonsense.
 * Incorrect. They mention nothing about plane crashes or the Pentagon. (I believe you are thinking of the Overend article where he claims he was 'told' by someone about a Danang crash.)
 * He could sue them for that, but he hasn't. He could not sue Wikipedia for repeating it in good faith, with the source documented.
 * Anyone can sue anyone for anything, so I fail to see your point. Wikipedia's BLP policy is not about suits; it is about protecting living persons from exactly this type of defamatory speculation and innuendo.
 * No violation of WP:BLP - Feel free to call for arbitration if you disagree. It's better than just constantly reverting all of my edits. Gustnado : ►Talk  06:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, there is presently no violation of WP:BLP because I have removed the content as instructed by that policy. You really do not want me to escalate this to the noticeboards, nor do I want to do so while I am still of the belief that you are operating under a simple unfamiliarity of Wikipedia policies.  From WP:BLP: "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material. Before adding or restoring material, the editor committing the edit must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources." An opinion mag isn't a "good quality reliable source", and it is hardly written neutrally to a high standard when you insert content that says some people suspect some things about this person.  Also note, "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Not only is the Weekly Standard opinion piece a non-RS, but it isn't even "about the subject of the article specifically" - there is just one sentence about Hubbard in the whole article.  The controversy about his rank can be found in several reliable sources such as newspapers, while the "no combat" and "no Vietnam" rumors can only be found in rumor-mills.  If actual reliable sources confirm those allegations, then they can go in. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)