Talk:Sydney Tamiia Poitier

message: Could John please explain here why the "Afro-Caucasian people" is inappropriate for Ms Poitier ? It is now duly referenced that she has a (very notable) black father and a (somewhat notable) white mother, and that it is arguably part of her appeal. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this. Right now, I'm taking a wikibreak for a few days, as this is getting close to silly. Cheers, Wedineinheck (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I (and another admin) have explained in great detail at your talk page why this is not acceptable. To include the category we require verifiable third party sources stating that her ethnic background is in some way significant to her notability. Should you supply that, we can retain the category. Otherwise, it will continue to be removed as it is merely your own synthesis which is not allowed under our policy on the coverage of living people. --John (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is another interesting data point for you. --John (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Wikipedia supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity. When I come back, I'll enjoy reading how you prove that Ms Poitier is not biracial. Wedineinheck (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that isn't how it works. The onus is on the person wishing to add dubious information to cite it. If in doubt, we delete. --John (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "we" ? The info is properly sourced and relevant. Ms Poitier's father is a very notable black man who is notably married to a somewhat notable white woman; hence she is notably biracial. Please give a proper explanation on why this annoys you, or I'll tend to consider you a vandal. Wedineinheck (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "We" are Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that you are currently editing. I'll make this as simple as I can. 1) Biracial does not equal "Afro-caucasian". 2) To include the category we require verifiable third party sources stating that her ethnic background is in some way significant to her notability. Should you supply that, we can retain the category. Otherwise, it will continue to be removed as it is merely your own synthesis which is not allowed under our policy on the coverage of living people. I hope this helps you to understand why adding this category is not acceptable under our policies. Finally, throwing around terms like vandal is unlikely to advance the debate we are having. --John (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnicity

message: The link from Ms. Poitier's article to the movie THE LIST is incorrect. She does not appear in that film. She appears in a another movie with that title for which Wikipedia has no article.
RobertC-4 (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks for the correction. Altamel (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sydney Tamiia Poitier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506092315/http://ifogo.com/1Authors/Sidney%20Poitier/poitier.html to http://ifogo.com/1Authors/Sidney%20Poitier/poitier.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added a link to Sydney Tamiia Poitier's entry in the California Birth Index and it was reverted.  A search of wikipedia for "californiabirthindex.org" shows that it has been used in no fewer than 456 other pages as documentation of notable persons' dates of birth.  If you're going to revert my submission then perhaps you should revert the other 456 too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serendipity94123 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Public documents are not reliable; see WP:BLPPRIMARY. The fact that an unreliable source is used in 456 other articles is not an indication that it is okay to use in a 457th article; it is an indication that it should be removed from 456 articles. --Geniac (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . I have been removing CBI citations as I find them. I didn't realize how many are left. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes, People is a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#People. A person can be a source of information about themself, yes. However, if you suspect that a person would have a reason to lie, then no. See WP:ABOUTSELF. The official registry of births in California is a public document, and therefore not reliable. --Geniac (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , while you are on the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, be sure to look over the full list. You may see some others that you might want to use (or not use, depending on the source's rating). I also suggest that you look at WP:USERGENERATED. Unfortunately, numerous articles use IMDb, Find A Grave, and other sources that are listed there. As with CBI, citations to user-generated sources can be found in many Wikipedia articles, but that doesn't mean that they should be there. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  California Birth Index (documentation of date of birth)