Talk:Oksana Grigorieva/Archive 1

References

Article cited no references originally. I added one and also tagged for needing more. Pianotech (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability not established

Dup info added

[1] and [2] = Please stop adding dup info, this is already covered in an early subsection, Early life. -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved some info down, into Personal life subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press

[3] = Per the first sentence of this article by Associated Press, it is Mel Gibson on the recording. The Associated Press is a WP:RS source. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I can provide a dozen sources which say "alleged", "purported", etc. Per WP:BLP, we are required to take a cautious approach. We should go with a more cautious source. Yworo (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is fine. It is factually correct that numerous sources have reported it to be Mel Gibson on the tape, including the Associated Press. -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not the case. Almost every source says that it is alleged or purported to be Gibson by Radar.com. Yworo (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a link above with evidence to back up the statements I have made on this page. You have not. -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now the identification is attributed directly to the source, Associated Press, see [4]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's four, used in the Mel Gibson article. And you know as well as I do that WP:BLP says to err on the side of caution, and any revert done to comply with that are immune from being considered edit warring. Yworo (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pilkington, Ed (July 2, 2010). "Mel Gibson faces flak again after alleged racist rant". The Guardian. Retrieved July 2, 2010.
McCartney, Anthony (July 12, 2010). "Gibson tape mentions alleged hitting of girlfriend". Associated Press. Washington Post. Retrieved July 12, 2010.
Kaufman, Gil (July 2, 2010). "Mel Gibson Condemned For Alleged Racist, Sexist Rant Against Ex". MTV. Retrieved July 2, 2010.
"Mel Gibson investigated for domestic violence". Vancouver Sun. July 8, 2010. Retrieved July 9, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yworo (talk • contribs)

There is no reason why not to reword the article so as to comply with WP:WTA. -- Cirt (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. WP:BLP. Yworo (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP does not say please push out use of phrase "alleged" as much as possible repeatedly wherever one can in articles with material about criminal investigations. That is just sloppy writing. -- Cirt (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP say to err on the side of caution. If most of the sources say "alleged", it's because they rightly fear legal action. It's not up to you to put Wikipedia at risk by cherry-picking one of the few sources that don't use the word. See the discussion about the Mel Gibson article on BLPN, where this has already been discussed. Yworo (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:BLPN, perhaps you have not? The WP:BLPN thread notes too much use of "allegations of this and allegations of that..." in the Mel Gibson article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must have only skimmed it, that part was solely about the headings. Seems you're on a rampage now, intentionally disrupting the Mel Gibson article. And all over an alleged tape that could easily have been forged or edited. Tapes aren't even admissible evidence in court for that very reason. It's easy enough to put together recordings of someone's voice and make them say whatever one wants. These tapes have not been verified by any experts. Who knows who's lying and who's telling the truth here? You have some special powers you haven't told us about? Yworo (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence has been reworded. The sentence now reflects wording from the WP:RS source, the Associated Press. -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could take the time to find the official AP version. Huffington may have edited it. Yworo (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is credited as author AP. -- Cirt (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, good suggestion. Same source used, Associated Press author, now cited to The Washington Post version. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that article says early on "in which a voice that sounds distinctly like the Academy Award winner". Much better article. I was going to swap that one in myself. Yworo (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your last edit make Wikipedia sound more like a gossip column than an encyclopdia, but I'm sure someone will come along and clean it up later... Ciao. Yworo (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Associated Press (as published in The Washington Post) is not a "gossip column", it is a WP:RS source. -- Cirt (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd spacing introduced

