Talk:Tinsel Korey/Archive 1

Archive 1

k.bn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.216.129 (talk) 10:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Deleting the following paragraphs:

Doubts concerning her heritage surfaced as early as February 2008. [4] It has been alleged that neither "Tinsel" nor "Korey" are her real names. Korey herself has stated that Tinsel is indeed her correct first name, but that she will not provide evidence of this. It has been asserted that Korey's parents are from the Republic of India with the last name "Patel" and that Korey was raised a devout Hindu. [5]

Korey herself has claimed in 2009 that she was adopted as an infant and "grew up in a Jewish neighbourhood in Toronto" [6] and that her biological parents were Anishnaabe. In 2005 she had said however, that she does not know which tribe her biological parents belonged to and that "people guess Ojibway". [7]

In response to allegations that she does not have Native American heritage, Korey stated on her MySpace page that she will not release her birth certificate nor her date of birth nor her birth year or her place of birth, thus making verification of her identity impossible. She stated that she is not an enrolled tribal member, does not have a Certificate of Indian Status and has no plans to get one. [8]

The references for the above seems to be a post on a my space page about refusing to "friend" the subject because she was not "native" (4) and the next reference from an anon on a blog (5)(8) A passing joke by the subject (7) and (6) is a dead site. Again, deleting as inadequate referencing and potentially libel if not slander. Exvoxmachina (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

None of this justifies the constant section blanking on the page. Deleting all the information re: the controversy surrounding her alleged background, name, age and identity does not improve the article, nor does it make the issue go away. She has provided all of the referenced information herself, the sources just report it. None of this is "libel", nor is it "slander"; she has made all of these claims, if only to recant some later. It is true that she refuses to let her age be known, she has no tribal affiliation, the information she has provided re: her "background" is constantly changing, et cetera.

The references for the above seems to be a post on a my space page about refusing to "friend" the subject because she was not "native" ...this claim is original research, and has little if nothing to do with the fact that doubts about her many different claims still remain. --Tweeheart (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the citations are "Original Research". The "doubts" are the opinion of what appear to be two people' one of whom cites the other as his proof. The other citations are misinterpretations or simply don't exist.

"She has provided all of the referenced information herself" then the citations need to show this. They don't. Exvoxmachina (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the section blanking that has gone on in this article is supported by WP:UNDUE, has been from many anons/various IPs and seems to stem from the same POV/agenda. If you re-read what I posted, I am not referring to the citations as "original research", but pointing out that your claims are:

The references for the above seems to be a post on a my space page about refusing to "friend" the subject because she was not "native"

and the next reference from an anon on a blog

A passing joke by the subject

...all original research. Deleting the information surrounding the multiple claims re: identity and background is not supported by WP:NEU. --Tweeheart (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the blanking supports ALL three tenets. Reverting. Exvoxmachina (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate section dedicated to the allegations surrounding her many claims should be added to the page. Either way, there are several articles on the internet covering this issue; as well as the fact that she will not state any clear or verifiable information re: her background (while other Native-identified actors/actresses assigned Native roles do so consistently), should be noted.

"TINSEL KOREY The enigmatic Canadian musician, who has been acting since 2004, has refused to release her birth certificate to verify her age or her heritage, which is speculated to be Indian or Native Canadian Aboriginal. ... Tinsel is putting the finishing touches to her debut album."

OK! (Magazine) November 23, 2009 Issue 181 pg 44.

