Talk:Anna Slotky

Untitled

Updated her year of birth and religion. Anna grew up 1 street from me and we're old friends. Bstone 22:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

year of birth

To whomever keeps putting Anna's year of birth at 1979- please stop. It was 1981. I should know as she grew up one block from me, we are childhood friends and she was born in 1981. I asked her just to be sure and this is what she said. Bstone (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the year of birth again. I believe it is a simple vandal who continually puts the year at 1979. Bstone (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And again. How odd someone chooses to make this deliberate factual editorial error. Bstone (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And again. Bstone (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And again. Bstone (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no verifiable reference in the article about her year of birth. Your word is not, unfortunately, a reliable source by wiki rules. Can you find something published or on the web that backs up your information? I am not sure, since I don't know who is correct, whether or not the anonymous poster is a vandal or has another source of information that conflicts. The 142.167.x.x editor looks to be different person from the 204.81.224.253 editor. I'd recommend removing the date or stating that it is approximate if you can't back it up. --NrDg 04:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I just talked to Anna and she again confirmed 1981. I understand it is not encyclopedic to take my word for it, but a quick google search does show websites showing the 1979 date. This date is is incorrect and she is unsure where they got it from. The day and month isn't even correct. There seems not to be any website with the proper birth date available. What is the appropriate procedure in this case? I am a primary source of information. Is that not somehow usable? Bstone (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Afraid not. Best thing would be to ask her where she has had that information published - she should be aware of almost everything published about her. Also if she can recall ever releasing it and if she even wants it known - she might wish to keep it private. The biggest problem is WP:V and verifiability is actually more important than accuracy. I should be able to independently check the accuracy of anything in the article that is likely to be challenged. However, if you have a printed news article from the local paper that you can refer to, it doesn't need to be on the web if you can provide complete info as described on WP:CITE for a publication. Makes it hard to independently verify, but still possible. This info would also flesh out the rest of the article as it is currently lacking ANY references.

The IP editor is possibly a vandal but is a roving and he might actually be making these changes in good faith if he has a web source - I wish he would talk to us. He IS challenging the data and you are not on firm ground unless you can back it up. --NrDg 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is once area where wikipedia's policies fail. But tell me this- would it be a violation of 3RR for me to continue to revert back to her actual birth date? Bstone (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think wikipedia's policies are as they must be. I can't KNOW that you are correct even though you appear trustworthy. I protected the page for 1 week with a message to post here for changes. I hope this will encourage the IP to enter into a discussion. You might put a message on his talk page as well asking for a dialog on this. Please try to find something that backs up your information as otherwise this just looks like a content dispute. --NrDg 16:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Would my IM conversation with Anna or an email from her (with her permission for report) be sufficient? Bstone (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it would not be usable as a reference. Check out carefully WP:BLP. Needs to be published in some reliable third party place that has a reputation for fact checking. Like a I said before, best bet is to find out from her if there is some place where this info has been published. --NrDg 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that that simply does not yet exist online. The websites which report the 1979 birthdate are not well known websites but they do exist. There are none which report the accurate 1981 date, per my exhaustive google and yahoo searching. I assume I can write to them informing them of the error but I doubt there is anyone on the other end. It is a bit disturbing to me that the accurate information in this case cannot be admitted simply due to more prevalent wrong information. Bstone (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You can also use published info that is not online if you can give a complete citation to it. Newspapers, magazines would be best. The best we can do if you can't back it up is just remove it. We can also remove other birth date additions if they don't have a good reliable source to reference, which seems likely. If the other source DOES provide a good reliable reference, even if it is wrong, it is permitted in the article as in wikipedia verifiability trumps unverifiable truth. We get to point the blame at the other publication basically. You've got a week with the article semi-protected to find something unless a logged in user changes it. That is the best I can do to help resolve this. --NrDg 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

