Talk:Michelle Thomas/Archives/2014

Rosedale Cemetery in Montclair

The source cited states that the cemetery is in Montclair. The editor disputing this says she is buried at Rosedale Cemetery (the source cited doesn't specify). In any case, Rosedale Cemetery says they are at 408 Orange Road in Montclair.[1] - SummerPhD (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Other information

Where can we fit in the fact that Michelle was presented with keys to Columbus, Georgia? The formatting seems a bit off to me. Columbus, Georgia presented the keys to the city to Thomas in anticipation of the 1996 Olympics softball events. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 03:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like the "Early life and career" section is a bit of a Frankenstein, trying to keep everything chronological. Adding the keys to the city bit into that makes the situation more obviously awkward. In substantially longer bios, this can work by adding headings for different portions of someone's life: early life, beginning of career, end of career, retirement, death. In this case, the sections would be far too short. Maybe we should separate out her career from the rest of her life: Birth, parents, schooling and such, brief mention of acting career, keys to the city, etc. in one section; another section on her acting career. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I must be missing something...

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): With discussion still on-going, you're citing a birth date with what source? Oh, of course, "The Internet Movie Database uses September 23, 1968 and December 22, 1998. Findagrave shows a tombstone in the cemetery marked "Chu-Chu" with a birth date of September 23, 1968 and a death date of December 23, 1998. No entry in the Social Security Death Index was found under the name "Michelle Thomas"."

IMDb, by long-standing consensus is not a reliable source. Again, if you disagree please take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard.

Find-a-grave, a self-published source (therefore, not reliable) shows a grave marker for, um, "Chu-Chu". Yes, obviously, a self-published source shows us a grave marker. What part of WP:V does that fall under? If you feel that this is a reliable source, please take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.

Finally, apparently someone checked primary sources (um, no) and couldn't find anything. How is that part of the source for this? I can't really imagine how to word that at the noticeboard... - SummerPhD (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD, you seem to have a never-ending need to rant on the same topic under different subheadings. Can you keep the conversation to one discussion at a time? Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 11:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

In the midst of a discussion of what to do, an editor decided to add a strange list of non-sources to make a claim. I'm not sure how IMDb, an uncited marker of unknown origin and an unsourced claim of absence is the "best available sources". - SummerPhD (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion will never end, ever ... yet we have an encyclopedia to write. People are still discussing the Lincoln assassination and arguing over the details. The best we can hope for is consensus, and if better information comes along that contradicts what we have, we will change it. I added the category for "age controversy" so people will know to be on the lookout for new information. Some people will always have ambiguity in their birth and death if they are born or died at midnight, especially if it is New Year's Eve. I have that in my own family. Consensus was that a slight ambiguity is much better than having no information that lets people speculate that she was 50 or 100 years old when she died. "Chu-Chu" is not ideal, but Occam's razor helps us decide if that is her grave or some random person with the identical birth and death dates. I think you are searching for some absolute "truth" that doesn't exist. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

I have restored the article back to the consensus version. An editor put in the New York Times information as the canonical date of death and removed the day of birth, ignoring the consensus. While the New York Times is an amazing source, they are quoting what the publicist thought was the correct date. I am 100% sure that the New York Times is quoting the publicist properly, but the publicist is just one the sources quoting a date for the death. As we agreed in the RFC as an example of ambiguity, when someone dies close to midnight or on New Years Eve there is inherent ambiguity in the date and year of their death. Until we have a death certificate and birth certificate we have to show the multiple dates and where they come from and discuss the reliability of the sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That is one of the worst leads I have seen. It is needlessly distracting and disrespectful to the subject. It makes it look like her age is the subject of an involved conspiracy theory or is somehow more important than any other part of her biography. If her birth and death dates are that unknowable, they should at least be removed as unknowable rumor, rather than cataloguing multiple obvious typos with the exact same weight as material from better sources. Both the NY Times and People magazine say she died on the 23rd, at the age of thirty, in detailed journalistic obits, rather than line item announcements. I don't see a better source that contradicts these claims. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am sorry your favorite references were not chosen as the truth. The New York Times got the information from her publicist, not a god or a goddess. Some information is inherently fuzzy, and rather than flip a coin to decide which reference was the truth, consensus was to display it as it is currently shown. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus other than that the date of birth is not known. I'm not going to edit war with you, but you are wrong to think that consensus was reached on this page. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to start a new RFC if you no longer support the RFC that you contributed to. You supported Should the Michelle Thomas article read: "She was born on September 23, 1968, although some sources use 1969." Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I can do withour your condescension. The NYT is not my "favorite" source, but of all the ones that you continue to rely upon, it's the only one that I can say is universally accepted here as reliable. I withdraw that support and you don't get to declare consensus. I now oppose your approach completely, and I don't need to start a new RFC, because this one isn't over. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 15:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Such melodrama over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's so trivial, why are you still bothering with it? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Seriously?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Circa 1969" is so controversial it must be removed? There must be some compromise wording that tells the reader her approximate age in the lede. Why is this so controversial? Why leave people thinking she was 50 or 100 when she died? Google Knowledge Graph and Siri both only read the lede and the infobox. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The article currently has no information on her birth because there is debate as to whether she was born in 1968 or 1969. Should the article reflect the best information to date from the tombstone and IMDB which use "September 23, 1968" and explain in a note the potential inaccuracy inherent in each source, until she rises from the grave to present he long form birth certificate? Having no date is much worse than having a potentially inaccurate date with an explanation. See Clara Bow where it says "Her birth year, according to US Census 1910 and 1920 was given as 1905.[9] In the Census of 1930 Bow claims she was born in 1906.[10] and on her gravestone of 1965 the inscription says 1907." Should the Michelle Thomas article read: "She was born on September 23, 1968, although some sources use 1969." with information on the various sources and how accurate they may be in a footnote. And have the same date, "September 23, 1968", in the lede and the infobox connected to the same footnote. This is how it has been handled in all the fuzzy age biographies, we even used to have a category for them. Not having a date lets the reader think that she was 50 or 100 years old when she died, instead of 29 or 30. Of course if another document turns up, that can be included when it is found.

