Talk:Sarah Shahi/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: About her

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  IMDB only allowable source? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: #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)
replies: text:   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)

text: #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)
replies: text:  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)

text: #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)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text: *Are you referring to any "bias and deliberate misinformation" in this article? --JJLatWiki 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *"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)

text: *"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)

text: *"...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)

text: *"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)

text: *"..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)

text: *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  tag to flag what I think is dubious information.  --JJLatWiki 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased and noncorrelating? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  What about Relevance? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Technajunky's summary removal of biographical paragraph