Talk:Hani Ramadan
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d in topic Please be more careful...
| 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. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please be more careful...
editIn this edit Hemiauchenia removed both some content, and a reference, with the edit summary "Jihadwatch is not a reliable source, especially for blps".
I regard this as a careless edit. The jihadwatch item merely reproduced an article from Swissinfo. That link to the 2005 article had gone 404, years ago. But it took me less than 30 seconds to find that Swissinfo did have the original article online, at a different location.
Hemiauchenia, I strongly encourage you, if you are going to edit articles, to do so more carefully. You could trivially have found the original source yourself. If you come across citations you regard as problematic don't just shoot holes in articles. Please consider spending a minute to actually FIX the problems you perceive. Geo Swan (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: I make no apologies for removing a reference to JihadWatch, an Islamophobic conspiracy website, from Wikipedia. There is is simply no reason to cite JihadWatch in non-about self circumstances, ever. It is not "reckless" to remove information cited to it. Would it be better if I had simply left the information with a [citation needed] template instead? I agree that the actual Swissinfo article is usable, and do not object to the contents readdition. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d removed many more JihadWatch citations, maybe you should go scold him instead? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hemiauchenia Scold me for what exactly? In practically all circumstances, I found a replacement citation if Jihad Watch was used as a source. Geo Swan, Hemiauchenia had every right to remove content cited to Jihad Watch. Given that this is a BLP, all poorly sourced contentious edits must be removed immediately. A {{cn}} tag or a {{better source needed}} tag would be highly inappropriate. If you want content to be included in a BLP, the WP:ONUS is on you to find reliable sources--not on the other party. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: The comment was about GeoSwan's tone, not your actions. You've done nothing wrong as far as I am concerned. Sorry for the confusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hemiauchenia Scold me for what exactly? In practically all circumstances, I found a replacement citation if Jihad Watch was used as a source. Geo Swan, Hemiauchenia had every right to remove content cited to Jihad Watch. Given that this is a BLP, all poorly sourced contentious edits must be removed immediately. A {{cn}} tag or a {{better source needed}} tag would be highly inappropriate. If you want content to be included in a BLP, the WP:ONUS is on you to find reliable sources--not on the other party. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia: No apology needed.
Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia: No apology needed.
