Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei: Difference between revisions
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
:::I think there are 3 core policies of Wikipedia, not specifically of BLP. And there are clearly varying opinions of what a reliable source is, but again I think this process should help with that.--[[Special:Contributions/99.162.60.191|99.162.60.191]] ([[User talk:99.162.60.191|talk]]) 23:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC) |
:::I think there are 3 core policies of Wikipedia, not specifically of BLP. And there are clearly varying opinions of what a reliable source is, but again I think this process should help with that.--[[Special:Contributions/99.162.60.191|99.162.60.191]] ([[User talk:99.162.60.191|talk]]) 23:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Uh? Reliable sources cannot be debated. [[Tehran Times]] and phony Iranian doctors are not reliable sources. Here is a common issue: Editing has become personalized. Disputes have boiled down to "in my opinion," "I think," "I believe" etc..etc..rather than focusing on core BLP laws. As stated by [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]], the three core guidelines are: [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. Most important clause: {{cquote|The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.}} I'm not targeting you or attacking you or alienating you. I'm simply providing required reading. To say "there are clearly varying opinions of what a reliable source is" demonstrates a lack of understanding of not only BLP guidelines, but wikipedia rules in general. This is simple simple stuff. Once users get this then we can move on to actually editing. [[User:Wikifan12345|Wikifan12345]] ([[User talk:Wikifan12345|talk]]) 23:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC) |
:::Uh? Reliable sources cannot be debated. [[Tehran Times]] and phony Iranian doctors are not reliable sources. Here is a common issue: Editing has become personalized. Disputes have boiled down to "in my opinion," "I think," "I believe" etc..etc..rather than focusing on core BLP laws. As stated by [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]], the three core guidelines are: [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. Most important clause: {{cquote|The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.}} I'm not targeting you or attacking you or alienating you. I'm simply providing required reading. To say "there are clearly varying opinions of what a reliable source is" demonstrates a lack of understanding of not only BLP guidelines, but wikipedia rules in general. This is simple simple stuff. Once users get this then we can move on to actually editing. [[User:Wikifan12345|Wikifan12345]] ([[User talk:Wikifan12345|talk]]) 23:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::First of all, I didn't say you were attacking me. Secondly, if you were trying to get semantical about it they are actually ''policies'' of Wikipedia in general, not guidelines specific to BLP individually or "BLP laws". In fact, these standards are even stronger for BLP. On what basis do you assert that Dr. Kaveh L Afrasiabi is a "phony Iranian doctor"?--[[Special:Contributions/99.162.60.191|99.162.60.191]] ([[User talk:99.162.60.191|talk]]) 23:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC) |
::::First of all, I didn't say you were attacking me. Secondly, if you were trying to get semantical about it they are actually ''policies'' of Wikipedia in general, not guidelines specific to BLP individually or "BLP laws". In fact, these standards are even stronger for BLP. On what basis do you assert that Dr. Kaveh L Afrasiabi is a "phony Iranian doctor"? That would sound like an "opinion" which you deride, and as far as I can tell your opinion is rather unsubstantiated.--[[Special:Contributions/99.162.60.191|99.162.60.191]] ([[User talk:99.162.60.191|talk]]) 23:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:59, 8 May 2009
![]() | Egypt C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | Biography C‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | Iran Unassessed | |||||||||
|
Mediation
OK, I see you are both happy for me to mediate. One question before we start, as I don't like making assumptions. Is there just the one IP editor involved in the discussion? Kevin (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes.--68.251.184.4 (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. We can get started then. I'm going to archive this page first for ease of editing. Any useful discussion can be brought back out.