With no offense to my old friend Anna, she hasn't been in any movies or TV shows in a long time and, as such, probably won't be the subject of any newspaper articles. She is currently in law school. I fear that this article will become one where the info is inaccurate. If Anna herself comes here and posts it is inaccurate what is the procedure? Bstone (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If she sees defamatory information she can contact Wikipedia by email and ask that it be removed. Due to WP:COI conflict of interest rules she would be strongly advised not to edit her own article but would be encouraged to participate in the talk page. She would still need to provide links to published references. We can't vet primary sources so she gets no special privileges with respect to an article about her. You could be her for all I know and everything I said still applies - same procedures and rules. Unfortunately if you can't back up the information anything with no references can be removed and it would not be vandalism to do so. The birthdate info has been challenged. I recommend you remove it completely. At that point any attempt to add it can be reverted due to privacy and lack of citation. --NrDg 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OTRS has received a ticket in reference to this lady's birthdate. I am almost at the point where I'm just going to remove it entirely until a source can be found one way or another. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Birth Date is Incorrect

It did not take very long, but the birth date has yet again been set to one which is incorrect. There are a few unreliable websites which have Anna's birth date incorrect and do not respond to emails. I assume the anon IPs are using these websites as this source of information. I will have Anna email wikipedia informing them that the birth date listed here is entirely incorrect, that she was not alive in 1979 and rather the 1981 date is correct. Bstone (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, Anna has now sent an email to wikipedia from her personal email address indicating that her birthday is incorrect. Bstone (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Per several personal conversations, and the fact that I've been to more than a few of them, Anna's birth day is June 30, 1981. I realize it is now out of the article, but when/if it returns we should make every effort to refrain from the 1979 address. Anna herself has emailed wikipedia informing the powers that be that 30 June 1981 is indeed her proper birthday. Bstone (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Her e-mail to us can't be cited as a source. We will need something published in a reliable location to verify this. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we have already discussed that. However, she has contacted wikipedia through the proper channels and informed those on the other side of the email curtain that the 1979 birthdate presented in this article is indeed wrong and that the 1981 one is correct. Like all good editors, we should issue a correction based on the correct information coming directly from the source. Bstone (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

J.S has seen the email but due to WP:OTRS rules can't reveal the contents to anyone. The most that we can do is remove information that is challenged by the subject. We can't use the email as a source of information as the email must remain confidential. Wikipedia wants correct information but if it can't be backed up properly, no information at all is the best option. --NrDg 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Part of the problem with e-mails of this nature is that I can't be entirely sure that it is valid - at least in this case. We must fall back on wikipedia policy to guide us on what is right. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

An email might even qualify as independent research. Wouldn't it have to be from a verifiable third-party source? ≈Alessandro ♫ ^{T • C} 22:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Well, ideally, yes... but realistically it could be a reasonable primary source too... such as her website, autobiography or an interview. Since this is just background information a primary source would be fine. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI. Look at how a similar situation was handled here. Looks like they saw the OTRS report as a primary source and used it. Might be worthwhile to see if it is possible to do the same here. Or if they made a mistake there. I think you have to reference a ticket number in the talk page if you use the report to modify the article. --NrDg 21:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If there isn't an active dispute going on over a birthday in the article I usually will just take their word for it and change it for them. Birthdays are normally just inconsequential background information and like other information of that type it doesn't require a source unless it's challenged. It's basically the other side to "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". That is just my take on the issue... and as I'm just a regular editor like you, other editors may have a different interpretation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your call as you have the info. I'm just as happy leaving the information out of the article as it has been challenged and I would like to see it sourced in something I can verify for myself. I think birth date info might be more sensitive than other inconsequential info because of privacy and identity theft concerns so default should be to require a source. Anyway I protected the page for a short time to see if the 1 issue roving IP will either work with us or give up. I don't really want to leave this page protected and was hoping for a stable solution. --NrDg 23:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Jewish cat

Reference [1] here for Jewish category. Basket of Puppies 00:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Which uses wiki as a source. Nevermind. Basket of Puppies 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)