[5] = not sure what this was all about. No need for all of this odd spacing formatting. -- Cirt (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this edit summary does not really explain very much. Actually, this contributes to slowing down the load time of the overall page, and makes editing more, not less, cumbersome. There are editing tools to make viewing easier, spacing is inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's about readability in the edit box; the vertical format is common. What page you want to talk about this on? Jack Merridew 04:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let us please discuss this here at the article's talk page before repeating formatting changes, that are disputed. Adding spacing to the page increases the size of the page, and increases the load time of the page. -- Cirt (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and have unwatched this page. Jack Merridew 04:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, okay. I have looked at WP:CITE but did not see where it says to add this odd spacing formatting style. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite web; "vertical format" 14,850 bytes vs 14,669 "Hard disks are cheap". Jack Merridew 04:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears horizontal and vertical layouts are shown on that page. Therefore, it would seem it would go by individual talk page consensus, of which style to use. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also mw:Cite.php#Separating references from text, which I started to do here. Jack Merridew 04:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we could do that without the odd spacing formatting style changes, that would be fine. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to ;) Calling vertical spacing 'odd' is just your opinion. It is common, at least on articles that are well formatted. Everything all scrunched onto one line is an impediment to reading in the edit box. Jack Merridew 04:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorical Question: Why not format the infobox on one line? ;) Jack Merridew 05:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show an example from another article page? -- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a lot that are messed up, such as the pipes on the end of the lines. The infoboxes are the same issue: vertical formatting is easier to read. The reason many don't like it is that their edit box is too small. How many lines in yours? The default is 25, but you can change it in prefs→editing; Editbox dimensions: Rows. Try 45 or 50; whatever works on your display. "Widen the edit box to fill the entire screen" may help, too. Of course, an external editor works best. And spacing vertically really take no more space or bandwidth; it's about replacing spaces with newlines, not adding anything. Jack Merridew 05:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen mostly horizontal spacing of citations in other articles. I have seen the infobox always use vertical spacing. That is the general format that is preferred, and we should keep the infobox this way for this article. -- Cirt (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight in Personal life section

WP:UNDUE WEIGHT was being given in the Personal life sect, to one aspect of this individual's life. It was overweighted as compared to the rest of the text of the article. I have trimmed it down a bit. Could be trimmed down even more. -- Cirt (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. The article is much better now. Borock (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radar Online

An editor removed the word "racist" from the Radar Online reference. I restored the word, because it's in the source.
It raised a question with me, I have no firm opinion - is this a reliable source ?
It looks a bit "tabloidy" to me - but I'm not really disputing the recording or the interpretation, just asking for opinion. Begoon^talk 17:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reporting of the incident by Radar Online, is itself a noteworthy event, and has been significantly discussed in many other WP:RS secondary sources. The cite to Radar Online is itself therefore unnecessary. -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I knew from memory of the event, but not specifically that the Radar Online involvement was itself notable. I've removed that cite, leaving the AP one - feel free to alter what I did if you feel some other wording is preferable. Begoon^talk 17:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article reads like a press release from Oksana's publicists. There is no mention that the audio tapes and photos - conveniently "leaked" to strenghten her claims for money from Gibson - were apparently either false or doctored.JohnC (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below sects, about WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in a WP:BLP article page. -- Cirt (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restraining orders, etc

In order to avoid WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, let us please refrain from adding tons of stuff to the Personal life sect, until it has been something officially done by law enforcement, or actually ordered by a court. Not just by the two parties, themselves. -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the reference [6] and look up references about the dual restraining orders you will see that the information is now incorrct. It is incorrect that Gibson can not see his daughter since the judge change the restraining order the next day to exclude the child. The judge also told both of them that they are not to discuss anything in public anymore. The article needs correction to the new information coming out. I was going to adjust what I said when I hit the ec with you. No time now for me, sorry, 31st anniversary celebration about to start, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, will take another look at the sources in a bit, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that source. It does not appear that the court has issued other orders, aside from the restraining order against Mel Gibson. The others seem to still be pending with the court, however requested by Gibson. -- Cirt (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Oksana.fm page

FWIW http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.oksana.fm/ just presents a coming soon page. Was there a page there before? Both google and internet archive did not find any older versions, but there are "oksana.fm/" subpages still cached. http://www.dot.fm/whois.html reports the registrant of oksana.fm is michael LUstig in Malibu. -84user (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was once an official website there, per secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

This article should be semi-protected, due to multiple instances of repeated WP:BLP vandalism from different IPs. Feel free to comment here, if there are objections to this proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References formatting

References formatting is as per talk page consensus, as well as per WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE. Let us please leave it in this format. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any Record of a Patent in Music Instruction?