Support

• User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Use the best information to date from IMDB and her gravestone. It can always be changed if more accurate information comes along. Siri and Knowledge Graph only use the lede and infobox so some information needs to be in the lede and infobox. Not having a date lets the reader think that she was 50 or 100 years old when she died, instead of 29 or 30. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Use best available information. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Ditto. This does not require the strict adherence to deletion of unsupported information that WP:BLP demands. For someone who has passed, the best information available should be used and it can be noted that it's unverified in the citation. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 02:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

No one said anything about WP:BLP. I have, however, cited WP:V: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." IMDb is not a reliable source. Her gravestone is not from a published, third-party source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Independent reliable sources do not give a birth date and disagree her death date and age at death. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD: I didn't accuse anyone of referencing BLP. I suppose it's easy to imagine that every comment in support is directed at you, that's not really the case. I mentioned it because it (BLP) bears a standard much greater for legal reasons and I think it's important to distinguish why we might have more difficulty verifying the birth of someone who was not notable at birth and died at an early age - before all the aspects of her notable life might have been gathered from reliable sources. Regarding her death, I'd take the NY Times obituary, citing the date of death as December 23 as the most accurate (certainly over "People" magazine, Entertainment Weekly, Variety or the other references cited (some of which are no longer active links). The encyclopedia is rife with examples of notable people whose specific date of birth are not known and yet life seems to go on. Circa serves the purpose well of indicating to the reader the approximate date of their birth, to the degree to which it can be reasonably ascertained. Reading WP:V literally means that we'll end up taking out a good chunk of of a LOT of articles. The purpose of policies is to ensure that the encyclopedia informs its readers well, and they are not always congruent with one another. They do not stand alone, absent context. If that weren't true, we'd have never had to write the BLP policy, because if we were always removing anything that didn't have an inline citation (per V), we'd never have to worry about the stricter scrutiny required in BLP.

I've read your (many) entries into this RFC, and you've made your case in the oppose section. It's probably not necessary to argue with my points individually. You have not persuaded me from my position and the fact that we disagree is clear, hence the entire purpose of asking for comments in general. Perhaps you might let others participate in the dialogue without pouncing on their comments and we'll see how the consensus develops. Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 09:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Summoned here by bot. I agree about using the best available information, which would NOT include IMDB. That relies on user contributions, just like Wikipedia, and we know that we're not a reliable source. Coretheapple (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What source are you using for that false information? IMDB was sued for displaying the real age of an actress and not what she submitted to the editors. "Hoang also made an issue of how IMDb had allegedly used credit information when she signed up to IMDb's Pro account and how IMDb's employees used a third party verification website to gain information to use in her profile." see this article The submission rules on the webpage for adding yourself as an actor say that "[biographical information] will be sent to the IMDb Data Editors for checking." You can submit a plot summary, you can rate a movie, you can leave comments, you can report an error for review. You can not go in an change Denzel Washington's birthday like you can in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged."Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources

"...self-published media...are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB)..."WP:USERG

