Talk:Latif Yahia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Latif Yahia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Unsourced claims / Misinformation

This article seems to be more about propaganda promoting a Book and Movie which are based on unsubstantiated wild claims which have actually been investigated by journalists and evidenced as false. Claims are unsourced.

Have attempted to edit page to fall in line with reality, but edits have been undone by a "random IP user". Looking at page history, this seems to have happened many times in the past. I recommend page be edited and then locked.

Trickietrickie (talk) 10:25, 06 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that the claims were "evidenced as false." Per the sources I see in the article, one reporter is alleging that others failed to do their due diligence. I don't see where that reporter did such research as to disprove the claims.

I do agree that the text had gotten flowery in the promotion of the films. I've pared back the Film section accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article I was referring to was scrubbed from the page by one of these 4 'questionable accounts': Users: "81.83.157.57", "AMA2010", "2.49.216.202", and "TVNEWS11" appear to be created for the sole purpose of erasing CITED information about the topic. Evidenced as false by Ed Caesar, in investigative journalism published in Jan 2011. (re-printed in http://www.edcaesar.co.uk/article.php?article_id=55) What I meant was there is evidence to the falsity of the claims. That's why I wrote "evidenced as false". This is especially troubling as there is NO evidence to the veracity of the claims, other than media reports referencing the claims themselves.

Noticed that this account keeps getting scrubbed of material referring to this investigative journalism. Or any claims made by journalists to the contrary of the alleged story. It increasingly appears as I gather more information, that Yehia is editing this page (And others - "political decoy" page and "Uday Hussein" page) to attempt to recreate history and sell a story, and books, and a movie. If true, Manipulation for profit: This is a dishonest, deplorable use of wikipedia, and I question whether this subject warrants a wiki:bio in the first place.

Trickietrickie (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of potentially libellous, unsourced material on here. But the interesting caveat, the subject seems to be pushing this material in his claims -and the actual sourced material, published, with verifiable interviews of 3rd parties, is being systematically deleted!

What to do when it seems the subject wants the libelous claims, to farther a fantastical story? Close the page?

The more I read about criteria for deserving a wiki bio page, the more I question if this subject is deserving of one. A stub, sure, but a full page? not-so-sure. Only problem, my assumption if page is removed, it will be put back up. ...salt it? Well, at least if page is kept accurate (showing unsubstantiated claims and verifiable opposition research), it might be of use to some poor people who actually are misled to believe the story is accurate. This is my opinion, as this is the talk page :)

Trickietrickie (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, page is being wantonly changed before my eyes -with no attempt at discussion, no notes added, ad-hominem attacks against the cited opposition authors inserted, this is pathetic, ridiculous and completely blatant.

Admin, get on the ball- I am getting SO impatient with this nonsense. If you have to moderate any changes/additions, so be it. Rollback Block&Lock. Or Delete. There are enough violations here to have the page taken down, everything but the opposition publications come from the fantastical claims made by the perpetrator (weasel word intentionally included) in the first place.

I left the page up only for the sake of poor saps who may be pulled in by this nonsensical claimsmaking in the future.

Recommend revert&lock, or delete&salt. Trickietrickie (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

None of these articles contain photographs of Ajmaya and Jabir the detractors of Yahia's story and other than heresay they do not provide any documents or solid proof of their allegations, in a time where there are no real journalists of the caliber of Marie Colvin (who has interviewed Yahia), Ed Bradley, Stephen Sakur, John Simpson and David Frost (who have also interviewed Yahia) it is interesting to note that neither Ed Caesar or Eoin butler are particularly well noted or known journalists. What these two journalists do have in common however are blogs that are nearly devoted to the subject of Yahia and are updated regularly to make the most of this draw, it would seem that the only attention that Eoin Butler and Ed Caesar can get is by expanding on their blogs about Yahia. Yahia has however answered these allegations on his own website in several articles, one article titled Pass me the spinach the links to which have previously been removed on this page by a contributing editor called C.Fred, discusses in depth the allegations made by Caesar and Butler in their articles, his ex-wife, Ajmaya and Jabir. http://latifyahia2006.blogspot.com/2011/04/pass-me-spinach-font-face-font-family.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMA2010 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that reliable sources probably include The Guardian and The Sunday Times. The allegations, while adverse to this subject, are notable and in fact speak to this individual's notability. Giving a balanced view is important, but that's not achieved by blanking sections and reverting genuine improvements to the text. If you're concerned with undue weight, adding text stating the subject refutes the allegations would be appropriate. JFHJr (㊟) 05:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should adverse claims not be mentioned?