- Agree to mediation as a method for resolving this dispute
Done
- Elicit participation from other users
Done
- Agree on the process
Done
- Set behavioral conditions for participation
Done
- Set a common goal - working on this now
- Make a plan for how to get to that goal (the next 4 points could be that plan)
- Agree on the policies that are relevant to this article
- Draw up a rough article outline (maybe just section headings and what relative size they should be)
- Work through sections one by one using the common goal as a yardstick to check against
- Repeat until finished
Discussion on the process
This is my suggested means of reaching a resolution. Make changes as you see fit until we're all happy. Kevin (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Elicit participation from other users
- Set behavioral conditions for participation
- Set a common goal
- Make a plan for how to get to that goal (the next 4 points could be that plan)
- Agree on the policies that are relevant to this article
- Draw up a rough article outline (maybe just section headings and what relative size they should be)
- Work through sections one by one using the common goal as a yardstick to check against
- Repeat until finished
- I thought we could make it clear that this should be done in a reasonably step-by-step manner, and that it also might make sense to solicit input from other editors as well to arrive at a better conclusion and to try to avoid a back-and-forth.--68.251.184.4 (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I suspect others may be less interested in turning up until step 5, but feel free to invite anyone. Kevin (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Solicit input from editors outside of the dispute? I disagree. I believe all users involved in the mediation must have an edit history or be an administrator/requested neutral opinion (by mediator)/editors who belong to related boards. But allowing opinions from random users would likely turn this into a POV match up, especially when most of them don't know the lengthy history behind this dispute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Kevin - a fair warning. The above IP, as well as the other 72 IP, have been involved in prior disputes with me. I would hate to see "friendly" users endorsing x side solely based on their POV or collective agreement on other articles. This is very common in controversial Israel/Palestinian/Middle Eastern articles. Therefore, I believe involvement of "invited" users would influence the integrity of the mediation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Edit: If editors were to be invited, I believe Kevin should be the one to submit requests. We as disputing editors should not be allowed to ask for opinions from friendly users. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'll keep an eye on any excessive POV problems, and will deal with them as required. At this point the history of the dispute is less important that getting the content right, and so long as they are neutral other editors could be quite helpful. User:NPguy and User:Nathan have been involved here, and may have useful opinions. Kevin (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've invited the 2 editors I noted. I don't see many others who have been involved here recently. If we reach any points where agreement cannot be reached, other opinions can be sought as needed. Kevin (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- There opinion might be useful but there involvement was minor. I don't think Nathan even edited the article. edit: And Nathan sided with the IP, though I might have to look at the discussion archive. I sent you a message, I think it is important. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Every editor's opinion is important, and we should not be resistant to those who might help. Everyone is going to take a side at some point, so I don;t see that as a particular problem. It is important that we focus on the content (when we reach that point). Kevin (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine but I don't want to see users aside from yourself eliciting friendly editors to opinion stack. We can't be naive, there is a mountain of evidence that supports similar incidents on wikipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Every editor's opinion is important, and we should not be resistant to those who might help. Everyone is going to take a side at some point, so I don;t see that as a particular problem. It is important that we focus on the content (when we reach that point). Kevin (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- There opinion might be useful but there involvement was minor. I don't think Nathan even edited the article. edit: And Nathan sided with the IP, though I might have to look at the discussion archive. I sent you a message, I think it is important. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've invited the 2 editors I noted. I don't see many others who have been involved here recently. If we reach any points where agreement cannot be reached, other opinions can be sought as needed. Kevin (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Kevin - a fair warning. The above IP, as well as the other 72 IP, have been involved in prior disputes with me. I would hate to see "friendly" users endorsing x side solely based on their POV or collective agreement on other articles. This is very common in controversial Israel/Palestinian/Middle Eastern articles. Therefore, I believe involvement of "invited" users would influence the integrity of the mediation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Solicit input from editors outside of the dispute? I disagree. I believe all users involved in the mediation must have an edit history or be an administrator/requested neutral opinion (by mediator)/editors who belong to related boards. But allowing opinions from random users would likely turn this into a POV match up, especially when most of them don't know the lengthy history behind this dispute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I suspect others may be less interested in turning up until step 5, but feel free to invite anyone. Kevin (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the rest of the process? Kevin (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Rd232 was also involved in a fair amount of the previous discussion, but I suppose someone else can invite him if they want.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I was invited to join this process. I don't expect to be heavily involved, but may chime in occasionally. NPguy (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Anyways, I was happy with the rest of the process for resolution if everyone else was.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
An outline of the problems I've identified:
- There is a statement in the archives that ElBaradei's earlier terms need expanded coverage, and no one disagreed.
- Everyone seems to agree that "Criticism of..." sections are substandard and should be avoided.
- We argued over a POV tag, held an RfC, and the consensus of the RfC was clearly that a POV tag was inappropriate in the abscence of a specific POV problem. I realize that Wikifan disagrees with this outcome.
- There has been discussion about the editing history of the article and other conduct. I think we should leave this stuff behind - we should avoid assigning blame or throwing accusations unless it becomes absolutely necessary, and to me it seems like we are still at the point where dispensing with that for now might allow a consensus form of the article to emerge.