As I've said, this is a long-standing consensus. If you disagree, I encourage you to take it up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You might want to check out Wiktionary if you're unclear on the difference between the words "discouraged" and "prohibited". In light of multiple source which disagree, I would clearly discount IMDB and not select it as a source. Absent other information, it is better to use what we have, with appropriate notation of its uncertainty. This is not a crusade of purity as some seem to be making it, but instead whether or not we should just strip out the birthdate entirely and leave it to the reader to wonder if Michelle was born in the 1960s or the 1930s. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 11:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Other words to consider "unacceptable", "strongly" and "consensus". Reliable, third-party published sources are clearly preferable. Such sources imply a variety of dates. Richard's request is that we ignore them in favor of sources that are "unacceptable and strongly discouraged", but (somehow) are the "best available". - SummerPhD (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Summer, throughout your long history on this talk page regarding this issue, all you've done is argue the negative and I haven't seen a single suggestion for how to actually resolve it. You're full of reasons why the "best available" sources shouldn't be used, but I'm not hearing any suggestions for actually solving the dilemma. If you don't have a suggested solution, the incessant harping on what's forbidden is neither helpful nor necessary. We're all aware that we can't find a NYT article stating her date of birth... so what's your proposal? Just eliminate any reference to her birth or age? It would be refreshing to hear your proposed solution rather than a long string of reasons as to why no answer is good enough for you. You seem to have been involved in this discussion for a long time now, and you have yet to persuade others to your point of view by simply quoting policy, so it would be great to hear how you believe we should address this. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 16:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Throughout my long history on this talk page I have repeatedly suggested that we include verifiable information. What reliable sources say, we say. What unreliable sources say, we don't say. What reliable sources don't say, we don't say. Problem solved. If you cannot find where I have suggested this, I can provide links. If you do not feel this is acceptable, there are thousands of articles that have the same "problem". There are notable topics where pieces of fairly basic information are simply not available.

As an alternative, we can add information citing IMDb (which is not reliable and some are now arguing is wrong in this case). We can add information citing a photo of a marker for "Chi-Chi" (which barely merits the word "source", let alone "reliable"). We can state that some unknown person was unable to find her in a database (which firmly establishes that whomever was searching did not find what they were looking for). To do any of this, we need to ignore one of the 5 pillars of the project. To do so, I would strongly suggest that we establish a reason to do so, other than because some service or other wants us to include something -- anything at all -- in that spot. Failing that, anyone supporting this change will be in the unenviable position of defending this nugget for the rest of eternity. Anyone can remove information that does not cite a reliable source. Several editors have wanted to add several different dates from several different sources that they claim are unimpeachable. If IMDb, "Chi-Chi" and "I couldn't find anything" are the "best available information", I'm the pope. We have (as discussed throughout this talk page) reliable sources that allow us to calculate possible ranges. Those ranges do not always agree with each other. They do not all agree with IMDb. They do not all agree with "Chi-Chi". The insistence that we select one date from unreliable sources and ignore the reliable sources so that we may present one date is rather baffling. "Wikipedia - Facts we found fleshed out with stuff we made up" doesn't strike me as a good slogan. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The name is "Chu-Chu" not "Chi-Chi", you have become an unreliable source for your own arguments. I think this discussion may set a record for the most heated argument over the most trivial and easily solved problem. Anyone know of any others that were more contentious over minutiae? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct: We do not know that "Chu-Chu" was Thomas. We haven't yet considered if "Chi-Chi" was Thomas. Thanks for the clarification. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD, you haven't in any way proposed a solution. You've just repeated your never-ending rant. Further, you've not answered my question, which is whether you think it's better that an encyclopedia mention the estimate of the person's birth date or whether you think it should be moot on the topic. To be clear, I'm not asking you what can or cannot be done. I'm familiar with the policies - though I don't have a "gazillion" edits, I'm equally familiar with the policies. What I'm asking you is your proposed solution. If you don't have a suggested solution, I really have no more need to hear from you. Life's too short to spend all my time discussing something with someone who shows no interest in actually discussing or solving a problem. So there you have it... challenge issued. Make a recommendation. Can you do it? Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 13:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have repeatedly suggested that we include the calculated ranges based on reliable sources. This is not the same as "estimates" (who is estimating here?) based on unreliable sources. For example: The New York Times is a reliable source. It says she was 30 on December 23, 1998.[2] Using this and a template we have for exactly this purpose {{Birth_date_based_on_age_at_death|age|YYYY|MM|DD}} we get "1967 or 1968". We also have Variety reporting that she was 29 on December 22, 1998. This gives us "1968 or 1969". We do not have a reliable source for September 23. I propose stating what the reliable sources say. She was born in 1967, 1968 or 1969, followed by cites to as many of the reliable sources as anyone would care to list. I realize this is different that the proposed "September 23, 1968 or 1969" based on IMDb/"Chu-Chu"/I-couldn't-find-it. I realize this is not as exact as the worthless sources. It does, however, have the distinct advantage of being verifiable -- supported by in-line citations to reliable sources. I have also recommended taking the current sources to the reliable sources noticeboard. No one supporting the Frankensteined version seemed inclined to do so. So I did. We'll see how that goes. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Odd, I searched this entire talk page and don't see a reference to that template at all. So I guess the definition of the word "repeatedly" is up for discussion as well. I'm done talking here, because it seems that some are focused much more on arguing than resolving. Do what you will with the page. I no longer care... about it or the opinions ranted here. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 15:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Odd that you "no longer care", are "done with this b.s." and support one option, then come back and institute another version. You've apparently decided that one and only one reliable source is reliable and all others must be removed. Do you have an explanation for this before I revert? - SummerPhD (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Against