Please would the person who is removing all mentions - from the article and the discussion page - of any controversy or dispute concerning Latif Yahia discuss it here without removing or rewriting anyone else's comments. I for one see no reason why such claims should not be mentioned in the article. Please also describe why the article requires so many external links, with reference to WP:EL if possible. NebY (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced claims (2)

Latif Yahia has answered these allegations against him and the truth of his story in an article on his website. The two journalists who are cited on this bio are not "investigative journalists" you can search under their newspapers to find this fact. Eoin Butler writes music and lifestyle pieces for weekend editions of The Irish Times. Ed Ceasar, while interviewing people for the article only laid down their "opinions" or their "allegations" and did not provide proof, he used the words of others as "proof" the claims asserted by these individuals is not backed up by hard proof, these claims are unsubstantiated and unverified. Since the decision was taken to edit this page it has gone from being balanced to being libelous, there is nothing left on this page worth reading. Since Latif Yahia's story has been in the media now for 20 years it is curious to me that only now after the release of a movie made about his life story that it has received this amount of attention and debate. If you truly believe that this page is only here for self-promotion then I agree that it should be taken down and salted. From the answers that I have seen here on the talk page it is obvious that there is more than an eagerness to edit the page but maybe a personal vendetta against the subject Latif Yahia. Either way this page is one sided and additions that are positive are needed to balance it, I have tried to do this in the past but have been blocked. Do none of you (editors) believe that of the other thousands of journalists that have interviewed Yahia over the years did their jobs or are you just happy with what the two journalists cited have said? There are thousands of articles out there, I don't see any mention of them here. If anyone is interested enough in the article written by Latif Yahia to counter these allegation he has provided proof and photographs. (Dirty Tricks and media manipulation) The removal of some external links and "positives" in the article started with these editors Trickietrickie Bbb23 JFHJr NebY Anyanghaseyo ClueBot NG Jamo58 If this response/talk is removed I will only be able to assume that this page is being edited with a specific aim in mind, if that is so then I shall be contacting Wikipedia again to inform them of the matter and asking for the page to be deleted permanently.TVNEWS11 (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC))(talk)

I've reverted your latest addition Latif Yahia's position. Self-published sources such as the subject's blog should not be used to support claims involving third parties, or any self-serving claims. See WP:BLPSPS. Instead, please cite a reliable source when making additions or changes. See WP:RS. Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 17:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking down the article

I have decided after viewing the Wikipedia page about me to open this page myself, it is in my name as I do not have to hide behind user names and anonymity. To those who have taken the time and energy to discredit me, I am in the process of making Wikipedia take down the bio, I did not want, ask or make it and it is completely biased against me.Yahialatif (talk)Latif Yahia 15:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP concerns: reliable sources and undue weight

I've been involved in editing the article recently, and I think fresh eyes would be helpful. This is just to recap, while awaiting whatever happens through OTRS. The subject is notable. As far as I can tell, notability rests on the claims he made about being Uday Hussein's double. This person's claims are verifiable, and are the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Two sources have published articles questioning to varying degrees the veracity of those claims: Butler (2001) for The Guardian and Caesar (2001) for The Sunday Times. Prose in the article sourced to this critical coverage has been removed repeatedly by WP:SPA.

Generally, as the editor(s?) in question have eliminated unfavorable prose, they inserted inline external links to the subject's official website as citations, at times using them to source content involving third parties, from the CIA to the journalists above. (TV1 TV2 TV3 TV4 TV5); (AMA1 AMA2 AMA3 AMA4 AMA5) (P1 P2 P3). See this edit and this note at talk (or any of several like it) questioning the credibility of the journalists themselves: one writes music and lifestyle pieces in weekend editions; the other journalist published unsubstantiated hearsay; and they are both freelance, not staff. See also this edit, to the effect that the subject has put forward lots of evidence to support his claim, and that it has gone undisputed for the most part.

In particular, the subject's publication has been offered as a refutation of third parties' adverse claims, which I think makes them self-serving statements. Presenting the information as such is a clear problem under WP:BLPSPS points 1, 2, and 4; when used as the sole reference for a subsection, it probably goes against the spirit of point 5 also. Even suspending judgment on BLPSPS, the blog in question would not fare well as far as WP:RS or WP:POV for sourcing as a threshold issue. And the use of this source to assert anything has been refuted also runs afoul of WP:FORUM – that conclusion is simply original research. While prose sourced from the BLPSPS doesn't belong in the article, it is currently used to state that the subject disputes the publications, which I think is appropriate.

The SPA do raise a point regarding the reliability of the critical publications, which is something that we might discuss here. Personally, I find no reliability problems at hand because the journalists were subject to the editorial oversight of their respective publishers, even if they do freelance. It might be open to discussion, though. I also think WP:UNDUE should be given a look. I'm not entirely convinced a whole section devoted to criticism is merited. What was diffed-out here might present a suitable weight for the critical coverage given, since both examples were published in the wake of movie coverage (in the first line of each). I hope non-conflicted editors, both previously involved and uninvolved, will have a look at these issues and put forth any others here. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a fair summary and a valuable reference for the various Wikipedia policies that apply. Particularly, I agree that the subject is notable due to his accounts of episodes in his life, published in autobiographical books, in his blog and in interviews. Having placed those accounts in the public view, he is not in a position to prevent discussion of them or to ensure that no critical or sceptical examinations of them appear. The fact that some interviewers have not crtitically examined his accounts does not mean that scepticism is inappropriate.