In terms of core problems, what am I missing? Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 21:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll be brief:
- Fix the over-dependence on extremely unreliable sources.
- Reduce balancing criticisms with non-notable figures.
- End excluding RS while merging questionable sources to support facts (this is a major issue and could potentially lead to a libel accusation.)
- Reduction of IAEA/Me general mantra to counter specific claims. I.e, x says x about ME. Countered with a general opinion from ME. Unless ME responds directly, we can't continue to couch in general responses. We could potentially counter every accusation with a statement made by ME years before or years after.
- Reduce awards section. No BLP has such a lengthy award section. Nobel is fine, a little mention on the honorary degrees, but everything else is non-notable. Some BLPs have hundreds of awards, but we don't include all of them. And like I said before, the awards were a direct copy and paste from the IAEA. Even in the same order.
- Re-organize sections. Axe "first term, second term, third term etc.."
- Edit according to strict Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons standards, specifically the three core principals: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. Those should be the first pages we go to during disputes. No more "I don't like." A POV consensus cannot replace basic BLP laws.
That's all for now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- That all sounds reasonable as far as it goes. I did see you and the IPer discussing the sourcing issue; personally, I would exclude both Xinhua and VoA and severely limit any use of opinion columns (op-ed is sort of a NY Times-specific phrase that refers to a position in the physical paper, interesting fact). Xinhua and VoA are mouthpieces - intended to present the government view of the world. While the BBC is government sponsored, it differs from the other two in that the editorial control is independent - more analogous to NPR, really. I try not to rely on opinion columns because they present the imprimatur of an organization known as a reliable source but typically undergo only the most basic fact-checking (dates, names, events). In other forums there have been many discussions on sources that are reliable for some purposes but not as reliable for others; newspapers are a case on point, because the scrutiny on reporting (which has the reputation of the paper behind it) is much, much greater than that for opinions. Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 22:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Editorials from reliable sources are valuable in BLPs. There is no rule endorsing the idea that they should be excluded. I understand the resistance since there is a mountain of not-so-pleasant criticisms, but we can't simply exclude them because of that. Xinhua isn't just a mouth piece, it's communist propaganda. Period. VoA isn't in the same league, but again its reliability is questionable because it is financed and run by the US government. BBC is subsidized by the British government but not administrated by it (supposedly.) Whatever factual inaccuracies notable journalists make in editorials is totally and completely irrelevant. Just like an inaccuracy or disputed evidence from ME, Rice, George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, we can include it if it comes from a reliable source. We of course quote in the context that it is x person's commentary, and not "this are the facts, says x." ME is a controversial figure. Similar BLPS: Richard A. Falk and Alan Dershowitz both include editorial references. Plus, the claim of reliability ultimately rested on a users "opinion" of the editorial, and not actually wiki policy. However, the real problem is the complete and total omission of notable facts. 4 paragraphs on IAEA spin and ME pimping is not particularly notable. Coverage on Israel, Iran, and especially the United States must be merged, and should be the primary focus. We need information prior to 2007, barely anything has happened since then. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- There were plenty of other sources which reported the same thing as Xinhua and Voice of America, so I think it would be very easy to just change where the ref tags point to while leaving the verifiable content the same. I believe the inclusion of the op-eds is different, specifically when the op-ed contains basic mistakes within it and has claims which aren't repeated in any other reliable sources. Are we to the point of discussing problems with the article yet? I was thinking we should identify some basic guidelines first.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- No there weren't. Notice the previous versions, very few paragraphs sentences had more than one source. I can post the diff if you like. I've directed you to several similar BLPs that rely on editorials for commentary. All are from reliable sources, mostly The New York Times. Whether you identify "mistakes" is again, totally, 100%, completely, absolutely irrelevant. Unless they are totally erroneous, like ME is a Mormon from China who works for the Central Intelligence Agency, we can include it, especially if it's from a reliable source. Seeing as how the article relied on unreliable sources so disturbingly before, I think at this point any claim against excluding reliable sources shouldn't be taken very seriously. Kevin said to focus on the article rather than the individual, but I have to post this. Here you couch in a totally unreliable source by a non-notable Iranian doctor: for commentary. Why do you demand we axe Jpost/NY but allow silly books from Iranian doctors? I'm sorry if you don't like the criticism, I've seen your edits and I know how you want the article. That is fine, I'm willing to collaborate. But Jpost, NY, CNN, any site with editorials all fall under basic BLP guidelines. I've identified 3. I can post more BLPs that have editorials, some with mistakes (oh noes!). Can we get to the article now? Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I was pointing out that there are plenty of other sources which do contain the exact same material, and that the statements are not subjective assertions but verifiable statements of fact.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- There were plenty of other sources which reported the same thing as Xinhua and Voice of America, so I think it would be very easy to just change where the ref tags point to while leaving the verifiable content the same. I believe the inclusion of the op-eds is different, specifically when the op-ed contains basic mistakes within it and has claims which aren't repeated in any other reliable sources. Are we to the point of discussing problems with the article yet? I was thinking we should identify some basic guidelines first.