• User:SummerPhD IMDb is a reliable source for some writing credits and little else. What her gravestones says is not in evidence here and might or might not be correct (as we have several instances scattered throughout Wikipedia where there is meaningful dispute over info on tombstones. (The tombstone, incidentally, in addition to not being presented here is, AFAIK, linked here only through Find-A-Grave (user edited = reliable source). It shows a photo of a tombstone giving dates for someone named "CHU-CHU".[3]) If you are seriously contending that we must include something for a birth year so that various services can propagate some possible version that might or might not reflect independent reliable sources, I doubt we'll ever reach a conclusion to the debate. We previously had a version that included the numerous possible birth date ranges, based on the diversity of opinion found in reliable sources. It was a horrid mess. If you'd like to support a version of that, we'd have something to discuss, but I doubt it would be particularly productive. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

My response was to an earlier version of the question, before it was refactored. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Our policy on the issue, of course, is Verifiability. It's kind of a big deal around here. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• While I completely disagree with @SummerPhD's approach to solving this issue, I oppose the article's lede as it's currently written as it uses contradictory and unreliable sources. There is zero evidence offered by any source of this person's date of birth. Zero. Nothing in the entire article legitimately concludes that this person's date of birth is as written in the current article. It should be noted per a reliable source - The New York Times) - that she was 30 at the time of her death, meaning she was born in either 1967 or 1968 (it could not be 1969 as written - using simple arithmetic tells us that). The original commenter here - @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is refusing to yield to true consensus thinking that his opinion alone creates consensus. None of the sources that this editor seeks to use (IMBD, FindAGrave, blogs, etc. are not reliable, nor verifiable. The NYT is universally accepted here as a reliable source, so it doesn't have to be my favorite, it happens to be legitimate. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 15:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Best known...

According to a recent revert by 200.104.240.11, "the source does not support the claim."[4]

The source says: "Thomas, best known for her roles on the "The Cosby Show," "Family Matters" and most recently "The Young and the Restless..."[5]

The claim is: "She was best known for her roles as Justine Phillips (girlfriend of Theo Huxtable) on the NBC sitcom The Cosby Show, and as Myra Monkhouse (girlfriend of Steve Urkel) on the ABC/CBS sitcom Family Matters."

I'm not sure how much clearer this could be. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The source mentions three shows, and the article only mentioned two. To selectively quote a source like that is highly dishonest. In any case, what is in the source is plainly an opinion, and it is against policy to present opinion as if it is fact. That she played a given role is objective fact. What people think of that fact, and whether one role is "better known" than another or not, is entirely unverifiable. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So you would also reject it if we added the Young and the Restless role though clearly supported by virtually every source in the article? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I have just looked at every source in the article. Of the 13, 7 simply state roles that she played and do not express an opinion about which she was "best known" for. Three links don't work. One link shows me no text of any kind. And two express an opinion about which role she was best known for, one giving three options and one specifying just one.

There is no need to attempt to guess what anyone thinks of the facts. You can just state the facts. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's see what anyone else has to say. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You should really try to explain why you disagree. Specifically, what is gained by guessing what people think of a fact, rather than just stating the fact? 200.104.240.11 (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no guesswork. Los Angeles Sentinel states it as a simple fact, which is what it is. It is well sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Show me the original data which shows which roles a representative sample of the world's population knows her for. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A representative sample of the world's population is not required, unless you can provide a guideline or policy that calls for it. If we similarly argued the toss over every sentence in the project, Wikipedia would grind to a halt. This is an uncontentious statement which is backed up by a reliable source, and should stand unless you can suggest something which she might otherwise be best known for, and argue that case. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a subjective claim. It's equivalent in that sense to claiming "her best role was..." It is not acceptable to reproduce opinions as if they are facts. And it certainly must be contentious anyway, because the two sources that make the claim disagree. As you may be aware, I've asked at least 20 times in many different places for someone to say what they see as lacking in the statement "X is/did Y", that makes them feel the need to say "X is best known for being/doing Y". As yet, no-one's answered the question. Why do you want to be subjective and verbose when you can be objective and concise? 200.104.240.11 (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reasonable equivalent at all. I know you have asked what people see as lacking in your preferred bare statements and the most basic of basic wording, and I think people have answered you in the past. It is not subjectivity and it is certainly not verbosity. This isn't the simple Wikipedia; we are not bound to writing sentences of the most basic structure and wording. Encyclopedias exist to aid the reader, and providing uncontentious facts is part of that. On occasion, your removal of "best known for" is unnecessary and sometimes results in very ponderous sentence structure. Not only that, but leaving in the sentence whatever achievement the subject was best known for, you're still implying the exact point you're trying to remove. If you actually meant what you said about subjectivity, you'd remove the entire sentence from the paragraph. Why only list one achievement above all the others? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know this actress' work. But I suspect what an actor is "best known for" often changes over his/her career; or varies between demographics; unless he/she is a one-hit wonder or works primarily within a highly popular and long-running franchise. Thus in most cases I would agree with the IP; more precisely, I believe the claim requires solid sourcing that is presented in the text of the article. If sources disagree as to what role(s) this person is known for, we should default to not repeating that claim, unless there's enough on the issue to say within the article something like: "Early in her career she became known for ....; in the 2000s she was also known for ..." or "She is associated particularly with her role ...; but Joe Blow of SomeImpressiveJournal said that her work in ... was more memorable." Yngvadottir (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If these two roles are not what she was best known for / most associated with etc, what are they doing in the lead paragraph? The IP has left them there, so I was wondering on what grounds he has done so. Why are they not being removed? Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not recall anyone answering the question, Bretonbanquet. Maybe you can point out where if I missed it. How can it not be subjective? You're not stating the facts but giving a guess as to what people think of them. And it is always a guess, because no-one would ever actually ask people what they think. I am not trying to write things in a "basic" way, I'm trying to write them in a neutral and objective way, as required by the policies of the encyclopaedia. You can always improve "ponderous sentence structure" if you see it. Indeed, I've seen you doing so without restoring subjective claims.