However the article may be a little unbalanced in scope and structure. The opening section of Life concerns just his life in Iraq while the (unusually-titled) Challenges section concerns scepticism about other periods of his life as well, and then the Death Threats section merges accounts by the subject and others of one episode and its consequences. We might be able to achieve more balance if Life covered the entirety of his life (though not in exhaustive detail), to be followed by a swift Controversy section. This might not require quite such lengthy detail as at present if we have already described more of the dramatic life-history that has occasioned this questioning. NebY (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted non-encyclopedic content. Youtube is not an acceptable source; see WP:RS, WP:BLPSPS. Third party coverage is required to show the encycopedic and biographcial significance of the details in question. I also removed opinionated editorializing about the documentary. In fact, the source offered does not support the claims made in any way. Also, I removed poorly-formatted (bold, numbered) additions. See WP:MOS generally. Most of these sourcing and content issues have been previously discussed, and have been archived here. If SamJohn2000 (talk · contribs) would like to challenge or change editorial consensus, repeated addition of the text in question is not acceptable. Discuss here or at WP:BLPN. JFHJr (㊟) 19:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

JFHJr Every reference that has been added to this biography not only by me but many others has been edited, reverted or removed by you. If you will not allow the subject of the biography's own blog to be used as a reference then by turn the personal blog of other contributors cannot be considered encyclopedic reference. It is part of the Wikipedia conversation that this article should be balanced, yet several attempts made to that end have been removed because of text issues or format. You state that "third party coverage is required to show encyclopedic and biographical significance" http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/national-geographic-channel/shows/locked-up-abroad-1/ngc-hellish-prison-cell/

If National Geographic is not enough of a third party encyclopedic reference for you I think you should tell the world what you would accept as a reference. If you cannot tell us what you would accept and cannot accept National Geographic channel as one, then one can only make one assumption, you are not editing this article in an even handed and unbiased manner. If you have studied law as you introduce yourself on your page, "My name is John and I'm from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. I'm most interested in Japan, history, politics, comparative religion, international law, public law, human rights, and historical linguistics. I also study an ever-growing list of languages. I love split infinitives and loathe "they." then you should know that to judge someone there must be physical evidence, photographs, documents or eye witnesses. Personal opinion or hearsay is unacceptable. Neither the article by Ed Caesar or Eoin Butler provide photographs of the persons who challenge Yahia's claims, documents that prove he isn't who he says he is and those that purport to be witnesses bring only hearsay to the article. If you are looking for documents to prove Latif Yahia's story then you need look no further than his books, which I am sure you have never read. I removed from the article the word "investigative". Neither on respective journalists websites nor on their bylines do either Ed Ceasar or Eoin Butler call themselves "Investigative Journalists" since we are giving people only the credit which can be proved by "third party coverage" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamJohn2000 (talk • contribs)

I am not going to weigh in on this content dispute, but suffice to say that any changes need consensus before being made, especially the removal of sourced information or the addition of sources which don't clearly meet WP:BLP. Continued edit warring can result in the article being locked (protected) and disruptive users blocked. Note, I'm currently handling this dispute through OTRS. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored the interview at first, with the non-YouTube cite. But I hadn't watched the whole video at that URL; my bad. It doesn't actually contain the subject's discussion of challenges. We're left with Yahia giving an interview, which is not really that special. Instead, I thought it best to rephrase that he was the subject of an episode. That way, the article includes a statement that's supported by a reliable source. As to the rest of the above, WP:PRIMARY sources are usually not alright, and YouTube almost never is. Finally, I find the guessing game at my education and the copy-paste of my userpage rather bizarre and very irrelevant to this discussion. Please, let's keep on topic. JFHJr (㊟) 22:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The two journalists who are cited on this bio Eoin Butler and Ed Ceasar are not "investigative journalists"

