Talk:Anna Slotky

message: Updated her year of birth and religion. Anna grew up 1 street from me and we're old friends. Bstone 22:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: It did not take very long, but the birth date has yet again been set to one which is incorrect. There are a few unreliable websites which have Anna's birth date incorrect and do not respond to emails. I assume the anon IPs are using these websites as this source of information. I will have Anna email wikipedia informing them that the birth date listed here is entirely incorrect, that she was not alive in 1979 and rather the 1981 date is correct. Bstone (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so everyone knows, Anna has now sent an email to wikipedia from her personal email address indicating that her birthday is incorrect. Bstone (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Per several personal conversations, and the fact that I've been to more than a few of them, Anna's birth day is June 30, 1981. I realize it is now out of the article, but when/if it returns we should make every effort to refrain from the 1979 address. Anna herself has emailed wikipedia informing the powers that be that 30 June 1981 is indeed her proper birthday. Bstone (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her e-mail to us can't be cited as a source.  We will need something published in a reliable location to verify this. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 19:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we have already discussed that. However, she has contacted wikipedia through the proper channels and informed those on the other side of the email curtain that the 1979 birthdate presented in this article is indeed wrong and that the 1981 one is correct. Like all good editors, we should issue a correction based on the correct information coming directly from the source. Bstone (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: J.S has seen the email but due to WP:OTRS rules can't reveal the contents to anyone. The most that we can do is remove information that is challenged by the subject. We can't use the email as a source of information as the email must remain confidential. Wikipedia wants correct information but if it can't be backed up properly, no information at all is the best option. --NrDg 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Part of the problem with e-mails of this nature is that I can't be entirely sure that it is valid - at least in this case.  We must fall back on wikipedia policy to guide us on what is right. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 20:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An email might even qualify as independent research. Wouldn't it have to be from a verifiable third-party source? ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C   22:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (deindent) Well, ideally, yes... but realistically it could be a reasonable primary source too... such as her website, autobiography or an interview.  Since this is just background information a primary source would be fine. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 19:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI. Look at how a similar situation was handled here. Looks like they saw the OTRS report as a primary source and used it. Might be worthwhile to see if it is possible to do the same here. Or if they made a mistake there. I think you have to reference a ticket number in the talk page if you use the report to modify the article. --NrDg 21:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there isn't an active dispute going on over a birthday in the article I usually will just take their word for it and change it for them. Birthdays are normally just inconsequential background information and like other information of that type it doesn't require a source unless it's challenged. It's basically the other side to "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources".  That is just my take on the issue... and as I'm just a regular editor like you, other editors may have a different interpretation. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your call as you have the info. I'm just as happy leaving the information out of the article as it has been challenged and I would like to see it sourced in something I can verify for myself. I think birth date info might be more sensitive than other inconsequential info because of privacy and identity theft concerns so default should be to require a source. Anyway I protected the page for a short time to see if the 1 issue roving IP will either work with us or give up. I don't really want to leave this page protected and was hoping for a stable solution. --NrDg 23:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth Date is Incorrect

message: Reference  here for Jewish category. Basket of Puppies 00:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which uses wiki as a source. Nevermind. Basket of Puppies 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish cat