"If you actually meant what you said about subjectivity, you'd remove the entire sentence from the paragraph." No. That she starred in certain television programs is objective. It's why there is an article about her. What an unspecified demographic might think about the parts that she has played is not objective. The two sources that make a claim about what she was best known for disagree. This shows beyond any argument that such claims are not objective, but you've ignored that point. I hope you can see that "famous for..." and "notable for..." would not be acceptable wording. "best known for" is subjective editorialising in exactly the same vein. What next? The Amazon is best known for being a river? The Moon is best known for being the Earth's natural satellite? London is best known for being the capital of the UK? I assume and hope that you would not wish to insert such nonsense into the relevant articles. So why do you want to do it in other cases? 200.104.240.11 (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't believe saying "She did X and Y" is as contentious as saying "She is known for X and Y." I believe it can be regarded as a claim of notability: our primary reason for having articles on actors is that they've played major roles in significant films or series. But I hope the article reflects that selection. I saw one article where the "known for" role was never actually presented in the article text, only in that statement and the filmography. That's a bad flaw; if the article doesn't have that problem, the replacement the IP often makes shouldn't be problematic. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I would love to point out where people have answered your questions, but I struggle (as you do) to recall all the hundreds of different IPs you have used. Anyway, you're missing the point. She starred in certain television programmes; that is objective. What is not objective is that two of them are deemed important enough to put in the lead paragraph, above all the others. Why is that? Listing none or all of her achievements would be objective. Choosing a couple and listing them and not the others is, by your definition, subjective. So why are you not objecting to it? Why are these two roles more important than the others? This is every bit the same type of editorialising as the "best known for" wording which you don't like. By removing it, you're just playing around with words, leaving the actual subjective element in place. I was not aware you did not realise that. I ask again, why have you left those two roles in the lead paragraph?

Your other examples are not equivalent, and I do not believe you think they are. The Amazon is not "best known for" being a river, because that's all it is. The other examples are similarly unhelpful. An actor has many roles and is sometimes best known for one or two over the others. I am sure you can tell the difference.

On Yngvadottir's point, the issue is the same. I don't believe saying "She did X and Y" is as contentious as saying "She is known for X and Y." – yes it is, when you are saying it in the lead paragraph. Selecting one or two roles above the others and promoting them to the lead paragraph is clearly to claim that they are more important than the others. Why? The exact wording is basically irrelevant. Their presence in the lead clearly implies their greater importance, and that, by the IP's definition, is subjective. This is playing around with words and trying to disguise it in a wider point, the substance of which is actually being ignored. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a handy attack page where people have listed some of the IPs I've edited from. If you can't find any example of someone answering my question, you should retract the claim that it's been answered. The choice of which roles to highlight in the lead section should not be at all subjective. I don't know the audience figures but I assume that whoever put them there did so because those programmes were the most watched of the ones that she starred in. Viewing figures are objective. You could argue that the choice of how many roles to mention in the lead section is subjective, but conventions and guidelines exist to determine how long a lead section should be. You could argue that the article should say "her most viewed roles were X and Y", but once again this is just verbosity that adds nothing. I honestly don't know why you think it's necessary to be verbose and subjective instead of concise and objective. 200.104.240.11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's an attack page. It's not that I can't find where I (and doubtless others) answered your question, it's that I can't be bothered to look. I'm not retracting anything. You talk about audience figures – if you are not prepared to insert audience figures, you should remove the roles as subjectively chosen and added. It would not be verbosity at all, but removing the subjectivity you apparently despise. But the fact is that you just play around with being objective – you don't appear to be remotely engaged in the substance of it at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What tiresome nonsense. If you can't be bothered to answer a simple question, or show where you claim to have already answered it, then you're not discussing in good faith. And of course, if I felt that audience figures were required, I would add a citation needed tag, and not simply remove information.