Neither on respective journalists websites nor on their bylines do either Ed Ceasar or Eoin Butler call themselves "Investigative Journalists" since we are giving people only the credit which can be proved by "third party coverage" Latif Yahia has answered these allegations against him and the truth of his story in an article on his website. The two journalists who are cited on this bio are not "investigative journalists" you can search under their newspapers to find this fact. Eoin Butler writes music and lifestyle pieces for weekend editions of The Irish Times. Ed Ceasar, while interviewing people for the article only laid down their "opinions" or their "allegations" and did not provide proof, he used the words of others as "proof" the claims asserted by these individuals is not backed up by hard proof, these claims are unsubstantiated and unverified. Since the decision was taken to edit this page it has gone from being balanced to being libelous, there is nothing left on this page worth reading. Since Latif Yahia's story has been in the media now for 20 years it is curious to me that only now after the release of a movie made about his life story that it has received this amount of attention and debate. If you truly believe that this page is only here for self-promotion then I agree that it should be taken down and salted. From the answers that I have seen here on the talk page it is obvious that there is more than an eagerness to edit the page but maybe a personal vendetta against the subject Latif Yahia. Either way this page is one sided and additions that are positive are needed to balance it, I have tried to do this in the past but have been blocked. Do none of you (editors) believe that of the other thousands of journalists that have interviewed Yahia over the years did their jobs or are you just happy with what the two journalists cited have said? There are thousands of articles out there, I don't see any mention of them here. If anyone is interested enough in the article written by Latif Yahia to counter these allegation he has provided proof and photographs. (Dirty Tricks and media manipulation) The removal of some external links and "positives" in the article started with these editors JFHJr Trickietrickie Bbb23 NebY Anyanghaseyo ClueBot NG Jamo58 If this response/talk is removed I will only be able to assume that this page is being edited with a specific aim in mind, if that is so then I shall be contacting Wikipedia again to inform them of the matter and asking for the page to be deleted permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVNEWS11 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The community considered this matter about three weeks ago, and the consensus, based on Wikipedia policies brought up in the discussion, was to keep the article: see WP:Articles for deletion/Latif Yahia. —C.Fred (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

NO SURPRISE C.Fred

The decision to "keep" the article by the consensus of the few editors that had enough knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia to be able to add their voices to the debate, is of no surprise. Since it is the "consensus" that Latif Yahia is well known enough to have a bio page on Wikipedia, could we at least try to balance it? My first suggestion for your consideration is the use of the term "investigative" in association with the journalists cited, Ed Caesar and Eoin Butler. Neither they themselves nor the publications that have printed their articles have referenced them as such and to continue to give them this title is incorrect, especially considering the material contained in all Wikipedia articles is of an "encyclopedic nature". As you seem to be the editor with most time spent governing this bio, I am directing this talk to you. If you do not wish to browse the net for other articles penned by Ed Caesar and Eoin Butler to confirm that they are NOT "investigative" journalists I will happily provide you with links to their other published works, I will also happily link the definition for the word "investigative" if you like. Since we are confined to discuss this matter here on the talk page, I believe that it would be easily settled if this word was removed, then you will not have the frustration of the many supporters of Latif Yahia attempting to edit the article themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVNEWS11 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Straightforward request. I've removed it from the intro. If anybody has a reason to restore the word investigative, they're welcome to—but then they should explain the reasoning here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU C.Fred

As the title says, thank you. Now that that matter has been cleared may I draw your attention to another. The link to Ed Caesar's Article for "the Sunday Times" actually links to his personal website, Ed caesar's personal website, generally unacceptable as Encylopedic material while the article has been published and is in the public domain, as I am aware personal blogs are not considered to be reliable sources of information according to Wikipedia policies, can I ask that this link be removed? On a similar matter I would like to tackle the issue of Eoin Butler's articles which may be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" (please see attached quote from one of his articles on Latif Yahia below titled "I wasn't the Devil's Double I made the whole thing up" posted before the Ed Caesar article went to press and updated weekly since then)

"I’m not an investigative journalist. The magazine I was working for didn’t have any budget to scrutinize this man’s claim’s. All it took me to figure out that Latif Yahia’s story didn’t even begin to add up was actually bothering to read his "fucking book" – I Was the Devil’s Double – the one that’s now being made into a multimillion dollar film. I don’t want to pre-empt anything that might, or might not, be in Ed’s article tomorrow. Yahia is notoriously litigious and, last I heard, the legal people had yet to approve certain aspects of the article. Nor do I intend to overstate my own small part in helping it come to fruition." "Eoin Butler Blog"

Eoin Butler while unsuccessful in getting most of his personal rants against Latif Yahia published has published five articles on his personal blog,Here are the five blogs Eoin Butler has written on Latif Yahia

Eoin Butler provided Ed Caesar with information for his Sunday Times piece therefore propagating his personal dislike for Latif Yahia (you only need to read any one of his blogs on this subject matter to figure out it's personal) considering that Eoin Butler has such a dislike for Latif Yahia one would think that he would be able to get the title of the book he supposedly read correct(see above quote)While his piece for the Guardian is also in the public domain it contains no factual information or proof, just more of his personal observations on the subject Latif Yahia.

Can I also suggest that we discuss the removal of the word "Claims" from the intro, while two journalists have raised questions about Latif Yahia's Life story, he has been in the media for over twenty years and it is only in the time since the production of the movie on his life story that there has been such controversy. A suggestion might read "Two journalists have questioned Latif Yahia's life story"

Thank you for your time and I hope that together we can balance this article. TVNEWS11 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is the subject of a legal complaint made by Latif Yahia. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2011/aug/13/devils-double-tangled-tale (talk • contribs)TVNEWS11 (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

From the guardian article / GO to the article

This article seems to be more about propaganda promoting a Book and Movie which are based on unsubstantiated wild claims which have actually been investigated by journalists and evidenced as false. Claims are unsourced.

