Talk:Sarah Shahi/Archive 1

Archive 1

About her

According to this site and to this site she was born Aahoo Jahansouzshahi. Her father was Muslim but after he and her mother got divorced she started attending church regularly. So, she is more likely a convert to Christianity.

I think this is interesting info that could be added to the article. I could do it myself if nobody does it but I'm too busy right now. PMLF 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

IMDB only allowable source?

Please point me to the rule that says IMDB is the only allowable source for bios of living people? --JJLatWiki 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we seek accuracy, as opposed to speculation. Lets keep things as offical as possible, when it comes to referencing. Technajunky 03:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Accuracy" was your reason for removing "Spanish" from here family heritage? The "official" IMDB source was already there as an external link when you first removed the Spanish heritage, and incidentally left the Iranian heritage. What was your official source that showed her as only Iranian, and not Spanish? IMDB can not be the only source of biographical information. On many less known, and especially younger actors, there is simply not very much published information. There is no indication that the Sarah-Shahi.net source is inaccurate, in fact the opposite is true. --JJLatWiki 18:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Biased and noncorrelating?

What is "biased and noncorrelating" about, "Sarah's strict father, Abbas, did not allow her to date or learn her mother, Mahmonir's native spanish[2]. After her parents divorced in 1993 when Sarah was 13 years old, she started attending church regularly. She also took spanish lessons for her role in The L Word[3]."? --JJLatWiki 19:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Either show proof of this, such as in the form of a quote, or stop wasting everyone's time "JJLatiWiki". The site you sourced is not her official site, and could very well be nothing more than the site owner's fantasy. You must have a link to a direct quote, otherwise it is nothing but speculation or bias, and I will remove it. End of discussion. Technajunky 03:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You sure take offense easily. The information was not negative or potentially libelous, so even if you felt it was "poorly" sourced, it doesn't meet the criteria for immediate removal. If the information on Sarah-Shahi.net was negative or even contrary to what she would want said about her, it would be extremely easy to force the site owner to alter the site. If the site said, "Sarah skins bunnies alive to help relieve stress", I would understand why it would require multiple sources or a more authoritative source. Such is not the case. --JJLatWiki 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, without any direct sources, anything posted about a living person can be considered potentially libelous. Your action of linking a direct source in the form of "quotes" acts within both the spirit and intent of Wikipedia. The fact that "Sarah-Shahi.net" makes one claim or another without even a single direct quote, is rather irrelevant to our task at hand. Our goal is to see to it that Wikipedia would pass the legal test of scrutiny, and no one else. If you are going to consider one's personal beliefs, ethno-religious claims or sexual orientation as important to a biographical article, it is then not too much to ask for verification of said claims. It is really that simple. Besides, I probably forced you to learn more about Sarah Shahi in the last 72 hours, than you(or any other smart person) ever cared to know about in times past. I could post articles contradicting alot of what has been posted here, such as that she does not speak Farsi fluently, her Mother is not of Spanish descent, and that her father was not a strict "Muslim", and that he currently lives in Irvine, CA, but that would simply be against the whole purpose of our beloved on-line FREE encylopedia. I much prefer links to her direct personal quotes, and quotes directly about her, instead. Either way, good job! Technajunky 04:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but please stop pretending your goals include accuracy, protecting Wikipedia from legal claims, and enforcing the rules or spirit of Wikipedia. You do too many things that contradict such lofty ideals. In this article alone, for example: --JJLatWiki 14:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I just have a rather narrow focus of current interests on wikipedia, such as removing certain forms of bias and deliberate misinformation. I do seem to upset you very deeply and for that, I apologize. I have noted that you seem to spend a very good deal of time out of your life concerned with me, as opposed to anything constructive. More so than is probably psychologically healthy for you. I hope it has not effected your family life, if you have one. Technajunky 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1. You removed Spanish when there was ample evidence, from the source (IMDB) you allowed and existed prior to your deletion, that her mother is of Spanish descent. Instead you deleted the information and left her Iranian heritage with "unsubstantiated" as the only justification. Clearly, those deletions were unjustified and unsupported by facts available to you at the time. What "accuracy" standard were you using? --JJLatWiki 14:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually removed the term Spanish prior to IMBD adding it to her heritage(They added it within the last few months, and Sarah Shahi has only publically claimed Spanish heritage since being cast on the LWord(2004), and not before). As soon as IMBD had added it, and/or she was quoted as stating it, I accepted it as more than allowable for an encylopedia entry. Technajunky 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1. You removed information regarding her father's strict rules and regarding her parent's divorce claiming bias. Even though there was a cited source for such information which provided a high level of legal protection for Wikipedia in the event that the information turned out to be false and resulted in a lawsuit. I acted in a legally responsible manner by citing the source and Wikipedia was never in any danger as a result. WP:ACM lists the common mistake of "Deleting biased content" and the preferred remedy of, "Biased content can be useful content. Remove the bias and keep the content". What Wikipedia standard were you using when you deleted the content you felt was biased? --JJLatWiki 14:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