An article from the Sunday Times claims that Grigorieva "has patented a method of teaching notation to children, and a blog post at EOnline repeats the claim.[7] [8] However, there is no record of a patent granted to an inventor named Oksana Grigorieva or Oksana Chernuha at either http://ep.espacenet.com/advancedSearch or http://patft.uspto.gov/.Coreyyeroc (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to delve into WP:NOR violations in order to add a primary source. We already have WP:RS secondary sources for this info. Please, do not remove sourced material without discussion, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case the veracity of the secondary source is seriously called into question by a search of online databases. If a patent was issued to Oksana Grigorieva, there would be an online record of it at one or both of those databases.Coreyyeroc (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is called into question by, you, and that is WP:NOR. It is not called into question by WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russia vs. Russian SFSR

From 1917 to 1991 (sometimes used into 1992), the term Russian SFSR was used for the part of the Soviet Union that now makes up the Russian Federation (Russia). That stands for Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. It was one of the states of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Throughout Wikipedia, famous people who were born or died in one of the Soviet Republics are listed not as having been born/died in Russia but the Russian SFSR, Byelorussian SSR, Ukranian SSR, etc. Consider well-known people such as Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia (died in the Russian SFSR), Isaac Asimov, Marina Orlova, Maria Sharapova, Yuri Gagarin, Nikita Khrushchev, Yakov Smirnoff, Boris Yeltsin, etc. The precedence has been set that people who were born in the former Soviet Union have their birthplace listed as the Soviet Republic (e.g. Russian SFSR) that they were born in. Oksana Grigorieva was born in Saransk, the capital of Mordovia, a federal subject of the Russian Federation now but, according to its own page, "became part of the Russian SFSR". Therefore, it is justified, to follow the precedent on other Wikipedia pages of Soviet-born (-died) people and list Grigorieva's birthplace as the Russian SFSR, not Russia.--Rotellam1 (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:NOR, we should defer instead to the secondary sources cited. -- Cirt (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, changed to Mordovia, per source, Pravda. -- Cirt (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mordovia is a subject like a state. I really feel strongly that it would be more accuracte to say the Grigorieva was born in the Russian SFSR which is where Mordavia was. That's what it says on the pages for everyone else born in the former USSR. I think it improves the consistency of Wikipedia and makes it more accurate. I'm trying to improve the accuracy of this page, not make a point. Is IMDB a source? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1334110/bio says that she was born in the "Soviet Union." It's just what it says for everyone else born in the USSR. What is the reason to not put the accurate fact that she was born in the USSR?--Rotellam1 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let us keep it as per secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rotellam -- you point is well taken, but Wikipedia is not interested in unverifiable truth. It makes for a prickly situation in many cases, and this may very well be one of them, but unverified (or poorly verified) truth is less important than well verified near-truths. Surely, if what you say is true (and it may very well be), it will be well documented -- it's not like there are only texts out there written about Nikita Khrushchev. Then again, Ms. Grigorieva is really nothing more than a pop culture entity and it might be hard to find something well written and well researched about her. Unfortunately, the regulations governing Wikipedia referencing are imperfect, but no less imperfect than anything else. Perhaps instead of looking for a source specifically referencing Ms. Grigorieva, you should try to find a well-researched text focusing on Soviet nation naming conventions and, as long as the dates fit in, you could use that as good support for changing the term to include SFSR. All the best! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, agreed for the most part, however, best to find a source that mentions both. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would speculate that such a thing wold be hard to come by, as she is only recently in the news and journalists have a hard enough time with spelling, let alone Soviet nomenclature. Until the Mel Gibson Authorized Biography is released, corresponding date assessment should suffice. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, in that case we should simply source the secondary source, Pravda, which does state that she is from Mordovia, and leave it at that for now. -- Cirt (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by User:Coreyyeroc

Edit by Coreyyeroc (talk · contribs) [9], removed authoritative source, Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television published by Thomson Gale, and replaced it with information from source less so, Daily Mail. Please, do not do this on a WP:BLP page, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interview with Timothy Dalton is more authoritative than a secondary referenceCoreyyeroc (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, discuss further before adding back this disputed info to a WP:BLP page, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lifelong bachelor Dalton spoke about his personal life in 2007

Concerning the question of whether Grigorieva and Dalton ever married, in an interview with Rebecca Hardy, Timothy Dalton made rare public comments about his personal life. The interviewer wrote "Despite reports to the contrary, Dalton remains unmarried." http://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/41861-great-dalton-interview/ Furthermore, a 1997 interview with Ludmilla Chernuha quotes Oksana Grigorieva's mother as saying that Grigorieva and Dalton were not married, despite their baby being due soon. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19970615/ai_n14464925/pg_3/?tag=content;col1 Coreyyeroc (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[10] = post to some random message board online forum = unreliable source for verification. [11] = Sunday Mirror, again, poor source when compared to book published by Thomson Gale, see above subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I have removed the disputed info. In any event, it is not necessary to put in this "despite reports to the contrary..." nonsense into the main article body text, as secondary sources have not made an issue of devoting significant discussion to this "reports to the contrary..." issue - which is effectively WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR on the part of the Wikipedia user that inserted this info in the first place. -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message board internet forum sites as links in references

Regarding [12] - please avoid message board internet forum sites as links in references, thanks. For verification, it would be best to have additional cite info, such as page number. -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had already mentioned this once, above, [13] -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits with disputed sources

There seems to be a dispute here over how to handle sources that don't entirely agree.

