Talk:Catya Sassoon

"Karate Champion"

See User talk:Pinkadelica. The Angelfist marketing flaunted Cat Sassoon as a "World Karate Association, North American Champion". As I found no evidence of such title held by Ms Sassoon, I personally emailed the World Kickboxing Association (as the World Karate Association) in order to ask them. I was simply answered : "We don't know this person". So, either she won a title with another similarly-named association, or Angel Fist's marketing was entirely baloney. Wedineinheck 15:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There are several issues regarding this information. First of all, the only source I found anywhere regarding what may or may not have been marketed was a TV Guide.com review of the film and it did not say that she was referred to as a "World Karate Association, North American Champion", but another title. Secondly, the source that was added to the article for the inclusion of this information is the sole and only source found anywhere in online searches regarding it, and repeats, in French, nearly verbatim, what the contributor wrote. That could mean two things. Either the source copied it from Wikipedia or it was written by an interested party. In either case, WP guidelines say that unless information in a source is pertinent, unique and not available elsewhere, sources in languages other than English should not be used, since Wikipedia is an English language project. I dispute the reliability of the source, and in that case, it cannot remain in the article without independent outside references. Since the title and reference itself is questionable, I'm wondering how the World Karate Association could check it. Further, writing an organization to ask about such a thing constitutes original research and as such has no place in a Wikipedia article. Thus, I removed the entire sentence and reference. Please do not re-add this material without reliable references.

Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wedineinheck wrote:

Hi, judging from this, tvguide.com seems to merely reproduce the film's marketing ballyhoo (no additional detail is given about her martial arts record), so this does not make it a very reliable source either. Moreover, the French website quoted as a reference collaborates with the Paris film museum, so I guess that does not make it such an unreliable source. ;) Best regards, Wedineinheck (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please address this issue on this talk page, not my personal talk page.

The problem with the source given for this material is three fold. First of all, WP guidelines say:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

There is no other source that I have found that addresses this bit of information anywhere on the web. Since there is no other source found, and the only source available is in French, it makes it impossible for editors to check this information. The reason I mention the TV Guide reference is because it does appear to reproduce what was used for marketing. And TV Guide is one of the most widely distributed magazines in the US. It would be considered highly reliable.

Secondly, if indeed, the TV Guide page duplicates "the marketing ballyhoo," then the addition that was made to this article in regard to what title Sassoon allegedly held is not in agreement with that marketing ballyhoo. Neither, by extension, would be the French page you are giving as a source. It does not offer how the World Karate Association disavowed knowledge of this person. It's easy to write it, it's not as easy to verify it.

Thirdly, if, as you say, this website is a collaboration effort with the Paris Film Museum, I would think they would get the quote right. Be that as it may, with my limited high school French, the link you offered above does not appear to mention the Paris Film Museum.

If this is indeed a) pertinent and b) valid information to be added to this article, then it is going to have to have more than this single source, which doesn't surfacely conform to reliability. There would have to be something out there that discusses this point that is in English and is from a editor checked and verified source. The sole source offered doesn't do that.

There are three editors who have contributed to this article. Two out of three dispute this material being added to this article under the sourcing and presentation as it is given. That is a consensus against it being included. Please offer a better source for this information for it to be included in this article, and don't return the material until a verifiable source is given. A final point - don't carry out a discussion in the edit summary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is in French makes it impossible to verify ? IMHO, this is just ridiculous. For your information, the "Cinémathèque française" is the Paris film museum, with which said website collaborates. Moreover, the website has over 500 film reviews, which are often detailed and researched. Hence, I'd say this is a fairly reliable source by itself. Best, Wedineinheck (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the fact that it is in French makes it an unacceptable source in absence of translation, since Wikipedia is an English language site. That is the official WP policy. The rudimentary French that I know tells me that what very little that is written on that page about that film does not contain enough information to ensure that this "fact" you wish to include can be verified. It is given as an example of a film's promoters pushing a title on the principle of a film to further it's standing. It doesn't tell where and how that particular information came to be theirs, when no other site on the internet has been found to support the site's contention. The only source that we have been offered along that line would be your mention of writing the association yourself, which is original research and can't be used.

