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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is he a U.S. citizen? Badagnani 02:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
How could he and his family move from Galilee to Haifa -- at age 2 (c.1957) -- when Palestinians were prevented from crossing the green line. Did they move there secretly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.202.154 ( talk) 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
"Simon Shaheen (b. Tarshiha, northern Galilee, 1955) is a Palestinian-born oud and violin virtuoso and composer."
This is a very problematic opening for the biography. Tarshiha is in Israel's internationally recognized borders. It is not in the disputed Palestinian territories. To say that Shaheen is "Palestinian-born" is therefore incorrect. He was born an Israeli citizen in the state of Israel. Tarshiha is not beyond the "Green Line" (not in the West Bank). If Shaheen objects to being called an Israeli and Wikipedia intends to please the subjects of its entries, then this line could read "Simon Shaheen (b. Tarshiha, northern Galilee, 1955) is a Palestinian oud and violin virtuoso and composer born in Israel." Or: "Simon Shaheen (b. Tarshiha, northern Galilee, Israel, 1955) is a Palestinian oud and violin virtuoso and composer." We should be dealing with objective realities - namely the existence of an internationally recognized geographic entity called Israel - and not succumbing to political agendas (the denial of its existence).
Kishkushim 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I certainly do not think it is our place to deny anyone their right to identify themselves as belonging to one culture or another. This is why I did not omit the identification of Mr. Shaheen as a Palestinian. Many Arabs living in Israel identify themselves as Palestinians. However, the need for geographic accuracy dictates that we indicate that the village of Tarshiha is in Israel, within the 1948 borders recognized by the overwhelming majority of the international community. If he were born in Ramallah, Gaza City or East Jerusalem, it would be a different matter. In any case, thank you for looking up the official bio and for understanding where I'm coming from!-- Kishkushim 20:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Although it may be considered "better form" to use citation-needed tags, WP:BLP policy mandates that unsourced information be removed from BLP articles immediately and without waiting for discussion or consensus. This rule is not subject to WP:3RR, so I will be reverting the undo, and I expect the offending material to be sourced before it is restored.
Thanks. — Bdb484 ( talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
And btw, while the language that you quote is accurately quoted, the rule's focus in that regard is clearly on negative information. Stress added in the following quotes.
So, for example, it says ... "Rationale: ... material we publish about living people can seriously affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends...." So nothing in the article would run afoul of the rationale of the policy.
Also, "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material: Remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith" ... and "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard."
And "Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of articles about living persons...From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles."
And -- I believe you skipped this one -- "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed."
And "Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard."
So my reading of all of this is that where, as here, the information was neither contentious or defamatory, and a quick google search by you would have revealed it to be accurate, if you wanted to be helpful the correct approach would have been to improve the article, not to delete the material you deleted.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is he a U.S. citizen? Badagnani 02:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
How could he and his family move from Galilee to Haifa -- at age 2 (c.1957) -- when Palestinians were prevented from crossing the green line. Did they move there secretly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.202.154 ( talk) 20:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
"Simon Shaheen (b. Tarshiha, northern Galilee, 1955) is a Palestinian-born oud and violin virtuoso and composer."
This is a very problematic opening for the biography. Tarshiha is in Israel's internationally recognized borders. It is not in the disputed Palestinian territories. To say that Shaheen is "Palestinian-born" is therefore incorrect. He was born an Israeli citizen in the state of Israel. Tarshiha is not beyond the "Green Line" (not in the West Bank). If Shaheen objects to being called an Israeli and Wikipedia intends to please the subjects of its entries, then this line could read "Simon Shaheen (b. Tarshiha, northern Galilee, 1955) is a Palestinian oud and violin virtuoso and composer born in Israel." Or: "Simon Shaheen (b. Tarshiha, northern Galilee, Israel, 1955) is a Palestinian oud and violin virtuoso and composer." We should be dealing with objective realities - namely the existence of an internationally recognized geographic entity called Israel - and not succumbing to political agendas (the denial of its existence).
Kishkushim 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I certainly do not think it is our place to deny anyone their right to identify themselves as belonging to one culture or another. This is why I did not omit the identification of Mr. Shaheen as a Palestinian. Many Arabs living in Israel identify themselves as Palestinians. However, the need for geographic accuracy dictates that we indicate that the village of Tarshiha is in Israel, within the 1948 borders recognized by the overwhelming majority of the international community. If he were born in Ramallah, Gaza City or East Jerusalem, it would be a different matter. In any case, thank you for looking up the official bio and for understanding where I'm coming from!-- Kishkushim 20:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Although it may be considered "better form" to use citation-needed tags, WP:BLP policy mandates that unsourced information be removed from BLP articles immediately and without waiting for discussion or consensus. This rule is not subject to WP:3RR, so I will be reverting the undo, and I expect the offending material to be sourced before it is restored.
Thanks. — Bdb484 ( talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
And btw, while the language that you quote is accurately quoted, the rule's focus in that regard is clearly on negative information. Stress added in the following quotes.
So, for example, it says ... "Rationale: ... material we publish about living people can seriously affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends...." So nothing in the article would run afoul of the rationale of the policy.
Also, "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material: Remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith" ... and "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard."
And "Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of articles about living persons...From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles."
And -- I believe you skipped this one -- "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed."
And "Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard."
So my reading of all of this is that where, as here, the information was neither contentious or defamatory, and a quick google search by you would have revealed it to be accurate, if you wanted to be helpful the correct approach would have been to improve the article, not to delete the material you deleted.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)