Talk:Rik Torfs

Neutrality

• Lead section. People who have articles on Wikipedia are by definition notable. No need to say so explicitly. "Media icon" is not a neutral term; either attribute it or replace with, say, "television personality".
• Not a neutrality issue, but link [[like this]] and not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Church like this], and don't introduce external links into the body of the article.
• Media Icon - again, not a neutral term
• "well known as a witty expert in church matters" - at a minimum, needs attribution, rephrasing or removal
• "But it was during De Slimste mens (The Smartest Person on Earth) that Rik Torfs became a national icon" - same
• "His demonstration of the macarena was one of the Youtube big hits of the summer" - which summer? There have been many thousands of summers in human history.
• "The guests in my program must be very smart and open. Based on these criteria, I would not qualify myself" and the quote on the headscarf ban - at Wikipedia, we say what secondary sources have to say about a subject. We don't reproduce their comments without context or secondary-source comment. Certainly not in bold text.
• "Torfsian ambivalence" - the phenomenon needs attribution or rephrasing
• Twitter is not a reliable source; keep that in mind
• Trivia sections are not a very good idea
• Neither are links to copyrighted videos. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability and neutrality

This article seems to be written mostly by one person (Asterysk), which makes me question its neutrality. I, as a Belgian, know who Rik Torfs is, but I wouldn't say he is notable enough to get his own article on Wikipedia. Because this article is written mostly by Asterysk, I suspect that Asterysk is a fan of Torfs, and therefore I question the neutrality of this article. Maybe some other people should check and correct it where necessary. The articles about Bart De Wever and Yves Leterme are for example part of the WikiProject Belgium, maybe these people should also take a look at this article?

P.S: I don't normally contribute to Wikipedia except for some minor spelling/grammar errors, so I just wrote this here. I don't know the 'official' procedures in this case, move this message if necessary.

--81.243.82.170 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this note. If you find anything in this article that is not a statement of fact or is speculation, please point it out. Incidentally, it has been reviewed by other contributors, most notably, by Biruitorul - you can clearly see his remarks in the previous discussion - and his suggestions were taken and corresponding edits were made. Whether I am a fan or not is moot. Asterysk (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)