From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. |
[edit] Well now I'm completely shocked, offended and very angry!
Someone blanked three quarters of the page claiming it is unsourced. In case it is not known enough, Wikipedia is all about trying to find sources, trying to expand and improve. And if it is not the way this project works, I do not wish to be a part of it any longer. Literally thousand of long articles lie without sources at all. It doesn't mean we have to go article by article and blank all the information as if all the written parts were just nonsense. The info on this particular article were written a long time ago, when the requirement to have all the info sourced was not that clear and bold. Editors such as--if I'm not wrong--User:Grenavitar and User:Zora took part in the writing of this article. We editors of today's Wikipedia should respect their work and try to go a few steps forward towards its improvement. The tag that was added means that the info has to be sourced, meaning - the one who added it saw that the info is not blatant vandalism but quite logical (and even good) and expected someone to source it. The tag does not mean that within one month all the info has to be deleted altogether. As long as the info is the way it is and is not challenged as if it was a piece of blatant lie (and please, can someone challenge the fact that she is one of the leading ladies of parallel cinema claiming it's a lie???), editors should try and source it, not delete. And clearly, the editor who removed all that info did not even think to google the word "Shabana Azmi" and add sources but preferred to remove it all. As someone who knows this editor, and even appreciates him and his really great work, I'm totally disappointed.
Finally I'll repeat, the tag is there to attract editors' eyes--particularly of those who have the will to improve Wikipedia--towards the article in order to make it better. Not to give it a defined time to get it blanked within one or two months. Infact, many articles remain tagged for many months and that's how they stand until there is an improvement and until the tag becomes unnecessary. That's the way Wikipedia gets better. That's the way Wikipedia has always worked. That's the reason thousand of articles evolved from poor stubs to brilliant GAs and FAs. I don't think someone can contradict this as it is a fact. Shahid • Talk2me 18:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was done by User:Classicfilms with this comment: 'article tagged for over thirty days - rmv unsourced information - restore only if provide sources'. That's it, here is the diff.--GDibyendu (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know. That's why I'm so shocked. Tomorrow I'll start looking for sources if I have the time. Shahid • Talk2me 19:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