Have attempted to edit page to fall in line with reality, but edits have been undone by a "random IP user". Looking at page history, this seems to have happened many times in the past. I recommend page be edited and then locked.

Trickietrickie (talk) 10:25, 06 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that the claims were "evidenced as false." Per the sources I see in the article, one reporter is alleging that others failed to do their due diligence. I don't see where that reporter did such research as to disprove the claims.

I do agree that the text had gotten flowery in the promotion of the films. I've pared back the Film section accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article I was referring to was scrubbed from the page by one of these 4 'questionable accounts': Users: "81.83.157.57", "AMA2010", "2.49.216.202", and "TVNEWS11" appear to be created for the sole purpose of erasing CITED information about the topic. Evidenced as false by Ed Caesar, in investigative journalism published in Jan 2011. (re-printed in http://www.edcaesar.co.uk/article.php?article_id=55) What I meant was there is evidence to the falsity of the claims. That's why I wrote "evidenced as false". This is especially troubling as there is NO evidence to the veracity of the claims, other than media reports referencing the claims themselves.

Noticed that this account keeps getting scrubbed of material referring to this investigative journalism. Or any claims made by journalists to the contrary of the alleged story. It increasingly appears as I gather more information, that Yehia is editing this page (And others - "political decoy" page and "Uday Hussein" page) to attempt to recreate history and sell a story, and books, and a movie. If true, Manipulation for profit: This is a dishonest, deplorable use of wikipedia, and I question whether this subject warrants a wiki:bio in the first place.

Trickietrickie (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of potentially libellous, unsourced material on here. But the interesting caveat, the subject seems to be pushing this material in his claims -and the actual sourced material, published, with verifiable interviews of 3rd parties, is being systematically deleted!

What to do when it seems the subject wants the libelous claims, to farther a fantastical story? Close the page?

The more I read about criteria for deserving a wiki bio page, the more I question if this subject is deserving of one. A stub, sure, but a full page? not-so-sure. Only problem, my assumption if page is removed, it will be put back up. ...salt it? Well, at least if page is kept accurate (showing unsubstantiated claims and verifiable opposition research), it might be of use to some poor people who actually are misled to believe the story is accurate. This is my opinion, as this is the talk page :)

Trickietrickie (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, page is being wantonly changed before my eyes -with no attempt at discussion, no notes added, ad-hominem attacks against the cited opposition authors inserted, this is pathetic, ridiculous and completely blatant.

Admin, get on the ball- I am getting SO impatient with this nonsense. If you have to moderate any changes/additions, so be it. Rollback Block&Lock. Or Delete. There are enough violations here to have the page taken down, everything but the opposition publications come from the fantastical claims made by the perpetrator (weasel word intentionally included) in the first place.

I left the page up only for the sake of poor saps who may be pulled in by this nonsensical claimsmaking in the future.

Recommend revert&lock, or delete&salt. Trickietrickie (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

None of these articles contain photographs of Ajmaya and Jabir the detractors of Yahia's story and other than heresay they do not provide any documents or solid proof of their allegations, in a time where there are no real journalists of the caliber of Marie Colvin (who has interviewed Yahia), Ed Bradley, Stephen Sakur, John Simpson and David Frost (who have also interviewed Yahia) it is interesting to note that neither Ed Caesar or Eoin butler are particularly well noted or known journalists. What these two journalists do have in common however are blogs that are nearly devoted to the subject of Yahia and are updated regularly to make the most of this draw, it would seem that the only attention that Eoin Butler and Ed Caesar can get is by expanding on their blogs about Yahia. Yahia has however answered these allegations on his own website in several articles, one article titled Pass me the spinach the links to which have previously been removed on this page by a contributing editor called C.Fred, discusses in depth the allegations made by Caesar and Butler in their articles, his ex-wife, Ajmaya and Jabir. http://latifyahia2006.blogspot.com/2011/04/pass-me-spinach-font-face-font-family.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMA2010 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that reliable sources probably include The Guardian and The Sunday Times. The allegations, while adverse to this subject, are notable and in fact speak to this individual's notability. Giving a balanced view is important, but that's not achieved by blanking sections and reverting genuine improvements to the text. If you're concerned with undue weight, adding text stating the subject refutes the allegations would be appropriate. JFHJr (㊟) 05:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should adverse claims not be mentioned?