At the time, there was no such quote(and still is not) about her currently attending church regularly. When you actually took time out of your very important life in military intelligence and private security to find quotes pertaining to her family life and childhood, I accepted them without question. Hence, why your recent changes have been left untouched in this article's current form. In living persons biographies, bias content can be considered not just libel, but slanderous in some cases(even such as this) in accordance with both American law, and more especially, U.S Federal and State court rulings. There is nothing wrong in being both bold, and legally safe, when it comes to demanding accuracy in our FREE On-Line encylopedia. Technajunky 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1. NOW, you state that you have sources that contradict the information regarding her father's strictness, her bilingual fluency, and her mother's heritage? But you won't post such information because it would "be against the whole purpose" of Wikipedia? How does that aid a search for truth, accuracy, or the ideal of building a high-quality encyclopedia? --JJLatWiki 14:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not, and have not, posted links to such articles for the simple reason that it would not involve either direct quotes from this actress in question(There is a quote from 2002 English language article, where she states she wishes she learned to speak fluent Persian while growing up, but I consider it to be outdated for the simple reason that she now contradicts earlier statements(In English), and thus is not currently accurate for our purposes), would not be directly supplied by her publicist or agency, or are simply not in English, but rather Persian(Farsi). Though, an Iran expert like yourself, with years of service in both military intelligence and private security, would probably have no problem translating it! Technajunky 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• P.S...I just love our debates, and probably would do it forever, if I did not have to work for a living. It is a classic example of an "idealogical counterpoint", such as your own, misinterpreting an "opponents" goal or purpose, such as my own, and thus exposing your real agenda and bias(in your case, it is some kind of strange and silly Technajunky/All things Iranian or Middle Eastern/Predatory On-Line Harassment/B Actress fixation thing). At anyrate, keep it up! I am sure that you have all the time in the world! I myself am going to end our discussion right here, though. I was certainly enjoying it! Technajunky 16:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Are you referring to any "bias and deliberate misinformation" in this article? --JJLatWiki 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• "I actually removed the term Spanish prior to IMBD adding it to her heritage(They added it within the last few months, and Sarah Shahi has only publically claimed Spanish heritage since being cast on the LWord(2004), and not before)." - It's possible that IMDB added the fact since your last revert on August 9, 2006. I'll grant you that. But interviews of her making the "claim" that her mother is Spanish go back at least almost a year and half before your first removal of the claim from this article. --JJLatWiki 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• "As soon as IMBD had added it, and/or she was quoted as stating it, I accepted it as more than allowable for an encylopedia entry." - You never accepted it until my change that included the footnote. --JJLatWiki 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• "...in accordance with both American law, and more especially, U.S Federal and State court rulings." - Please provide the court cases where someone was sued, much less lost a suit, for insinuating someone was Spanish or saying they attended church regularly. --JJLatWiki 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• "There is nothing wrong in being both bold, and legally safe,..." - Do you really think it was bold of me to say her father would not allow her to learn Spanish? It doesn't seem bold at all. But, I assure you that I was safe in making the claim by citing a source that is more than a mere anonymous entry in a forum. The owner of the fan site is documented and an easy target if the outlandish claim is actually untrue. Since you live so near her father, perhaps you could ask him his opinion in the matter. --JJLatWiki 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• "..she states she wishes she learned to speak fluent Persian while growing up.." - You have first-hand quotes that indicate she is bilingual, but not as fluent in Persian as she wishes, and you think this information is of no interest to anyone interested in the subject? Thanks for witholding substance from the article. --JJLatWiki 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• In response to your other personal comments about me, I'll just say this, I think it's clear what your biases are and probably some of mine. Mine, however, don't result in disinformation in Wikipedia. And I always research the topic to find evidence that supports the claim before I delete it or add the {{Fact}} tag to flag what I think is dubious information. --JJLatWiki 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Relevance?