Coreyyeroc - First, Wikipedia isn't a source of new information. We don't do or participate in original research here. We report what others have said in reliable and verifiable sources (see WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V policy shortcuts here).

Second, we're aware that sources don't always agree. That doesn't mean that you pick one that agrees with what you think happened. That's picking and chosing facts, which is a form of original research. We judge which sources meet reasonable standards of accuracy, and then report on what they say.

If there are disputes between the sources, we include those disputes. "Sources disagree on whether X and Y married; in Book K, author B states that they did, but in an interview with Z magazine, person X stated otherwise."

Also, the patent search is original research. For all you know the patent was issued in Russia or the EU or elsewhere. Searching US databases and claiming that it doesn't exist is both logically wrong (patents aren't worldwide) and original research (you doing something and making a claim about it, not Wikipedia reporting on what others have said).

If she claims to have a patent, that's what she claims. If a book says she doesn't, find the book and cite it as a disagreeing source.

Also - If you include a source, you have to include the source itself. We don't use blogs as references, and a blog saying that an article in a newspaper said something isn't a reliable source. Find the newspaper article and reference it directly, that's ok. Not the blog.

These sort of things happen regularly, but if you do them on biographical articles it's particularly sensitive. You need to learn more about our source policies for reliable information, and in particular our biographical articles policy.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything stated above by admin Georgewilliamherbert, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all 'except the patent. Regarding the patent, it looks like you have two reliable sources contradicting each other. Source #1 says she has a patent, source #2 (which happens to be two patent offices) says no. I'd say it's not Original research to check as Coreyyeroc's done. Further, since the patent office is responsible for issuing patents, I'd say he's right to remove that information. The other stuff, no. Forums aren't notable, nor is IMDB. Just my .02

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 16:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree, as we have WP:RS sources regarding the patent. Feel free to complain to the authors of those particular WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say your source wasn't unreliable, just that we have two reliable sources that contradict each other. One, seemingly more reliable than the other.

KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 19:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedian violating WP:NOR is not a "source". -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking with two patent offices is not acceptable. One would have to check with every patent office worldwide, and check any aliases she may have used, and see if she's listed as coinventor rather than primary, etc. And then you might have missed something, as many of those offices are not as automated as the US PTO is.

This is the very definition of "original research" we aren't supposed to do on our own... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this comment, by admin Georgewilliamherbert, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'll add my agreement. We can't just do our own limited investigations and then add them as though they were a contesting WP:RS. That way lies madness... Begoontalk 17:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-language sources

It is admirable that an editor went to the trouble to find Russian-language sources for her birth name. However, the vast majority of users of English-language Wikipedia do not speak Russian, and have no way of seeing whether the citation is accurate or not. According to the policy at WP:NOTENGLISH, an English-language translation must be provided with the original citation. I encourage the editor to restore his edit and comply with this requirement. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date was not reliably cited

There's no picture here. What the fuck wikipedia get on it.

Three sources were given for the claim of a February 25, 1970, birth date, who do not hold up except for the year, 1970.

The first cited source — Machell, Ben (October 24, 2009). "There is more to Oksana Grigorieva than Mel Gibson". The Times (London, England: Times Newspapers Limited): pp. 6, 7. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/classical/article6885804.ece. Retrieved 2010-07-17 — made no mention of a birth date whatsoever. Why it was cited is anybody's guess.

The second cited source, the journalistic, WP:RS newspaper Pravda, gives only 1970.

The third cited source is a Facebook page that anyone could have put up; people put fake celebrity Facebook pages up all the time. And this source, which is undated save for a 2011 copyright, claims she turned 40 on February 25 (2011). That contradicts the 1970 date given by the only relevant journalistic source cited. We have no verifiable confirmation of February 25. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia article listed her birth year as both 1970 and 1977. Since the reference (Pravda) says 1970, I have replaced 1977 with 1970. If this is wrong, let's find a better source. Nazgul02 (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]