Talk:Edina Leković

message: 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:
#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).
#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)
#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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Edina Lekovic. 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/20070930224838/http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/WellesleyWeek/Archive/2006/ww031306.html to http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/WellesleyWeek/Archive/2006/ww031306.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified