| Revision as of 15:17, 5 July 2010 editStephan Schulz (talk | contribs)Administrators26,888 edits →German links considered BLP violations?: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:31, 5 July 2010 edit undoDarknessShines2 (talk | contribs)11,264 edits →German links considered BLP violations?: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| ::::::::Ok given it is a BLP and noneng also says this ''When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote'' is it not better to remove said contentious material until a translation is provided? ] (]) 15:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC) | ::::::::Ok given it is a BLP and noneng also says this ''When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote'' is it not better to remove said contentious material until a translation is provided? ] (]) 15:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::You are thrashing around for excuses now. Did you or any other editor request a translation? And how was the material contentious? No-one complained about the material - you complained about the language of the source. Finally, posting translations is only plausible if there are small snippets that can be used under fair use, or if the source is not under copyright. --] (]) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC) | :::::::::You are thrashing around for excuses now. Did you or any other editor request a translation? And how was the material contentious? No-one complained about the material - you complained about the language of the source. Finally, posting translations is only plausible if there are small snippets that can be used under fair use, or if the source is not under copyright. --] (]) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Nope i`m not trashing around at all, ''According to critics he is the source of a claim that ] is more dangerous to eat than food produced using chemical pesticides because of usage of animal manure in organic farming'' That is a contentious claim, and requires solid sourcing. There were none for it. BLP is quite clear in this, removing the content until either another source was found or a translation was made available was the right call ] (]) 15:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:31, 5 July 2010
 | Biography Stub‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
accusations of vandalism
please don´t accuse me of vandalism, i will revert radical changes that delete references without discussion. but we can discuss and meet in the middle.trueblood (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
German links considered BLP violations?
MN removed a German link because being in German it was a BLP vio . Or something; I'm really not sure what his rationale was William M. Connolley (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- And again; with "rv blp exemption claimed, blp states contentious material should be removed on sight, if the ref`s can`t be read then there is no way to verify the claims)". This claim seems dubious to me: *you* can't read them, but people who read German can William M. Connolley (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Then that ref belongs on the german wp not the english one, blp says any contentious material which can`t be verified should be removed mark nutley (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Um, yes. But *can't be verified* means "in principle" not "by you". Just because you can't read something is irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- English WP = English readers, go figure mark nutley (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Slow down, both of you, and stay in one place, please. Mark, you are wrong. Read WP:NONENG. However, the German source did not support the claim in the first place, so the article is better now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Stephan, with regards to wp:noneng it says "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote". As this was not done ca nyou tell me if i was correct in removing the source under blp? mark nutley (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, you were not. Nobody was quoting anything. Quotes are used fairly rarely on Misplaced Pages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok given it is a BLP and noneng also says this When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote is it not better to remove said contentious material until a translation is provided? mark nutley (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- You are thrashing around for excuses now. Did you or any other editor request a translation? And how was the material contentious? No-one complained about the material - you complained about the language of the source. Finally, posting translations is only plausible if there are small snippets that can be used under fair use, or if the source is not under copyright. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ok given it is a BLP and noneng also says this When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote is it not better to remove said contentious material until a translation is provided? mark nutley (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, you were not. Nobody was quoting anything. Quotes are used fairly rarely on Misplaced Pages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Stephan, with regards to wp:noneng it says "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote". As this was not done ca nyou tell me if i was correct in removing the source under blp? mark nutley (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Slow down, both of you, and stay in one place, please. Mark, you are wrong. Read WP:NONENG. However, the German source did not support the claim in the first place, so the article is better now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- English WP = English readers, go figure mark nutley (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Um, yes. But *can't be verified* means "in principle" not "by you". Just because you can't read something is irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Then that ref belongs on the german wp not the english one, blp says any contentious material which can`t be verified should be removed mark nutley (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope i`m not trashing around at all, According to critics he is the source of a claim that organic food is more dangerous to eat than food produced using chemical pesticides because of usage of animal manure in organic farming That is a contentious claim, and requires solid sourcing. There were none for it. BLP is quite clear in this, removing the content until either another source was found or a translation was made available was the right call mark nutley (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Categories: