Talk:Toney Freeman

Swedish "adventure"
Just a general remark: discussions do not take place by changing texts and edit summaries. The editing behaviour looks like a revert war. Please discuss proposed changes regarding his detainment here and show that they are inside policies of WP:no original research, WP:NPOV and WP:reliable sources... L.tak (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At 1148 I reverted to version without the headings saying he is a victim, as there have been no reliable sources quoting him as such. I think the version I put back was by no means a good or neutral version. However, it was an intermediate version that was at least backed by some sources. Heading changes here are very controversial, and I am moving it therfore back to the version with the neutral descriptive one (Detainment in Sweden). For other changes, please discuss here! L.tak (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion here,somehow I forgot to mention it on this talk page. Tim.thelion (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks, good you did. I see now references being introduced stating he was the frist to be arrested for "mustle profiling". do we have reliable sources saying (a) he was arrested, b) he was the first, c) it was on the charge/suspician of body profiling? L.tak (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He wasn't arrested for muscle profiling. Muscle profiling is not a crime commited by a body builder.  Muscle profiling is the pratice of Swedish police to question people for drug use based on their appearences.  The assumption of the sweedish police, is that if you look like you're on roids, you probably are... Tim.thelion (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so muscle profiling is a method to evaluate whether somenone is a supsect of steroid use etc. If it is a formal policy, there must be sources of that? Are you aware of any reliable source that this is what was done to him? Otherwise also this should be stated a bit more carefull I think...

statement of Toney
The present version only shows Toney Freeman made a statement (with links). I think the encyclopedic value of the statement is nto the mere fact he made a statement, but what he stated. So I propose to add to this sentence that he stated that he was released without charge, was not able to call an advocate or the embassy. Would that be ok? L.tak (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Implemented... L.tak (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Martin Kjellstrom
... was detained for 1 year according to an article on Toney Freeman, under the same law. That is a very strong statement, that deserves a source directly about that incident (the 1 year jailtime) and the exact reason (steroid use, or selling etc). Is there a good swedish/english explanatory source specific on that case? L.tak (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been looking for a source; and found not much. Only his 6 month jailtime. Again, jailtime so long without charge in a Western country is a big thing, which must have catched the media. Anyone have reliable sources here or remember this from the news? If it can not be sourced by a source directly handling this statement, it must be out (per: strong statements need strong back up by sources)! L.tak (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the info for now, as no sources have come up and no discussion was here for >24 hours. Feel free to suggest sources on this very serious thing (1 year without charge after arrest after muscle profiling) at this heading! L.tak (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What should be the heading for his arrest in Sweden?
Freeman was arrested in Sweden; that seems to be well established. "Muscle profiling" seems to be the profiling method. He used steroids according to the police. However, what the point of this section is, is clearly POV: was this a "muscle profiling" arrest (so is the encyclopedic value that he was arrested as part of this policing method), or was the arrest a "steroid abuse arrest" as that was what he was the suspicion he was arrested under, or was he a "victim of arrest", as some have stated. So in these days that we want to be careful, I suggest to make it neutral as possible: arrest in Sweden. Let me know what you think! [at this point of heading discussion it would be best to go back to the last stable version, which was Detainment in Sweden. I suggest to go back there until this resolved, but will not implement myself...] L.tak (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes "neutralising" information in the aim of making it read impartially undermines the truth or in this case, the lessons we should learn from this incident. There is no such word as "detainment" and Freeman was not detained, according to the reports. Sufficient evidence has been given to show that Swedish police employ profiling on muscular subjects with a view to finding them guilty of use of steroids or other drugs. Had Freeman not been muscular, he may not have been approached by the police. It appears that the police used the fact that Freeman was an famous figure to make an example of him and deter others (like Jay Cutler and Victor Martinez who subsequently cancelled their journeys to Sweden). It also means that muscular people are more likely to be subjected to arrest and scrutiny for drugs than others. That Freeman was denied an attorney, a US representative or family is of further concern. The "muscle profiling" is is therefore a case of human rights interest and should stand for what it is. AresXV (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)AresXV