The doubts have stemmed from the fact that she has been garnering roles in mostly-Native productions or that were supposed to have gone to tribally-affiliated persons (hence the controversy, something not limited to just this one individual) and has only recently begun self-describing as 'Anishinaabe' (which is neither a tribe nor band but regional-/cultural-identifier) when asked what her TRIBAL affiliation is. You do not seem to have a reason for deletion other than crying, "Slander!" while others' reasons for editing the page (and mine for reverting your unconstructive edits) are stated clearly. --Tweeheart (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I see nothing in the TwiCrackaddict link to support anything you have written about Tinsel Korey. As far as, Rob Schmidt's blog on Blue Corn Comics is unreliable beyond belief. Look at the initial Tinsel Korey post and the next post spawned by a rather suspicious comment left in reply to the first post. The source which Schmidt quoted partially retracted her claims upon closer scrutiny. Furthermore, people in the comments of the first post accused me of being Tinsel Korey, including the source of his story. The fact that I have categorically denied this hasn't stopped this rumor from spreading as well, and it is about as well documented as the rumors you're posting about Tinsel Korey. All I'm saying is raising these questions on Wikipedia is very damaging, especially when done to an actress who doesn't have a large Wikipedia article to begin with. How would you like it if you did something notable and your Wikipedia entry simply described rumors of you having smelly feet instead about of what you are notable for? Nangbaby (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hon, I've been told by a (is it "a" or "the"?) gaggle of admins that my deletions were unacceptable, there for you win. Gossip and Opinion prevail! When in doubt call in the dogs THEN do your research. I am so done here. Exvoxmachina (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone in the world is going to willfully cling to an individual's stories, even if said individual is [z-list, semi-] famous. The fact is, the subject has no tribal affiliation WHATSOEVER, has lied repeatedly about where she supposedly comes from and expects people to not question it - even those in the Native community. Several Native actors who've had the "fortune" to work with this individual have spoken about it, it's not exactly a "few people" on the internet with these doubts. Those outsiders claiming Native heritage are numerous, and the deception hasn't stopped - Grey Owl, Ward Churchill, Nasdijj, et cetera. Sorry, but Indigenous persons are the only people that require some sort of identification (and I'm not talking CIB or tribal enrollment, I'm talking tribal AFFILIATION/band recognition and, um, a FAMILY). At least Tweeheart stuck to the argument, whereas Exvoxmachina appears to be a celebrity-follower that signed up to Wikipedia to start a pointless edit war. Your last comment sounds like a condescending temper tantrum. I wonder if David Carradine fans go on his page to delete information regarding his death, since it was not so favorable to his image? Hm. --99.58.73.101 (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a guideline that states, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." Besides, some of those "sources" also claim that Tinsel Korey is an alias for other screen names ("Nangbaby," "Harsha Patel," etc.). Should we believe the rumors too? I hope not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.50.17 (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the content regarding Tinsel Korey's status. This has nothing to do with her roles and is just personal (mis)information that overwhelms her verifiable career information. Furthermore linking to those sites is affecting me personally. Finally, recent news from Ms. Korey herself is being undone in favor of rumors. When a reputable publication goes forward with any of these stories, then include it. But right now, this is just gossip which is damaging Tinsel Korey's reputation AND my own. Nangbaby (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not "affecting you personally". This is not about you or your user name, either. I don't know if you're one of the minions sent out to edit this page (random people keep popping up here and there to "delete false information" as is stated every time in the history).

Also Us magazine IS a reputable publication. Whether you agree or not, you can purchase it at any newsstand and see for yourself: "...has refused to release her birth certificate to verify her age or her heritage, which is speculated to be Indian or Native Canadian Aboriginal." This also affects the Native community, but neither you nor Korey seem to care about that. Typical. --99.159.45.144 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When the same people who making these claims are going around claiming that I'm Tinsel Korey because I disagree with this approach, believe me, it is affecting me personally because I have to spend time that I could spend sleeping or doing something else explaining my position, or explaining that I'm not Tinsel Korey, or a "minion." Of course, whether you believe me or not is irrelevant to the subject of this article, but a Wikipedia article on a living person should not be based on conjecture, especially one of an actress who clearly does not have an army of "minions" to overwhelm this group effort. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy, and devoting half of the article to the question of Tinsel Korey's identity isn't merely imbalanced, but also in bad faith. It's one thing to have suspicions about Ms. Korey, but publishing quotes in an attempt to raise an issue you have or a group has with the actress has no place in a biography. If she does not show a birth certificate on demand, that is irrelevant to her vocation, let alone a biography. She is not running for political office, so she does not need to show anyone that information to perform.

Also, you are so determined in this quest you have deleted relevant new information about Tinsel Korey's career from the actress herself. Why not at least allow that new information into the article? Nangbaby (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User talk:99.159.45.144. You do indeed appear to be pushing something. When we edit here we try to edit from a neutral perspective. I cannot imagine a situation where someone on Wikipedia is going to accuse you of being Korey. I am not saying that it has not happened, just that I find it hard to believe. You claim that "people" think you are Korey. I assume that is the point behind the youtube video? Well why do people think you are Korey? What are you leading people to believe? Or what actions are you taking that might make people think that? My point is, you do not appear to be editing from a neutral perspective. None of your personal life problems is the concern of the editors here. The sole concern regarding this article is not to quell your personal problems or even add what Korey wants. It is simply to provide accurate, verifiable information. If this is all truly affecting you personally and damaging your and Koreys reputations then I have to suggest that you editing here is a conflict of interest. Though as I alluded to above I cannot imagine how anyone is going to confuse you unless you are deliberately misleading others. - 4twenty42o (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If anyone looks at the Blue Corn Comics link on Tinsel Korey mixed in with the speculation is the accusation I mentioned, an accusation several commenters agree with while perpetuating the rumors about Tinsel Korey's heritage. Since you are accepting this source and the comments as a verifiable source, you are granting parity to a vocal minority viewpoint over the general tone of the article. If anyone is pushing something, it's your group creating uncertainty about an actress's ethnic background and pushing that to the forefront of the article. Also, there is information from the actress herself that is relevant to this article I have added that you are deleting in favor of your own edits. Just because I add information does not mean I'm a publicist or working for Korey as you insinuate (which is just a step from accusing me of being Korey herself). While you hint of me of having an agenda to hide your own bias, it is quite clear to me that you are the one not editing in good faith, especially when you throw around accusations that distract from the fact that Tinsel Korey's personal information is not relevant to her career and that your sources are not only not credible but unqualified authorities. Nangbaby (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Nangbaby