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Editorials from reliable sources are valuable in BLPs. There is no rule endorsing the idea that they should be excluded. I understand the resistance since there is a mountain of not-so-pleasant criticisms, but we can't simply exclude them because of that. Xinhua isn't just a mouth piece, it's communist propaganda. Period. VoA isn't in the same league, but again its reliability is questionable because it is financed and run by the US government. BBC is subsidized by the British government but not administrated by it (supposedly.) Whatever factual inaccuracies notable journalists make in editorials is totally and completely irrelevant. Just like an inaccuracy or disputed evidence from ME, Rice, George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, we can include it if it comes from a reliable source. We of course quote in the context that it is x person's commentary, and not "this are the facts, says x." ME is a controversial figure. Similar BLPS: Richard A. Falk and Alan Dershowitz both include editorial references. Plus, the claim of reliability ultimately rested on a users "opinion" of the editorial, and not actually wiki policy. However, the real problem is the complete and total omission of notable facts. 4 paragraphs on IAEA spin and ME pimping is not particularly notable. Coverage on Israel, Iran, and especially the United States must be merged, and should be the primary focus. We need information prior to 2007, barely anything has happened since then. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
If we are agreed on the next steps, then setting behavioral conditions is next, then set a common goal. Are we agreed enough on the process to move on? Kevin (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- What are we agreeing on? Several of us have identified problems as you requested, but a consensus has not been reached. I'm just not familiar with the process so pardon my ignorance. ; D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- What I wanted to get sorted out first was a plan for how we will resolve the dispute, rather than how we will fix the article. I know it seems slow and you want to get to the article, but I have a reason for doing this. For weeks you have been disagreeing on virtually everything, and I want to get you working on something collaboratively before getting to the details of the article, where the real differences lie. What I want to agree on next is the numbered plan above. Kevin (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- What are we agreeing on? Several of us have identified problems as you requested, but a consensus has not been reached. I'm just not familiar with the process so pardon my ignorance. ; D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's a problem I've identified. The organization of the article around ElBaradei's three terms is artificial. Better to organize around prominent issues, in a more or less chronological sequence:
- Iraq
- North Korea
- Iran
- Libya (maybe)
- Multilateral Control of the Fuel Cycle
- Nuclear Disarmament (maybe)
Some have suggested adding Israel and Pakistan to the list. I don't see a significant functional role for ElB in those countries. NPguy (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- good list. I think Israel could be merged with Iran. ME made an attempt to categorize the state with Iran's nuclear program. There was never an investigation, but it did get a significant amount of media coverage. Currently the IP has reported me for personal attacks or something, here. This is a serious hindrance to the mediation process. We all agreed previous disputes would not be brought up (I could have just as well posted an incident report for the IP). Anyone who has an opinion feel free to add. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Getting back on track
To get back on track, I would like you both to either suggest changes to the numbered steps above, or tell me you are happy and we can move on. All this discussion on the content is useful, but premature. I am as keen as you all to get to the article, but am a firm believer in having a plan of action first. Kevin (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- At this point I more concerned about a potential block because of the noticeboard report filed by the IP. If and when that is cleared up, then the mediation should continue. Since you are leading the mediation perhaps you could suggest a speedy close at the noticeboard? It could take over a week before a decision is made. I don't want to get blocked mid-discussion here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- No-one is going to block you as a result of that discussion. I
can probably closehave closed the discussion there. Kevin (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)- Ok thanks. Shall we proceed? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes please. Kevin (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the list above..--99.162.60.191 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I'll amend the list at the very top and start the next section. Kevin (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have no objection to any of the proposed rules/goals. Ultimately the goal is to have a better article, but I agree that the immediate goal is to get out of the rut of having extended arguments over its content. NPguy (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I'll amend the list at the very top and start the next section. Kevin (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the list above..--99.162.60.191 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes please. Kevin (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ok thanks. Shall we proceed? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- No-one is going to block you as a result of that discussion. I
- At this point I more concerned about a potential block because of the noticeboard report filed by the IP. If and when that is cleared up, then the mediation should continue. Since you are leading the mediation perhaps you could suggest a speedy close at the noticeboard? It could take over a week before a decision is made. I don't want to get blocked mid-discussion here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Behavior during mediation
- Refrain from commenting on other's motives, biases etc.