Is it me, or is this article getting pumped up with irrelevant topics? What is the importance of 1) Sarah's religious practice, and 2) Sarah's self-proclaim of being a teacher's pet? -- Zavreio 07:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That complete last paragraph is rather uneeded, and all relevent info is given in the trivia section. Lets remove it. Technajunky 15:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you see the comedy in the phrase, "all relevant info is given in the trivia section"? It's a "biography". A biography is a written account of a person's life. Events from that person's life, especially those that may have had a hand in molding that person into who they are especially relevant to the biography. The fact that she has martial arts qualification is trivial. The religiousity of this person's parents seems to have played a role in her life and so can not be considered irrelevant in her biography, no matter how important that person is. In addition, all the recently added facts are well-sourced and cited. I've reverted Technajunky's summary removal. --JJLatWiki 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the bio a young actress. What's the relevance of any of the information? She's of very little importance by almost any measure, so why have her in an encyclopedia at all? What information would you suggest be kept in the article? I think if "relevance" is a factor, that would definitively preclude a subsection entitled, "Trivia". --JJLatWiki 14:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Technajunky's summary removal of biographical paragraph

Technajunky, you failed to explain the reason for your latest removal of an entire biographical paragraph. Nor did you engage in further discussion on the talk page. Please describe your justification in more detail. I don't think it's adequate justification to simply assert that all the verifiable and cited facts are irrelevant. Since a biographical entry implies biographical content, people, places, events, and any other factors that played a role in the development of that person are particularly relevant in that person's biography. Therefore, the paragraph that you removed is probably the most significant aspect of this particular Wikipedia article. The paragraph describes people, events, and circumstances that the subject of the article has described or implied as formative or significant in her life. Please explain, and help others understand, how your edits improve this particular biography. --JJLatWiki 17:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We have already been through this, JJLatWiki. I guess this is going to be a monthly occurence with you. Technajunky 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments

A minor edit war has developed over certain aspects of this person's biography. Technajunky has repeatedly removed any content with which he disagrees. Previously, Technajunky would not allow Shani's spanish heritage to be included in the bio until I specifically referenced a source, IMDB, that Technajunky felt was acceptable. However, on Oct 12, Technajunky removed a significant paragraph with only the simple explanation of, "Article Clean-Up". He justified the removal a little more in Talk with, "all relevent info is given in the trivia section". I reverted his "article clean-up" and asked in my edit comment for more discussion by saying, "(rv removal of personal biographical information - see talk: What about Relevance?)". Technajunky reverted again without comment or discussion. I asked for more discussion in the Talk. I also asked Technajunky to engage in the discussion on his own Talk page. After all this, I disengaged from the article, leaving it as Technajunky left it from 3 or 4 weeks. During which time, neither Technajunky or I touched the article. On Nov 9, I restored the paragraph, once again asking for further discussion. Seven hours later, Technajunky reverted it again, and again without comment or discussion.

Yes, I noticed. Oh, and I only RV'd it once after your changes, so lets get the facts straight, shall we? It does not behoove you to blow things out of proportion. Technajunky 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Oct 12 - you removed the entire paragraph, and I restored. Oct 13 - you reverted, removing it again. Nov 9 - I restored it again, and then you reverted, removing it again. So you removed it 3 times, 2 of which by RV. --JJLatWiki 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You accused me of reverting the article twice after your paragraph restoration took place on November 9th. In fact, here is what you wrote:

Seven hours later, Technajunky reverted it again, and again without comment or discussion.

This is either a mistake on your part, as I only reverted the article once on and since the 9th of November, or I am misinterpreting what it is you are trying to say. All previous reverts took place nearly one month ago. Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are misinterpreting. You reverted the same paragraph twice, once on the 10/13 and once on 11/9, and both times without explanation. --JJLatWiki 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the paragraph in question:

By her father's side, she is a great-great-granddaughter of Fat'h Ali Shah of the Iranian Qajar dynasty. As a child, she wanted to be more like the white, American kids where she grew up in Texas. According to Sarah, she wanted to go to Catholic school, but her parents would not allow it citing her father's Muslim religion. Sarah has described her father as "a bit of a tyrant", who required Sarah to speak Farsi. Growing up, she was not allowed to date or learn Spanish, but learned her father's Farsi. She also attended church regularly, sang in her highschool choir, and was a self-proclaimed "teacher's pet".

