Talk:Edina Leković

BLP problems with controversy section

the relevant passage on WP:BLP is:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

some points of order:

1. the meat of the controversy section is almost solely sourced to Steve Emerson. while notable, neither he nor his blog constitute a third-party reliable source, especially considering Emerson's slant. not a third party, because he is the one making the accusations. the whole section and its premises are sourced to Emerson, which is highly inappropriate (see below).
2. the criticism is not relevant to the subject's notability, for the sources establishing notability do not make these allegations (else we wouldn't have to be sourcing to Emerson)
3. the controversy section is heavily skewed towards accepting the premises of Emerson aimed at manufacturing and implicitly imputing fault and guilt unto Lekovic; which is why Emerson is depicted as "confront[ing]", while Lekovic is depicted as "den[ying]" and later "admitt[ing]", all the while made to apparently contradict the "facts" cited to Emerson. the allegations themselves center around guilt by association.

in closing, some reliable sources must be found discussing this issue neutrally and thoroughly, thus also connecting the incident to her notability, as WP:BLP mandates. until then, this problematic section needs to be removed. ITAQALLAH 13:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, "neither (Emerson) nor his blog constitute a third-party reliable source." In other words, no one who investigates Islamists is reliable, right?Scott Adler 00:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

why is the fact that lekovic praised bin laden not relevant in a post 9/11 environment when she is a muslim spokesperson? http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/271

this was dicussed on network television and this is clearly notable to her public persona and identity. once again, the pro-terrorist supporters on wikipedia gets their way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.227.5 (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Articles on porn stars get entire paragraphs devoted to them making silly jokes about muslims but this outrageous thing gets hushed up here? What the hell? --84.137.33.37 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, if you cite the newspaper itself which praises Osama Bin Laden - not Emerson's report but the newspaper itself why is that unacceptable?

The reasoning presented for removing the section is fallacious:

(1) Emerson is said not to be "reliable."

This is a mere allegation. He is a highly regarded counterterrorism expert in many law-enforcement circles, even if radical Muslims don't like him. He meticulously includes copies of all documentation of his claims on this particular topic. By clicking on the relevant links you can see everything he says is true. How could what he says POSSIBLY be inaccurate, given the evidence he clearly cites and you can read for yourself? pdfs of all the editions of al-talib, with her name on them, spanning 5 years, are included! Please explain to us a remotely plausible theory as to how she wasn't the editor or was only "briefly" involved!

(2) "the criticism is not relevant to the subject's notability"

Lekovic is best known as a face of moderate Islam. Any evidence which suggests otherwise is highly relevant.

(3) "controversy section is heavily skewed"

I have completely re-written it.

I also note that there is a suggestion here among a number of discussants of a pro-radical stance behind this baseless desire to censor what is important criticism of Lekovic. Most of the article is highly positive and the criticism section just provides balance.

Writer98 (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How does this change the fact that the accusations is based on association fallacy? I have removed the section. 69.115.152.137 (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Blog a reliable source on a living person?

Is the counterterrorismblog, a blog, a reliable source on a living person? I don't think so.VR _talk 19:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the relevant section is: Wikipedia:BLP#Self-published_sources.

It states

Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below).

The only blog that could possibly be used, even the with caution, is Lekovic's. I'm now proceeding to remove the section.VR _talk 19:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I have referred to a news link for which there is no particular evidence that the person who wrote the material is the person who published it. And Human Events, the other link, is a publication dating back to 1944 with dozens of contributing writers. So I don't see how the "self-published" issue arises anymore.

Note that the fact that she was untruthful when she denied ever working for Al-talib CAN BE SEEN ON VIDEO with reference to the pdf at the link I supplied. There is nothing remotely controversial about all this - is is documented and undeniable fact that she told an untruth about never having been the managing editor of a pro-Jihad magazine. Not even she tries to deny anymore that she was the managing editor of a pro-Jihad magazine! Writer98 (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)