| Revision as of 20:09, 11 August 2011 editObjectively (talk | contribs)51 edits →Khamis Gaddafi: keep reverting and it will get you blocked← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:20, 11 August 2011 edit undoKudzu1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users20,866 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :::I've tried to open discussion here and on the ], but you've started edit warring with me and other editors, and that's really unacceptable. I've alerted administrators to help close this issue.--] (]) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | :::I've tried to open discussion here and on the ], but you've started edit warring with me and other editors, and that's really unacceptable. I've alerted administrators to help close this issue.--] (]) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I'm going to have to support Objectively here. Any attempt on our part to interpret ] is ], something explicitly discouraged by Misplaced Pages guidelines. -] (]) 20:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:20, 11 August 2011
Khamis Gaddafi
I have some trouble with a recent edit you made to the biography on Khamis Gaddafi. Both sides in the Libyan conflict have used propaganda, and have been manipulative of international media, if not outright lying to it. So adding the phrase "it was proven to be false" seems to place Misplaced Pages in the position of choosing one untrustworthy side over the other, and that's something we need to avoid here. Even the Fox News article the phrase was sourced to only refers to "a man Libyan state television said was Muammar al-Qaddafi's youngest son". If the source is unsure, then we can't use it to make a definitive claim one way or another with words like "proven". Thanks!--Objectively (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Khamis appeared on Libyan TV, it was clearly him, and referred to events happenned after his rumored death. Debate is over and rumor debunked like the previous one.--FreemanSA (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm trying to keep the article unbiased, but your edits would have us represent Gaddafi's point of view only. Our reliable sources reporting on this story still place reports in context with phrases like "according to Libyan state television..." or "Khamis Gaddafi's appearance, if genuine...". So we need the article to reflect the uncertainly of its sources. Thanks!--Objectively (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've tried to open discussion here and on the talk page, but you've started edit warring with me and other editors, and that's really unacceptable. I've alerted administrators to help close this issue.--Objectively (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to support Objectively here. Any attempt on our part to interpret WP:RS is WP:POV, something explicitly discouraged by Misplaced Pages guidelines. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)