I would say about half of this paragraph actually serves a purpose in this article, and I am more than willing to work with JJLatWiki in implementing a positive consensus on what should and should not be included. Technajunky 18:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And yet you removed the entire thing without comment or discussion. Which of the facts contained in the paragraph do NOT help one understand the person better? They all tell you something about her, and all of it tells you more about her than the fact that she was in Maxim magazine or that she was once on a calendar cover. --JJLatWiki 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of such information in this article, and the nature of your insistence on doing so, may not be entirely from a NPOV. I do agree though, that some of the information in the paragraph is needed. For example, her descent from the Qajar dynasty is very relavent, and should be in the main body of the article, as opposed to just the "trivia" section. Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who removes information that the subject of the article felt had an influence on her life. The nature of the information that you choose to remove and YOU choose to retain suggests a non-NPOV. No matter how inflamatory you might think the subjects personal opinions are, simply attributing them to her is not an issue of POV in a biographical article about her. I bet you wouldn't have a problem with including a fact like, "her mother wanted her to learn spanish but she wanted to be more like the other Iranian kids in her neighborhood and learned her father's Farsi instead." --JJLatWiki 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The bits of informaion you wish to include, for the most part, probably best belong in the trivia section. I might just move some of it over there, myself. As far as the last line is concerned, it just sounds less than "encyclopedic" to me, and more "gossip column" orientated. Not to mention the grammatical element of it. Technajunky 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My contention is that these are well-cited statements that are particularly pertinent and relevant. These are people, places, things, and events that seem to have shaped Shani's life and helped make her into the person she is today. These are either from interviews or from various biographies. If the facts or statements are from an interview, the interviewer felt the question and answer were both relevant and significant enough to warrant the question and publication of the response. Furthermore, there is apparently no dispute over the facts or the POV of the wording, at least based on the limited discussion that concluded only contending relevance. But, given that Shani is a fairly insignificant entity at this time and there is very little of substance to tell us more about her, the paragraph and facts in question gains importance in this biography.

My contention is that it detracts form the paragraph, and lowers it to a level best left out of a Wikipedia biographical stub or article. Technajunky 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

But you removed the entire paragraph. You didn't make the paragraph better. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose of categorizing an article as a WP:STUB is to encourage others to expand on it. Stub status isn't meant as a limiting factor. --JJLatWiki 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, give me a break. I have time contraints in the real world. I am more than happy to work on this particular paragraph WITH you. There need not be a confrontational aspect to this disagreement. Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Because you have time constraints, you refuse to improve the paragraph, opting instead to simply remove everything you find objectionable. None of your actions thus far indicates any willingness to work with anyone who wants to add information with which you disagree. --JJLatWiki 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already stated that I seek a consenus in our disagreement, and have already presented a "happy medium" for our dispute. Do you wish for a consesus in this matter, or not? Technajunky 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting outside commentary because Technajunky seems uninterested in collaborating or discussion. I think this is contrary to the spirit of WP and WP:DR, which says, "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.", "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.", "Provide a good edit summary...". I've attempted to resolve the dispute on this article's Talk page and Technajunky's Talk page, and I've disengage for a while. Request for comment seems to be the next logical course of action.