It is incredibly simple and easy to simply state the facts objectively. There is no good reason to be subjective and verbose. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You know full well it doesn't matter to this conversation whether or not you have asked your question before, or whether or not it has been answered. It has no bearing on this discussion, particular to this article. I have answered it again anyway. Right, you don't feel the audience figures are required, so I ask again, why have you left these two roles in the lead paragraph instead of any others? You seem either incapable or unwilling to answer this question, rendering your wider point (even if we accept that you have a wider point) hypocritical and nonsensical. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it matters, being directly concerned with what we are talking about here. And you have answered it where, exactly? I explained why one would mention particular roles in the lead paragraph already, so for you to accuse me of being "incapable or unwilling to answer this question" only demonstrates your bad faith. You seem incapable or unwilling to read what I write. The choice of which roles to highlight in the lead section should not be at all subjective. I don't know the audience figures but I assume that whoever put them there did so because those programmes were the most watched of the ones that she starred in. Viewing figures are objective. It's pretty clear your interest here is in pissing me off, and you're doing an admirable job of that. Hopefully you'll remember soon that the aim is to write an encyclopaedia, and the there are core policies which form the basis of that, including no original research, neutral point of view, and verifiabiliy. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem insistent on ad hominem attacks, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that. My interest here is in pissing you off? Really? My interest is in getting you to answer a basic question, which you still refuse to do. The waffle you highlight there does not do that. You assume someone had blah blah blah. Great. So you're basically saying you have no idea why those roles were selected for the lead paragraph, and you don't care if they were subjectively chosen. That's fine, just so we know where you stand. I know exactly what this encyclopedia is for, which is why I actually write stuff, and not fiddle about with semantics with no grasp whatsoever on the points I'm purporting to make. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I answered it, and I answered it again, and you still persist in saying that I didn't. That is the act of someone who's trying to provoke, not someone who's trying to have a sensible discussion. Once again: The choice of which roles to highlight in the lead section should not be at all subjective. I don't know the audience figures but I assume that whoever put them there did so because those programmes were the most watched of the ones that she starred in. Viewing figures are objective. If the roles were chosen subjectively, then we should choose them objectively, which is easy enough to do. Do you think they were chosen subjectively? What is your criterion for selecting which roles to mention? And why do you wish to be verbose and subjective instead of concise and objective? Your silly games have to stop now - answer the question please. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You made a response, although I'm not sure my question has actually been answered. From your response, what you're saying is basically that you assume the two roles were chosen by another editor according to some concrete and objective figures. Why you assume that, and why those figures were not cited is still a mystery. Why you still think those two roles were chosen objectively and why you're still happy to see them in the lead paragraph now that objectivity is in doubt is also still a mystery.

Do I think the roles were chosen subjectively? I don't know, same as you. But I had no objection to the wording – you did. It is a non sequitur to obect to the wording without objecting to the statement, yet that's your position. I have no particular criteria for choosing roles for the lead paragraph, but again, I had no objection to the wording as it stood. Why do I wish to be verbose? You asked before and I answered. It's not verbosity, in my opinion. My silly games have to stop now? Do try and be serious. If you think other people's arguments are no more than "silly games", great, but what exactly are you going to do about it? Please desist from criticising other editors and concentrate on the arguments. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would I assume that another editor was acting in good faith? A mystery indeed. Well done for answering half the question, but if you don't regard using more words than necessary as verbosity, you should consult a dictionary. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with good faith. So you assume everyone edits in good faith (except me, of course). Therefore when you see something in an article that looks questionable, you leave it because you assume good faith, and in this case, some other editor must have had some convoluted and unimpeachable reasoning for the choice of roles? On what grounds do you assume that? Your "arguments" are becoming more ridiculous every time you post. You have absolutely no strategy for dealing with this, do you? And well, I know what verbosity means. Telling people to consult a dictionary could be seen as insulting. Indeed, coming from anyone else, I would probably see it as such. OK, you think these words are unnecessary, others do not. Do try and understand that, otherwise we get this kind of tedious discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume nothing convoluted or unimpeachable. I assume that editors act in good faith until there is evidence to the contrary. Your tiresome wikilawyering and refusal to explain why you think the words are necessary is evidence of bad faith. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not just assuming good faith, you are assuming a whole raft of reasoning by some unknown editor for information which you yourself have questioned by removing the wording you removed. It is pure nonsense. Ah, "wikilawyering", the last cry of someone who has no argument whatsoever for his behaviour. For the hard of understanding, the words you removed are necessary to explain the presence of the particular roles named in the lead paragraph. Your wording provides not even the slightest clue as to why those roles are there and not any of her others. Your nth accusation of bad faith is noted. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The words are not necessary, otherwise you'd obviously have to insert a "best known for" claim into every single article. We put the most important information into the lead of the article, but if we're intelligent, we realise that we do not need to hype a particular fact by describing it as "notable", "important", "best known (by a certain assumed but unstated demographic)", "famous" or anything like that. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Plainly not true, and nobody is suggesting putting "best known" everywhere. You say "we put the most important information into the lead" – how do we decide that? Why specifically do you think these two roles are her most important? I've asked you before, but I never got a definite answer. I am sure you're not suggesting we're not intelligent; I'm very sure you're not suggesting that. "Best known" isn't in that guideline, of course, nor is it equivalent to the other terms you've mentioned.