Your comment holds no weight.. No one accused you of being a publicist of Koreys, of being Korey herself and for that matter insinuate anything at all. I spoke plain clear English and in nothing that I wrote did I accuse you of anything even remotely similar to what you are suggesting. I suggested you may be editing with a conflict of interest, I stated that no one is confusing you with Korey and I stated very plainly that it is quite clear to me that you are not editing in good faith at this point. I did not accuse you of anything else. You claims are baseless and will be treated as such. It is utterly ludicrous to suggest that Wikipedia is causing personal problems in your life. That anyone thinks you are Korey. Or that I am editing with bias. I do not know you, never heard of Korey until this article popped up and do not particularly care what the status of your character is. I strongly urge you to either find a new hobby or start contributing usefully. Here on Wikipedia we make changes based on consensus when disagreements arise and consensus is that your edits, while originally in good faith, are inappropriate with the given sources. - 4twenty42o (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"No one accused you of being a publicist of Koreys," you write, but previously you suggested that I had a conflict of interest. The most prominent groups that fall into that category are the actual subjects of the articles and publicists. How is suggesting that I have a conflict of interest not a backhanded accusation? And finally, you completely ignore any of the points I raised about the problems with the sources (the Anonymous contributions, the comments which are accepted as fact).

No one on Wikipedia has accused you of being Tinsel Korey. I do not even believe you are affiliated with her. However, you do seem to be a fan and defendant bringing personal bias to the edits. I viewed your YouTube link, and it is all about a falling out you had with an individual you claim is trying to ruin your reputation. Your personal dispute should not affect the content of the article. This one person is in no way responsible for the articles addressing the issue or mentioning the allegations. This is not about damaging OR clearing your reputation or Korey's, it is about presenting a balanced POV in the article. --99.159.45.144 (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, let's put any personal issue with the sources I have aside and focus on the actual questions I have. How is Tinsel Korey hosting the 2010 awards not notable, even though she was in the 2008 ones? Why are you disallowing all edits to this? Again, what is the point of devoting half an article on not the utmost notable of actresses? It's not balanced given that you're making a mountain out of a molehill and disregarding information on her career. That's disproportionate given the subject's importance, given the volumes that have been written about her, etc. And there's nothing in bad faith in pointing that out. It would be the same as if the "truther" controversy was the entirety of the 9/11 article, or Holocaust denials were the main subject of the Holocaust article. It would not be balanced. Nangbaby (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, NO ONE IS DISALLOWING ALL EDITS. The edits you've made were reverted because they were not constructive and biased. And the only one here "making a mountain out of a molehill" is you. I do not care enough to get rid of sourced information regarding this individual's career - I don't think anyone else does, either.

The fact that you are now comparing this particular person's article containing information regarding the doubts/allegations surrounding her "identity" to a 9/11 article containing nothing but content on the truther controversy or a Holocaust article containing quotes from deniers is ridiculous and, quite frankly, telling. You have driven your argument off a cliff, and proven that you do not care for a balanced POV - just yours.

Furthermore, your personal vendetta against the individual you mention in the YouTube video has no place here, yet it seems to be what motivates your edits. You have, as well as other anons and new users, have taken it upon yourself to delete all content of the article you claim "overwhelms" information regarding her movie roles (or whatever), because of an unrelated party. --99.159.45.144 (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I still say the sources would give a rational person skepticism. The first source is a gossip page. Another source is an opinionated (if well-written) blog. One is a screenshot which could have easily been faked. If this "evidence" had been raised against Brad Pitt, this wouldn't even be enough for a footnote. It could have been possible to incorporate part of my edit and restore the previous material as well. The fact that my removals and additions were undone leads me to believe that there is an attempt to grant an equivalency to a rumor without regard of the subject's career. Proportionally, it is as unbalanced as the hypothetical situations I listed, which is what I tried to communicate.