I removed the paragraph for the simple reason that it is unneeded conjecture, and gives the article a less than encyclopedic air to it. The purpose of a biographical article in an encyclopedia is to place relavent facts about a notable individual into a short piece of literature for ease of consumption. Anything beyond the facts, is best left to a far deeper and more serious biographical publication, such as a book. Beyond this simple realization, what must ask themselves, does such a paragraph add to the article, or make it sound as though it was written at a 7th grade level(as many wiki articles at times do appear to be so)? I for one, prefer to er on the side of simplicity and professionalism. Technajunky 18:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph for the simple reason that it is unneeded conjecture, and gives the article a less than encyclopedic air to it. "Conjecture"? I think you need to look up conjecture or make the claim that the cited statements are probably false. "Encyclopedic air"? Like the trivia section? Or her being a beauty queen in her teen years? Does the fact that Jessica Alba "had pneumonia 4-5 times a year" have an "encyclopedic air"? --JJLatWiki 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that pneumonia is FAR more serious an issue than some of the "facts" you so passionatly insist on pushing forth. Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Frequent bouts of Pneumonia probably had a significant influence on her childhood, but does it add to the "encyclopedic air" you're seeking with the Shani article? And if it does, why doesn't her description of her father as "a bit of a tyrant" qualify? If she said her father was "strict" or "firm" or "stern", I would understand your position of triviality. But she called him a "tyrant". That seems to be a significant influence on her early life. --JJLatWiki 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As I already said, something like surviving pnemonia is a very serious and major fact, and certainly would belong in a biographical article. The second element though, sounds very much like hearsay, at least in the American sense of the word. I believe I am in line with Wikipedia's rules governing Biographies of living persons, and specifically, public figures. WP:Biographies_of_living_persons --Technajunky 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Anything beyond the facts, is best left to a far deeper and more serious biographical publication, such as a book. Are you disputing the facts? Or are you saying these 107 words push the article to justification for a book? --JJLatWiki 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you swearing by those same "facts", or are you picking such trivial bits of information out of various magazine articles, to prove a point. That is the question at hand...NPOV Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm not swearing by the information I've inserted. I read them in the various sources I cited and I chose them because they were the least trivial bits of information available and seemed to say something about her. Her placement in Maxim is significant for her resume, but trivial for biography. Just like her desire to be more like the neighborhood "white kids" is significant for her bio, but trivial for her resume. Unfortunately, you are the one who is requiring other editors to prove their point with this article. It started with her spanish heritage and continues with anything that isn't a glowing positive tone regarding her father. --JJLatWiki 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