Back to this article, you've left two roles in the lead and failed completely to explain why they're there instead of any others. You removed the existing rationale for their presence. However subjective you felt it was, that same subjectivity is still present. If you're not going to shed any light on your own rationale for their presence, then this conversation isn't going to go any further, I suspect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether those two roles should be included is entirely irrelevant to the discussion about whether they should be described subjectively or objectively. I don't care if their inclusion is legitimate or whether they should in fact be removed. Change them to something else if you feel it necessary. Whatever is mentioned, all I am interested in is that it should be described, as required by the policies of the encyclopaedia, in a neutral and objective way. A subjective unverifiable claim is not a "rationale for their presence". Your repeated absurd attempts to derail this discussion with ever more absurd demands of me to discuss something irrelevant are what is going to stop this conversation going any further, I suspect. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If you genuinely think that is irrelevant, then I may as well be talking to myself. That you don't care which roles are mentioned in the lead is very odd, since you felt qualified to edit that sentence yourself. Maybe you should engage more fully with the consequences of your edits. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I got proofs back yesterday on an article I'm publishing in a scientific journal. Some idiot proof reader made a load of changes to the way I've described my results. They felt qualified to edit my work even though they are not a physicist and plainly don't care about the physics I am describing. Imagine the arrogance! I shall write to them and demand to know on what grounds they left certain facts in the abstract. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A few points:

• Thomas is dead. What she is best known for is unlikely to change. She will not appear in the next Star Wars movie and it is highly unlikely one of her largely forgotten roles in some made-for-TV tripe will suddenly resurface as the new Seinfeld.
• "Thomas was in X and Y.": Note, "starred in" would be subjective. Selecting some over others is subjective. Selecting only her TV roles is subjective. Bumping some material to the lede is subjective. And so on... There is and must be subjective work in an encyclopedia. Otherwise, we must include everything we have access to, in chronological order, without a lede. Bumping two or three roles out of dozens to the top is NOT the result of some editor carefully reviewing viewing numbers. That is pure fantasy and would still rely on subjective work about brief walk-ons vs. "starring" roles and everything in between. It is likely the result of fans adding their opinions. If we wish to excise "best known", we certainly must balance that with "among other roles" as our subjective judgement may we wrong, right? Hardly. From the sources in the article:

• "Michelle Thomas, who had television roles in The Young & The Restless, The Cosby Show and Family Matters,"[6]
• "on-going television roles in 'The Young & The Restless,' 'The Cosby Show,' and 'Family Matters,'"[7]
• "an actress in the television programs The Cosby Show, Family Matters and The Young and the Restless"[8]
• "appeared as Callie on the CBS soap “The Young and the Restless”; Justine, girlfriend of Theo (played by Malcolm Jamal Warner) on NBC’s “The Cosby Show”; and Myra, girlfriend of Steve Urkel (Jaleel White), on ABC’s “Family Matters.”"[9]
• "played Urkel's girlfriend Myra on Family Matters for five seasons. Most recently, she starred on the CBS soap The Young and the Restless."[10] (Piece is 2 sentences long.)
• [11] (Dead link.)
• "Former Cosby and Family Matters Star Michelle Thomas Lands Her First Grown-Up Role on the Young and the Restless,"[12]
• [13] (Article pre-dates all three roles.)
• [14] (Dead link. Article pre-dates all three roles.)
• [15] (Article does not summarize, but says she "won fame" on Family Matters, says how she died, then gives bits about The Young and the Restless and The Cosby Show before covering her general biographical details.)
• "who had television roles in The Young & The Restless, The Cosby Show and Family Matters,"[16]
• "best known for her roles on the 'The Cosby Show,' 'Family Matters' and most recently 'The Young and the Restless'"[17]
• [18] (Article behind paywall.)