Wikipedia content guidelines say "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Film reviews are opinions, not citable sources of facts, no matter how many a site might contain. Finally, whether or not they "collaborate" with the 'Cinémathèque française" in some unnamed way does not constitute verification. The page you give as a citation has no material that says anything along the lines of "In a story published on Some Date, in Some Periodical, Joe Blow, of the World Karate Association, says that Catya Sassoon has never won a world championship." As an example, the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), which sometimes works in collaboration with film studios, agents, awards organizations, newspapers and periodicals is also a questionable source based on reliability as there is no independent 3rd party fact checking. If this is as established a fact as it would need to be to include in a WP article, we simply need more and better sources than one line on a French language film review site as a glossary example. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to go with Wildhartlivie on this. The source is questionable because it seems to be a blog of some sort that may have copied the info (not a rare thing on the web). The fact that it is in French only adds to my uneasiness about it. I had to use Babel Fish to translate it and I wasn't sure of the content or its source. In my opinion, the information isn't paramount to the article because the film, Angelfist is a b-movie at best and little known. The whole questioning of the dubious title didn't cause a scandal that I know of so bringing it up seems irrelevant. I think for now, the information should be left out. I am attempting to find moer third party sources on Catya Sassoon, but seeing as she was a fairly unknown actress, this is proving difficult. In the meantime, the content should stay out of the article until there's a trusted source that can be found. If that is not acceptable, one can always consult a third party or consult the Reliable sources noticeboard. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"No, the fact that it is in French makes it an unacceptable source in absence of translation" I am just amazed -not to mention quite insulted- by this statement. Are you aware that there are many French speakers -including myself- using and contributing to the English Wikipedia, and that many sources in French are being used for more important topics than Catya Sassoon (for example, articles on French statesmen, monarchs, etc) ?? Do you assume that no one in the English-speaking world knows French and can therefore use sources in French ? IMHO, this is moronic; I'd even say it is insulting to the point of reeking of bigotry. Wedineinheck (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, I will advise you to remain civil and not personally attack other editors. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone else without accusing them of being a bigot or calling them or their reasoning "moronic". Additionally, if you disagree with the exclusion of this source or the information, you should post a query at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Also, the Wikipedia policy for non-English references states:

Non-English sources

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

• Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
• Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

This is the policy I'm going by and it has nothing to do with personal feelings. The fact that the reference provided was in French in SECONDARY in my opinion. Babel Fish is readily avaliable and, believe it or not, not all Americans are unwilling to step out of the English speaking box. I don't speak French fluently and the majority of readers who use English Wikipedia probably don't either which makes the reference harder to verify. Either way, we are not to assume anything and we are to adhere to policy. The reference you provided seems questionable to two different editors and that is the issue, not the language in which is it is written. Again, if you feel this is unfair and that the source is very reliable in your experience, feel free to ask an admin or post on the notice board. Pinkadelica (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And I concur. I quoted Wikipedia policy regarding this issue. You are reminded to keep your outrage in check and essentially, take it up with Wikipedia policy. If there are non-English sources in an article I come across, which do not exist somewhere in English, then I will deal with that as the situation demands. In this case, it is an article of small importance, upon which a questionable non-English source suggests information that cannot be verified anywhere else. It makes it unacceptable and therefore, can't be included in the article. It has nothing to do with bias against a different language, nor bias in any form. It is Wikipedia policy and that, simply, is that. Don't take it up against us, take it up with Jimbo Wales. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the issue about the questionability of the source - Catya Sassoon isn't that important an issue, so I don't feel like wasting more time about this. Quite simply, I find this rule to be absolutely cretinous in general. The French wikipedia, for instance, doesn't seem to mind using sources in English, while many French users are not fluent in that language. So, I guess you'll understand how offensive this rule may seem to me. Wedineinheck (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

First marriage

According to the article she married at age 15. Is this correct? In which jurisdiction?86.145.7.37 15:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this information is correct. The info can be found in her obituary and in several magazine article about her. Her parents simply gave her permission to marry at that age. It is slightly unusual, but not completely unheard of. Pinkadelica (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Birth date

The article had two different birth dates for Catya, September 3, 1968 and September 8, 1968. The September 3, 1968 date is correct. I corrected the date.

Source:

http://www.familytreelegends.com/records/ssdi/search?l=sassoon&ss=X&f=catya&m=&s1=&s2=&s3=&ib=0&ad=&by=&ba=0&dy=&da=0&bm=0&dm=0&bd=0&dd=0&rci=&bci=&rco=&bco=&rst=&bst=&rzi=&bzi= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.19.162 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)