..does such a paragraph add to the article, or make it sound as though it was written at a 7th grade level(as many wiki articles at times do appear to be so)? So make the paragraph better. The subject of the article feels the facts are relevant to her life. The interviewers and publishers of the printed publication felt the facts were relevant. It might help others understand the subject a little better. And maybe 7th graders, in particular, can see a little of themselves in Shani's life and learn from her success. --JJLatWiki 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you really believe that tabloid style information has any real place in a biographical stub or article? Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Tabloid style"? The stuff I put in is far from the salacious stuff any tabloid would require. --JJLatWiki 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I for one, prefer to er on the side of simplicity and professionalism. I agree that removing whole paragraphs does simplify the article. It doesn't add to the substance or usefulness of WP, but it is simpler. What's interesting though is the trivial information that you chose to leave intact and the meaningful information you chose to "simplify". --JJLatWiki 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You lost me on this one, as I think you are looking too far into this, in my humble opinion. Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that what you've done to this article, and the only thing you've done to this article, in the name now of "simplicity and professionalism", is deleting any information that you find personally disagreeable. --JJLatWiki 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I Oppose deletion of the discussed paragraph, but Support removal of the last sentence as expressed in the comment I made above. I suggest you read Don't bite the newbies wiki guideline. -- Zavreio 18:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Only about half that paragraph could be considered "factual", as opposed to conjecture. Is she a Qajar? Yes. Did she go to a Catholic School? Yes, but who cares. Did she sing in a Church Choir, Yes. Did she want to be more like the "white kids"? Thats a VERY loaded statement to put in a Wiki biographical article. Was her father a "bit of a tyrant"? Perhaps, but that is out of the scope of this article's purpose. Lets keep it simple, and to the point. Technajunky 18:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What is "conjecture" about anything in the entire paragraph? You haven't denied any of the statements. Only that they are beyond "care", "loaded", and beyond the "scope" of the article. Shani feels the facts are relevant. Other websites dedicated to Shani feels the facts are relevant. Professional interviewers feel the facts are relevant. Publishers of printed publications feel the facts are relevant. Shani said, "white kids". That's how SHE felt. It's meaningful to her. If it had a significant impact on her childhood and helped form her life, it belongs in her biography. --JJLatWiki 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Conjecture is just that...Conjecture. I prefer to stick with facts that are more or less obvious, of importance, and contribute to the purpose of the article in question. Using a tabloid as a reference to this B actresse's view of "white kids" and "being a teacher's pet" in her youth not only lacks relevance, put perhaps crosses the line from a biographical stub, to Hollywood gossip. Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no conjecture in anything that I've added to this article. The information is cited and comes from interviews of the subject. The sources are not tabloids, in the pejorative sense that I assume you intend. And since the sources are claiming that the subject herself made the statements that I subsequently quoted, it can not remotely be considered "gossip". "Gossip" would involve perpetuating what others have said about her, not what she says about herself. So, unless you're accusing the sources of lying, I don't see a problem with the sources or the statements. --JJLatWiki 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, you are very passionate about this...I wonder why? NPOV Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I asure you that I am far less passionate about adding factual, elucidative information about the subject than you are about removing anything that casts an unfavorable light on anything Iranian. And I don't wonder why you are so passionate. --JJLatWiki 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a very interesting, and rather inaccurate accusation you just made towards me. It actually tells me far more about your intentions in this matter, than anything you know about my interests in this issue. Might I ask you to please review the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks? --[[WP::No_personal_attacks]]-- Technajunky 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you are very skilled for a "newbie". My complements, and I do agree that too much trivia was/is included in the bottom of the article. If you want to spend the time "fixing" it, you have my support. Technajunky 18:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not say anything about trivia in the Shahi article... with which I also do have my reservations, but I rather remain as far from it as possible. -- Zavreio 02:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought you put up a "Too Much Trivia" tag on this article, but I'm probably mistaken. Never mind then. Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Zavreio, why is her religious practice and "teacher's pet" irrelevant? She doesn't seem to think so. And her religiousity seems to be a common topic in interviews. And, any of her fans forgive me but, what is the significance of the entire subject? From a "biographical" standpoint, her early life is critical. Otherwise, the article is just a snapshot of her professional career. Is this a biographical article or her resumé? --JJLatWiki 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously... how life-altering can being a teacher's pet be? Would you consider biographical also adding her favorite color and the tv show she enjoys watching the most too? -- Zavreio 02:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would agree that included "facts" should be of a certain relevant worth to the article. Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? You and I are seriously debating whether this little-known actor's self-description as a "teacher's pet" is worthy of using up the extra 50 bytes of drive space on Wikipedia? Basically, you say it's not worthy and I say it does no harm to include it and tells us a little more about her. It's incredibly insignificant, and if there were any publication that had more to say about her than this article, I probably wouldn't say anything more. As it is though, in all the available information on her, being a teacher's pet is among the most significant. Take a gander at damn near every bio for every young movie and tv actor in WP and I bet you'll find a boat load of pointless facts, like the fact that Elisabeth Shue's son, Miles' second name is an homage to her dead brother. --JJLatWiki 05:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We seriously "debated" the need for such bits of information before, and the rational conculsion is that such small facts are not always needed, and may actually take away from the over all purpose of the article. I have already stated that I am willing to work with you on this, so as to achieve a consensus of sorts, and I am still very willing. After all, even if only some of that paragraph's information is placed within the article, it will still be benefit from the scrutiny of BOTH of our differing viewpoints. Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we first need to find out what YOU think the purpose is of a biographical article. But once again, your willingness to compromise ends where information you find objectionable is inserted. I'm sorry, but from what I've seen, you have no interest in having a high quality biographical article. You're only interest is preserving the Iranian image. And I don't have time to try add substance to an article like this that is being protected by someone with such an agenda. So unless someone else chimes in on this article or debate, I cede the article to you and your agenda. Feel free to remove any facts you like that you find objectionable. --JJLatWiki 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have found that our disagreements on this article, as well as others, have caused both of us to in conjunction produce a superior peace of work. The nature of finding a consensus and "middle ground" that is probably closest to reality, is best for those who may read an article in search of basic and accurate information. I am rather disappointed then, that you have decided to resort to a personal attack of sorts, that infact questions both my intentions and integrity as an editor(WP:No_personal_attacks). Everyone, and every editor, is only human. We all have some degree of bias, no matter how hard we strive for a truly objective point of view. What you have claimed of me is hardly a truthful statement then, as I have repeatidly ceded to many of your points in both this article, and that of the Saeqeh aircraft. -- Technajunky 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Zavreio, did I say something to you too harshly? Why should I review WP:BITE? I'm not sure what part I should work on. --JJLatWiki 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought he was talking to me!?!? Technajunky 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)