Of the sources in the article that are available (and post-date the roles), one omits one role of the three. The rest list all three. I have no idea if they pored over "viewing figures", counted up numbers of lines or whatnot, but they all seem to have reached the conclusion that she is "best known for her roles on the 'The Cosby Show,' 'Family Matters' and most recently 'The Young and the Restless'". Hell, if you'd like we can directly quote a reliable source. Or, we can strain at gnats on this one detail in a case where it is very well supported by the sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"starred in" is not in any way subjective. Please check the dictionary definitions of "subjective" and "objective". And why misrepresent what the sources say, even while you're quoting them directly? That's really bizarre. They do not "reach the conclusion that she is best known" for particular roles. As I already said, seven of the sources simply state some roles that she played. Two sources make a guess as to which role or roles she was "best known" for, and they make different guesses. This shows beyond argument that the claim is subjective. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Starred in" is often not directly stated and is a subjective term. I am quite familiar with the definitions of "subjective" and "objective", but thanks for the suggestion. Contracts will often specify that a performer be identified as "starring", "guest starring", etc. is rather strange for what you seem to believe is an "objective" fact. The term is subjective: Compare the extensive list of people "starring" in The Young and the Restless (the main article gives up and links to lists of current and former casts, with 31 people in the current "main cast"). Seinfeld "stars" four people. Objective? What criteria would have anyone "starring" in Y and R?

If you feel I have misrepresented something, please explain what. I see that the sources available that mention her roles at all mention the three roles and the three roles only. The difference between that and "simply state some" is subjectively clear. The sources objectively say things. That the material you wish to exclude is the sources "making a guess" is not clear to me. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• You claimed that all of the sources endorse her being "best known" for particular roles. They do not. They show that she played those roles.
• The language that I used in the article was not even "starred as" but "played". Do you have a problem with that?
• Which demographic is being referred to when you or anyone else makes the claim that someone is "best known" for something? And where is the objective evidence that it is anything other than an assumption? 200.104.240.11 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

She is "best known for her roles on the 'The Cosby Show,' 'Family Matters' and most recently 'The Young and the Restless'". This is a direct quote from a reliable source. All of the other sources support this conclusion.

"Starred" vs. "played": If she had had a single, throw away line in a hugely popular film, would viewing figures (I guess ticket sales, rentals, purchases, ratings for ply on cable, etc.) push that into the lede? No, of course not. In our collective judgements, that is a minor role. (What if it was two lines? Twenty lines? 2 scenes? There is no objective boundary that I am aware of. She is clearly not well known for Dream Date: None of the sources bother to mention it. Ditto the rest, except for the three that get top billing in explaining who the hell this person was and why the sources are bothering to tell you she died. She is, verifiably "best known for her roles on the 'The Cosby Show,' 'Family Matters' and most recently 'The Young and the Restless'". - SummerPhD (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The BBC says that the song In My Life "still sound[s] gorgeous" [19]. The Telegraph says that All The Pretty Horses is among the 15 best North American novels [20]. They also say that Cormac McCarthy is "best known for bringing a biblical sense of evil into his portrayal of the unforgiving American landscape". Shall I go off and edit the relevant articles? Or are the BBC and the Telegraph unreliable sources? 200.104.240.11 (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There are differences that are anything but subtle between those cases. You don't see those differences and I doubt you ever will. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source clearly says that Cormac McCarthy is "best known for bringing a biblical sense of evil into his portrayal of the unforgiving American landscape". If you want to insist on reproducing verbatim here an opinion expressed in a source, you had better do the same there. I'd like to see you try it. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Thomas quote is explaining who she was, which is completely appropriate for the lede paragraph of a biography. In context, the McCarthy quote is contrasting the content of the the author's best known works with his earlier success. This might be useful in some way later in the Cormac McCarthy article discussing his work in more depth. As I said, there is a considerable difference between the two. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"She appeared in certain roles" explains who she was. "Some people are believed to think a certain thing about the fact that she appeared in certain roles" does not. 200.104.240.11 (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Since this discussion has become a bit nasty, perhaps it couldn't hurt for me to stick in what I think at this point after reading it all repeatedly as it has played out. I am won over to some extent by SummerPhD's noting that she is dead and summary of the sources, but the IP still has a valid point that there is some disagreement between the sources. We should be following the sources. I do not find the argument that if we don't say someone is "known for" appearing in particular works, we have no business mentioning those works in the lede to be compelling, particularly since there are sources defining her by her participation in them. Particularly for a dead person, we need to include these things in the lede as the claim of notability (as I originally touched on, as have others) I suggest that we continue to leave out the "known for" in the lede (I am broadly in agreement with the IP on its being sloppy writing, and what she's known for in general is being an actress) but consider adding the third show there, and that we add the "known for" phrase in the body of the article, with references, perhaps with a formulation such as "which she later also became known for" for the last role. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)