Please would the person who is removing all mentions - from the article and the discussion page - of any controversy or dispute concerning Latif Yahia discuss it here without removing or rewriting anyone else's comments. I for one see no reason why such claims should not be mentioned in the article. Please also describe why the article requires so many external links, with reference to WP:EL if possible. NebY (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced claims (2)

Latif Yahia has answered these allegations against him and the truth of his story in an article on his website. The two journalists who are cited on this bio are not "investigative journalists" you can search under their newspapers to find this fact. Eoin Butler writes music and lifestyle pieces for weekend editions of The Irish Times. Ed Ceasar, while interviewing people for the article only laid down their "opinions" or their "allegations" and did not provide proof, he used the words of others as "proof" the claims asserted by these individuals is not backed up by hard proof, these claims are unsubstantiated and unverified. Since the decision was taken to edit this page it has gone from being balanced to being libelous, there is nothing left on this page worth reading. Since Latif Yahia's story has been in the media now for 20 years it is curious to me that only now after the release of a movie made about his life story that it has received this amount of attention and debate. If you truly believe that this page is only here for self-promotion then I agree that it should be taken down and salted. From the answers that I have seen here on the talk page it is obvious that there is more than an eagerness to edit the page but maybe a personal vendetta against the subject Latif Yahia. Either way this page is one sided and additions that are positive are needed to balance it, I have tried to do this in the past but have been blocked. Do none of you (editors) believe that of the other thousands of journalists that have interviewed Yahia over the years did their jobs or are you just happy with what the two journalists cited have said? There are thousands of articles out there, I don't see any mention of them here. If anyone is interested enough in the article written by Latif Yahia to counter these allegation he has provided proof and photographs. (Dirty Tricks and media manipulation) The removal of some external links and "positives" in the article started with these editors Trickietrickie Bbb23 JFHJr NebY Anyanghaseyo ClueBot NG Jamo58 If this response/talk is removed I will only be able to assume that this page is being edited with a specific aim in mind, if that is so then I shall be contacting Wikipedia again to inform them of the matter and asking for the page to be deleted permanently.TVNEWS11 (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC))(talk)

I've reverted your latest addition Latif Yahia's position. Self-published sources such as the subject's blog should not be used to support claims involving third parties, or any self-serving claims. See WP:BLPSPS. Instead, please cite a reliable source when making additions or changes. See WP:RS. Thank you. JFHJr (㊟) 17:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking down the article

I have decided after viewing the Wikipedia page about me to open this page myself, it is in my name as I do not have to hide behind user names and anonymity. To those who have taken the time and energy to discredit me, I am in the process of making Wikipedia take down the bio, I did not want, ask or make it and it is completely biased against me.Yahialatif (talk)Latif Yahia 15:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP concerns: reliable sources and undue weight

I've been involved in editing the article recently, and I think fresh eyes would be helpful. This is just to recap, while awaiting whatever happens through OTRS. The subject is notable. As far as I can tell, notability rests on the claims he made about being Uday Hussein's double. This person's claims are verifiable, and are the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Two sources have published articles questioning to varying degrees the veracity of those claims: Butler (2001) for The Guardian and Caesar (2001) for The Sunday Times. Prose in the article sourced to this critical coverage has been removed repeatedly by WP:SPA.

Generally, as the editor(s?) in question have eliminated unfavorable prose, they inserted inline external links to the subject's official website as citations, at times using them to source content involving third parties, from the CIA to the journalists above. (TV1 TV2 TV3 TV4 TV5); (AMA1 AMA2 AMA3 AMA4 AMA5) (P1 P2 P3). See this edit and this note at talk (or any of several like it) questioning the credibility of the journalists themselves: one writes music and lifestyle pieces in weekend editions; the other journalist published unsubstantiated hearsay; and they are both freelance, not staff. See also this edit, to the effect that the subject has put forward lots of evidence to support his claim, and that it has gone undisputed for the most part.

In particular, the subject's publication has been offered as a refutation of third parties' adverse claims, which I think makes them self-serving statements. Presenting the information as such is a clear problem under WP:BLPSPS points 1, 2, and 4; when used as the sole reference for a subsection, it probably goes against the spirit of point 5 also. Even suspending judgment on BLPSPS, the blog in question would not fare well as far as WP:RS or WP:POV for sourcing as a threshold issue. And the use of this source to assert anything has been refuted also runs afoul of WP:FORUM – that conclusion is simply original research. While prose sourced from the BLPSPS doesn't belong in the article, it is currently used to state that the subject disputes the publications, which I think is appropriate.

The SPA do raise a point regarding the reliability of the critical publications, which is something that we might discuss here. Personally, I find no reliability problems at hand because the journalists were subject to the editorial oversight of their respective publishers, even if they do freelance. It might be open to discussion, though. I also think WP:UNDUE should be given a look. I'm not entirely convinced a whole section devoted to criticism is merited. What was diffed-out here might present a suitable weight for the critical coverage given, since both examples were published in the wake of movie coverage (in the first line of each). I hope non-conflicted editors, both previously involved and uninvolved, will have a look at these issues and put forth any others here. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a fair summary and a valuable reference for the various Wikipedia policies that apply. Particularly, I agree that the subject is notable due to his accounts of episodes in his life, published in autobiographical books, in his blog and in interviews. Having placed those accounts in the public view, he is not in a position to prevent discussion of them or to ensure that no critical or sceptical examinations of them appear. The fact that some interviewers have not crtitically examined his accounts does not mean that scepticism is inappropriate.