 * He was arrested because he looked muscular. This is a fact according to our sources.  The same sources that say he tested positive for steroids. So if we are going to use the word allegedly, for the positive testing.  We have to use the word allegedly for the muscle profiling... What do you mean "detained is not a word"? Tim.thelion (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Staying on the subject of the heading: AresXV, how would chaning a heading to "arrest (or detainment for that matter) in Sweden" be undermining the truth. The whole discussion is here what the value is of the whole matter. Was it the fact that he allegedly tested positive for drugs, was it the policing method, which was allegedly dubious? Putting those things in is POV and would do well in a commentary, but not an encyclopedia... L.tak (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, none of the sources dispute the fact that he tested positive. Most of them contain editorial against the police tactic used in detaining him.  The editorial IS notable, but it is nothing but oppinion.  There is no question about whether the police used the alleged tactic.  Even the police say that they found out about the event from advertizements and had no other indication that he was on steriods beyond looking the part.  I think that the title should be descriptive of the case.  Perhaps we should make a section titled "Detainment and questioning in Sweden" and a seccond SUBSECTION titled "Controversial muscle profiling tactics" that would explain why people in the probody building community are upset about his detainment. Tim.thelion (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a viable alternative giving proper value to both... L.tak (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be factionalism going on here. There was a time when mainstream press was in denial about "driving while black", because most press industry were white and could not understand that the police had an agenda against African Americans, hence stopping them randomly, hoping to find contraband or "in contempt of cop". Folks, you can't just remove facts just because you don't like them/they don't make sense in your world! I agree with AresXV that there is a human rights issue here. Freeman was arrested because he was muscular, not because he was carrying a pipe or a joint or was menacing to the Swedish public. Whatever took place in the police station afterward was carried out under illegal legal premises and was done to humiliate Freeman. We don't want to know if he ate a dope cookie in Amsterdam last month, especially if it was was forced out of Freeman, just like it's private if Obama/Clinton smoked dope recreationally when they were kids and they said so. Hate to show off my English major here, but there is no such English word as "detainment" and the facts show he was not detained but arrested and questioned then let go. Besides, steroids don't make someone look as muscularly proficient as Freeman. You'll just bloat up like a balloon. You have to go to the gym, diet and alter your lifestyle. F1tness8uff (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)F1tness8uff
 * F1tness9uff, thanks for using talk, at least we get to come to a conclusion here.
 * I would agree that this profiling method is a bit crazy and in my view (and in my jurisdiction) crossing the line; and have no idea if their would be a safe physical description that would indicate someone has used steroids etc; furthermore, without the gym etc it's all clearly pointless. That any use in A'dam would be private I agree of as well.
 * However, when we write an encyclopedia, it is not our opinion that should count, as it leads blog/forum like discussions. Wikipedia is therefore committed to WP:reliable sources and obtaining WP:consensus through a discussion on content issues. Therefore, the human rights issues can not be brought up by you or me, but could be brought up if published in the New York Times (or even a much less known medium). That does not mean the issue is not there!
 * That having said, I still would say that the controversial profiling method is a factor, maybe his steriod use is too. I therefore agree with an extremely distanced primary heading giving only the dry facts, followed by a heading indicating the controversy it is linked with. What do you think of the headings proposed by TT?
 * Detainment or arrest: I thought detainment was less strong than arrest and therefore better, but I have no strong preference. found it on webster.com, but could be mistaken there... L.tak (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Implemented the subheading as suggested by TT. I am not fully sure if AresXV agreed, as he adressed several points far away from the heading issue... L.tak (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * L.tak: From a first glance, looks like you did a good job :) Tim.thelion (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Biography
In this version change I changed the paragraph on Freeman's biography,which was reverted by AresXV. Changes involved changing the text "gracing the cover of" to "appearing on the cover of". Chainging Toney to Freeman to address him, and changing the sentence part "in his quest to turn professional". Although these texts are well-written, I think that the are not encyclopedic, and I therefore prefer them to be changed. Input welcome here! L.tak (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think that nearly the entirety of his recent stream of edits should be reverted. Tim.thelion (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I implemented this... L.tak (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect, Tim.thelion. is a student who has very limited life experience and has demonstrated a bias against Freeman. He is annoyed that others, besides myself have made editions with references that challenge his narrow POV. The facts are out there. This guy was treated unfairly and the wiki age on him shoudl reflect that in a fair objective manner which has been agreed on by several others. Live and let live Tim F1tness8uff (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Fitness8uff
 * I don't know Tim, and even if you think/know his bias, only his actions count here; please don't make remarks regarding his psychology etc. His suggestion toward reverting all your edits without point by point comment was also a bit less than optimal, I have seen however ample other things which were constructive however. Let's focus on the matters at hand here! L.tak (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

L.tak.lk, can you confirm why you are waging a credibility campaign against me? After your claim this morning you have now registered me for creating false accounts. extremely distasteful, just because i and others do not agree with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by F1tness8uff (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspected you to be the same user as AresXV, NewsBug and TangoTara and showed evidence. A checkuser has now confirmed that. I gave you the possibility to admit it yourself, but you denied. Let's stay on the subject of this wiki (and with 1 account)! L.tak (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://contest.bodybuilding.com/bio/9/
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)