Talk:Kara Young

sourcing of claims

but someone keeps adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.20.105 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The FT article begs to differ. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This article in the June 11 issue of the Financial Times (which is a reliable source) says "The approach has worked well for Mr Georgiopoulos personally – he claims a net worth of $2bn." [1]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not an article about him, and since it is just a "claim" it's not a completely verified, publicized fact. 108.46.128.94 (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Forbes and Fortune are not the only RS that exist. Furthermore it is irrelevant if a fact is true or not. It only matters if it is cited by a RS. And your request for someone to provide a non registration link is unreasonable. Online cites are NOT required per wikipedia guidelines. . Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here: 1) Do we have reliable source(s) that the guy is a billionaire. That answer is yes. The argument that because it is self reported makes it invalid is not a valid argument and is neutralized by just saying " Kara Young is married to Peter Georgiopolos a self-reported billionaire". So that argument that its just a "claim" holds no water with me or Wiki policy in my opinion. 2) The second argument; that facts about her husband are off topic, has some validity in my opinion. I'm on the fence on that one. I would not be opposed to the phrase "self-reported billionaire" being in the article, nor would I oppose it being left out of the article. Quite frankly it does not add or subtract from the article in any substantial way and I wonder why its such a point of contention here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Arrested in Thailand

I have removed this info from the lead as it gives it too much weight IMHO (I was the one that added it). It would be good to know what happened after the arrest. Was there a conviction? deportation? conviction? Or were the charges dropped? Here's what WP:BLPCRIME has to say: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime when the person has not yet been convicted." Any comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of RS articles about this incident. [[2]] is similar to the one just removed. Also her Facebook page mentions this arrest, so I doubt it is a bone of contention with the subject. Furtherore, the arrest ties into the subjects notability. Im in favor of keeping it in. An arrest is not a conviction. Mayr it could be moved down from the lede so not to give it undue weight? Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ETA, didn't realize you actaully did move it from the lede. I agree. I should read more carefully next time. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fasttimes, I think we are in agreement. Its notable for the article but having it in the lead gives it too much weight. Thanks for participating in the discussion. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with Donald Trump

Was Donald Trump married in 1997? If so, wouldn't he have been having "an affair" with Young rather than "dating" her? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)