However the article may be a little unbalanced in scope and structure. The opening section of Life concerns just his life in Iraq while the (unusually-titled) Challenges section concerns scepticism about other periods of his life as well, and then the Death Threats section merges accounts by the subject and others of one episode and its consequences. We might be able to achieve more balance if Life covered the entirety of his life (though not in exhaustive detail), to be followed by a swift Controversy section. This might not require quite such lengthy detail as at present if we have already described more of the dramatic life-history that has occasioned this questioning. NebY (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted non-encyclopedic content. Youtube is not an acceptable source; see WP:RS, WP:BLPSPS. Third party coverage is required to show the encycopedic and biographcial significance of the details in question. I also removed opinionated editorializing about the documentary. In fact, the source offered does not support the claims made in any way. Also, I removed poorly-formatted (bold, numbered) additions. See WP:MOS generally. Most of these sourcing and content issues have been previously discussed, and have been archived here. If SamJohn2000 (talk · contribs) would like to challenge or change editorial consensus, repeated addition of the text in question is not acceptable. Discuss here or at WP:BLPN. JFHJr (㊟) 19:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

JFHJr Every reference that has been added to this biography not only by me but many others has been edited, reverted or removed by you. If you will not allow the subject of the biography's own blog to be used as a reference then by turn the personal blog of other contributors cannot be considered encyclopedic reference. It is part of the Wikipedia conversation that this article should be balanced, yet several attempts made to that end have been removed because of text issues or format. You state that "third party coverage is required to show encyclopedic and biographical significance" http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/national-geographic-channel/shows/locked-up-abroad-1/ngc-hellish-prison-cell/

If National Geographic is not enough of a third party encyclopedic reference for you I think you should tell the world what you would accept as a reference. If you cannot tell us what you would accept and cannot accept National Geographic channel as one, then one can only make one assumption, you are not editing this article in an even handed and unbiased manner. If you have studied law as you introduce yourself on your page, "My name is John and I'm from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. I'm most interested in Japan, history, politics, comparative religion, international law, public law, human rights, and historical linguistics. I also study an ever-growing list of languages. I love split infinitives and loathe "they." then you should know that to judge someone there must be physical evidence, photographs, documents or eye witnesses. Personal opinion or hearsay is unacceptable. Neither the article by Ed Caesar or Eoin Butler provide photographs of the persons who challenge Yahia's claims, documents that prove he isn't who he says he is and those that purport to be witnesses bring only hearsay to the article. If you are looking for documents to prove Latif Yahia's story then you need look no further than his books, which I am sure you have never read. I removed from the article the word "investigative". Neither on respective journalists websites nor on their bylines do either Ed Ceasar or Eoin Butler call themselves "Investigative Journalists" since we are giving people only the credit which can be proved by "third party coverage" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamJohn2000 (talk • contribs)

I am not going to weigh in on this content dispute, but suffice to say that any changes need consensus before being made, especially the removal of sourced information or the addition of sources which don't clearly meet WP:BLP. Continued edit warring can result in the article being locked (protected) and disruptive users blocked. Note, I'm currently handling this dispute through OTRS. Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored the interview at first, with the non-YouTube cite. But I hadn't watched the whole video at that URL; my bad. It doesn't actually contain the subject's discussion of challenges. We're left with Yahia giving an interview, which is not really that special. Instead, I thought it best to rephrase that he was the subject of an episode. That way, the article includes a statement that's supported by a reliable source. As to the rest of the above, WP:PRIMARY sources are usually not alright, and YouTube almost never is. Finally, I find the guessing game at my education and the copy-paste of my userpage rather bizarre and very irrelevant to this discussion. Please, let's keep on topic. JFHJr (㊟) 22:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The two journalists who are cited on this bio Eoin Butler and Ed Ceasar are not "investigative journalists"