Finally, I have not even mentioned the original source of much of these rumors in the article and that person is not mentioned in the article, so I can't see how removing content in this article is somehow linked to any vendetta. It seems strange how any rumor that I mention is somehow irrelevant, but a rumor about Tinsel Korey is somehow acceptable, despite both having roughly the same support. Nangbaby (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding content which pushes your own personal vendetta does not contribute to the topic of this article. This is not a forum for your personal grievances against a single person who clearly is not even the source (or even the only voice) of these questions. Please take your personal issues elsewhere. --99.232.29.59 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ugh.. OK, no one is telling you that you cannot add properly sourced material, no one is telling you that you cannot edit this article. What was said, again, is that you are not going to remove properly sourced content without a consensus. There is no comparison to the 9/11 articles, the holocaust or the truther crap. Why are you having such a hard time understanding what this is all about?? Please stop and read the 5 pillars and the introduction to editing. Even though you are not a new user I am going to send you a welcome template. Please review it and stop wasting our (yours and mine) time with this nonsense. - 4twenty42o (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I presume then, that it's okay to add some content. Since the original source deleted the information of the name, the first mention of the full actual alleged name comes from my original post, which has since been used in a backhanded way of supporting the theory. If I did delete something important, I'm sorry. Nangbaby (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

New section

Regarding the mention above of adding "properly sourced material", I have to question much of the contents of this article. Most of the allegations are supported only by anonymous and pseudo-anonymous comments on a blog. The properly source materials article describes such material as "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Well, that leaves anonymous blog comments right out. As for the original blog posting to which the comments are attached: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable." I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I'm curious about an apparent disconnect between the standards that are being cited and what's actually in this article. Dumnbunny (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• This discussion is not going to take place. This is a very poor attempt at sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. You are trying to make us believe that now 2 people are asking the same silly questions? If you do not stop with this silliness I will report you and ask for a checkuser. This is the only time I am going to say this. Pick one name and do not edit under another one while we are discussing this. - 4twenty42o (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am not a sock-puppet, and I resent the implication. I use the dumnbunny handle in various places (just Google it up) and if you'd like me to post a message elsewhere under one of those well-used handles, just ask. If you'd rather report this and call for a checkuser, go nuts. I have nothing to hide. I posted honest questions assuming there was some reasonable explanation for why anonymous comments on a personal blog were considered properly source materials. I still hold out hope for such an explanation.

• This is an issue for me because I have several family members who are Native Canadians, and given the historical problems Native Canadian women have sometimes had with getting recognized as Natives, this whole thing just gets under my skin. It doesn't help that I came to find out about this when I followed a link from a blog I follow dealing with issues of race, and found a white guy demanding that a Native woman prove her heritage to his satisfaction, based solely on Internet allegations. This just pushes all kinds of buttons for me. Dumnbunny (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I stepped into the middle of a fight and despite knowing I was doing so I apparently didn't do so tactfully enough. So I'll try this again.

I'm brand new here (long time user, first time commenter), and other editors on this page such as 4twenty42o have been around for a long time. So I ask an honest question of those with vastly more experience than I: under what circumstances are anonymous comments on a personal blog considered "properly sourced material"? Perhaps there's an addendum to the rules that I'm unaware of, or a separate rules article which covers this. Perhaps I'm just asking the wrong question, and this doesn't apply. Perhaps the rules differ for celebrities (yeah, I'm grasping at straws here, but I'm trying to understand).

Of course, I suspect that in this understandably emotionally charged case, improperly sourced material has been allowed to stand. If that's the case, shouldn't it be removed until a better source can be found? Or perhaps there are circumstances where it should stand?

I don't know. I'm just asking questions. Anybody have answers to the above? Dumnbunny (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have already stated. You are free to remove contested material (this includes material lacking proper references). You may not add links to some silly youtube video. You may not add unreliably sourced material and you may not add your original research. Feel free to edit within the scope of verifiability. I am not going to debate and I am not going to feed this ridiculous line of questioning. You claim to be a long time reader then you know the rules. Any more postings on multiple accounts and any more "its affecting me personally" or equating this to nazi's truthers or any other crap will be reported immediately and we both know what checkuser will find. I operate in good faith in all things but I will not be party to abuse of the talk page, nor abuse of the process of reaching a consensus. - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I 'll be asking for a checkuser myself. Dumnbunny (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dumnbunny (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And removed. I did a little browsing through the rules and found one which stated that self-requested checkusers are rarely granted and should not be submitted, so I deleted it. So the ball is in your court. If you are convinced your accusation is correct, please request a checkuser. If not, please withdraw your accusation. Please understand that I am not questioning your statement that you operate in good faith; I am depending on it. Dumnbunny (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1