- Avoid characterizations of arguments made by others (i.e. "XYZ's opinion is ridiculous")
- Leave the past behind. Nothing good can come from dredging up history we are all aware of.
- Make a good faith attempt to understand the positions of others.
We've probably dealt with most of this anyway, but this is my view. Please add or edit as required. Kevin (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- This looks good to me.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about leaving the past behind. Obviously rehashing past arguments is unproductive, but if the arguments were about something, we should perhaps crystallize that something rather than exclude it from discussion. NPguy (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I should clarify, I'm not talking about useful content discussions, just the "he said this in March" kind of thing. Kevin (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about leaving the past behind. Obviously rehashing past arguments is unproductive, but if the arguments were about something, we should perhaps crystallize that something rather than exclude it from discussion. NPguy (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. Now what? NPguy (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- As soon as Wikifan12345 says he is happy with these guidelines we can move on. Kevin (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with the terms. Can we extend the lock? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've extended for a month. Kevin (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with the terms. Can we extend the lock? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Setting a common goal
I'd like some input from the parties here before I make any suggestions here. Kevin (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Substantively, I'd like to see the article become more
- balanced, with a focus on factual narrative but a minor admixture of favorable and unfavorable commentary.
- historically representative, addressing the key issues ElBaradei was actively involved in, e.g.:
- Iraq
- Iran
- Libya
- Multilateral Nuclear Arrangements for control of the nuclear fuel cycle
- Nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament
Procedurally, I'd like to see flexibility from editors, particularly on the selection of sources of commentary. NPguy (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Flexible is relative. If commentaries fall under BLP guidelines, such as verifiability and reliable sources, they should be included. Only when commentary is redundant, encourages undue weight, and/or not notable should we consider exclusion. I think rules-of-editing need to be established pronto. Major edits and deletions should be preceded by collaborative discussion that follows strict BLP rules.
E.g: Opinion/personal POV < guidelines. Not sure how important MNA and NND is. This article is about ME. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you guys see a way to word this goal as a single sentence (or two), remembering that the ultimate goal is to serve our readers? Kevin (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- How about: To have a historically representative and balanced biography of ElBaradei which is in line with Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, historically representative and balanced biography that is dependent on reliable sources and is edited according to the 3 core principals of BLP. Period. "Balance" can be debated and argued forever, which is why wikipedia policies exist - to serve as a reminder about what should be in the article and how it should be written. Hopefully we all agree on this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think there are 3 core policies of Wikipedia, not specifically of BLP. And there are clearly varying opinions of what a reliable source is, but again I think this process should help with that.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Uh? Reliable sources cannot be debated. Tehran Times and phony Iranian doctors are not reliable sources. Here is a common issue: Editing has become personalized. Disputes have boiled down to "in my opinion," "I think," "I believe" etc..etc..rather than focusing on core BLP laws. As stated by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the three core guidelines are: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. Most important clause:
- Yeah, historically representative and balanced biography that is dependent on reliable sources and is edited according to the 3 core principals of BLP. Period. "Balance" can be debated and argued forever, which is why wikipedia policies exist - to serve as a reminder about what should be in the article and how it should be written. Hopefully we all agree on this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
“ | The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. | ” |
I'm not targeting you or attacking you or alienating you. I'm simply providing required reading. To say "there are clearly varying opinions of what a reliable source is" demonstrates a lack of understanding of not only BLP guidelines, but wikipedia rules in general. This is simple simple stuff. Once users get this then we can move on to actually editing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- First of all, I didn't say you were attacking me. Secondly, if you were trying to get semantical about it they are actually policies of Wikipedia in general, not guidelines specific to BLP individually or "BLP laws". In fact, these standards are even stronger for BLP. On what basis do you assert that Dr. Kaveh L Afrasiabi is a "phony Iranian doctor"? That would sound like an "opinion" which you deride, and as far as I can tell your opinion is rather unsubstantiated.--99.162.60.191 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)