Neither on respective journalists websites nor on their bylines do either Ed Ceasar or Eoin Butler call themselves "Investigative Journalists" since we are giving people only the credit which can be proved by "third party coverage" Latif Yahia has answered these allegations against him and the truth of his story in an article on his website. The two journalists who are cited on this bio are not "investigative journalists" you can search under their newspapers to find this fact. Eoin Butler writes music and lifestyle pieces for weekend editions of The Irish Times. Ed Ceasar, while interviewing people for the article only laid down their "opinions" or their "allegations" and did not provide proof, he used the words of others as "proof" the claims asserted by these individuals is not backed up by hard proof, these claims are unsubstantiated and unverified. Since the decision was taken to edit this page it has gone from being balanced to being libelous, there is nothing left on this page worth reading. Since Latif Yahia's story has been in the media now for 20 years it is curious to me that only now after the release of a movie made about his life story that it has received this amount of attention and debate. If you truly believe that this page is only here for self-promotion then I agree that it should be taken down and salted. From the answers that I have seen here on the talk page it is obvious that there is more than an eagerness to edit the page but maybe a personal vendetta against the subject Latif Yahia. Either way this page is one sided and additions that are positive are needed to balance it, I have tried to do this in the past but have been blocked. Do none of you (editors) believe that of the other thousands of journalists that have interviewed Yahia over the years did their jobs or are you just happy with what the two journalists cited have said? There are thousands of articles out there, I don't see any mention of them here. If anyone is interested enough in the article written by Latif Yahia to counter these allegation he has provided proof and photographs. (Dirty Tricks and media manipulation) The removal of some external links and "positives" in the article started with these editors JFHJr Trickietrickie Bbb23 NebY Anyanghaseyo ClueBot NG Jamo58 If this response/talk is removed I will only be able to assume that this page is being edited with a specific aim in mind, if that is so then I shall be contacting Wikipedia again to inform them of the matter and asking for the page to be deleted permanently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVNEWS11 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The community considered this matter about three weeks ago, and the consensus, based on Wikipedia policies brought up in the discussion, was to keep the article: see WP:Articles for deletion/Latif Yahia. —C.Fred (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

NO SURPRISE C.Fred

The decision to "keep" the article by the consensus of the few editors that had enough knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia to be able to add their voices to the debate, is of no surprise. Since it is the "consensus" that Latif Yahia is well known enough to have a bio page on Wikipedia, could we at least try to balance it? My first suggestion for your consideration is the use of the term "investigative" in association with the journalists cited, Ed Caesar and Eoin Butler. Neither they themselves nor the publications that have printed their articles have referenced them as such and to continue to give them this title is incorrect, especially considering the material contained in all Wikipedia articles is of an "encyclopedic nature". As you seem to be the editor with most time spent governing this bio, I am directing this talk to you. If you do not wish to browse the net for other articles penned by Ed Caesar and Eoin Butler to confirm that they are NOT "investigative" journalists I will happily provide you with links to their other published works, I will also happily link the definition for the word "investigative" if you like. Since we are confined to discuss this matter here on the talk page, I believe that it would be easily settled if this word was removed, then you will not have the frustration of the many supporters of Latif Yahia attempting to edit the article themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVNEWS11 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Straightforward request. I've removed it from the intro. If anybody has a reason to restore the word investigative, they're welcome to—but then they should explain the reasoning here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU C.Fred

As the title says, thank you. Now that that matter has been cleared may I draw your attention to another. The link to Ed Caesar's Article for "the Sunday Times" actually links to his personal website, Ed caesar's personal website, generally unacceptable as Encylopedic material while the article has been published and is in the public domain, as I am aware personal blogs are not considered to be reliable sources of information according to Wikipedia policies, can I ask that this link be removed? On a similar matter I would like to tackle the issue of Eoin Butler's articles which may be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" (please see attached quote from one of his articles on Latif Yahia below titled "I wasn't the Devil's Double I made the whole thing up" posted before the Ed Caesar article went to press and updated weekly since then)

"I’m not an investigative journalist. The magazine I was working for didn’t have any budget to scrutinize this man’s claim’s. All it took me to figure out that Latif Yahia’s story didn’t even begin to add up was actually bothering to read his "fucking book" – I Was the Devil’s Double – the one that’s now being made into a multimillion dollar film. I don’t want to pre-empt anything that might, or might not, be in Ed’s article tomorrow. Yahia is notoriously litigious and, last I heard, the legal people had yet to approve certain aspects of the article. Nor do I intend to overstate my own small part in helping it come to fruition." "Eoin Butler Blog"

Eoin Butler while unsuccessful in getting most of his personal rants against Latif Yahia published has published five articles on his personal blog,Here are the five blogs Eoin Butler has written on Latif Yahia

Eoin Butler provided Ed Caesar with information for his Sunday Times piece therefore propagating his personal dislike for Latif Yahia (you only need to read any one of his blogs on this subject matter to figure out it's personal) considering that Eoin Butler has such a dislike for Latif Yahia one would think that he would be able to get the title of the book he supposedly read correct(see above quote)While his piece for the Guardian is also in the public domain it contains no factual information or proof, just more of his personal observations on the subject Latif Yahia.

Can I also suggest that we discuss the removal of the word "Claims" from the intro, while two journalists have raised questions about Latif Yahia's Life story, he has been in the media for over twenty years and it is only in the time since the production of the movie on his life story that there has been such controversy. A suggestion might read "Two journalists have questioned Latif Yahia's life story"

Thank you for your time and I hope that together we can balance this article. TVNEWS11 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Guardian article

This article from the guardian is the subject of a legal complaint made by Latif Yahia. (talk • contribs)TVNEWS11 (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's irrelevant here. Also, please read WP:LEGAL. JFHJr (㊟) 21:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latif Yahia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426020158/http://www.edcaesar.co.uk/article.php?article_id=55 to http://www.edcaesar.co.uk/article.php?article_id=55

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)