Talk:Percy Amoils

Sources

I have again removed the information copied from http://www.innovativexcimer.com/about.htm. The creator of the article wrote on my talk page:

Information on career received from Selig Amoils via an email - does this count? Paul venter 05:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I thought I'd better point out the obvious - Selig Amoils provided the same biographical details to Innovative Excimer Solutions and myself - copying? I don't think so. Paul venter 06:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject's own website and personal e-mails do not meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -AED 14:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Kindly read Wikipedia:Verifiability properly. It states quite clearly "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. Paul venter 22:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The key here is "reliable sources". -AED 23:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Professional collusion

"How can we be angry with the plaintiff’s lawyers when in many cases our so-called colleagues are undermining our profession? I believe there are some “experts” who will testify to anything as long as they are paid their $5,000- to $10,000-a-day fee." This sort of rabid POV should have no place in Wikipedia. From what I understand, the author of these sentiments feels that medical men should show loyalty to and support of each other, and that ethical issues should not cause a break in the ranks. This sort of attitude simply perpetuates the public perception that when things go wrong in the medical profession, colleagues cannot be expected to tell the truth. Paul venter 21:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.legal-search-engine.com/legal-blog/2006/07/malpractice-verdict-returned-against.html. Accessed 17 November 2006 Paul venter 07:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we leave the references for others to judge the comments in full context? I'm placing them here until I have time to integrate them into the article. The article should reflect more than what is on the subject's own website and what he may have sent to you via e-mail.

• Kopff P. "Mark Speaker’s Attorney Speaks Out." Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today. October 2005. Accessed October 19, 2006.
• McDermott G, Krafczek AB. "Anatomy of a Lawsuit II." Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today. October 2005. Accessed October 19, 2006.
• Slade SG, Krafczek A, Smith SE. "Anatomy of a Lawsuit II: Closing Thoughts." Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today. November/December 2005. Accessed October 19, 2006.
• Donnenfeld ED. "Reflecting on the Anatomy of a Lawsuit." Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today. January 2006. Accessed October 19, 2006.

-AED 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"The article should reflect more than what is on the subject's own website and what he may have sent to you via e-mail." - and so it does; however Wikipedia does not give you licence to publish the vitriolic jottings of a medical man who "followed the case closely" and accordingly feels he is more eminently qualified to give a legal opinion than the judge and jury who delivered the verdict. Paul venter 22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the article contains very little that was not copied from the information found on his website. As such, it violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. Secondly, Amoils is qualified to give a medical opinion, but not a legal one. The links indicate that at least some of his medical opinions are disputed by his colleagues. -AED 23:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware that Amoils had ventured a legal opinion; please enlighten me. Paul venter 06:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't edit your comments, then feign ignorance. It was you who suggested he had ventured a legal opinion when you wrote: "...(Amoils) accordingly is more eminently qualified to give a legal opinion than the judge and jury who delivered the verdict." You then edited your comment to state: "...(Amoils) accordingly feels he is more eminently qualified to give a legal opinion than the judge and jury who delivered the verdict." -AED 07:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You're not very bright, are you? That was about your inclusion of the reference [1] by Eric D. Donnenfeld, MD "who accordingly feels he is more eminently qualified to give a legal opinion than the judge and jury who delivered the verdict." It had nothing to do with Amoils. My god, you really need things spelled out...... Paul venter 07:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Perhaps your meaning would have been clearer had you written "jottings from a medical man" rather than "jottings of a medical man". Now that I understand you better, "vitriolic" is POV. I think Donnenfeld's "jottings" describe some legitimate concerns regardings Amoils' testimony. -AED 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that "vitriolic" is an unfair assessment of his writing "our so-called colleagues are undermining our profession? I believe there are some “experts” who will testify to anything as long as they are paid their $5,000- to $10,000-a-day fee."; at the very least it is vindictive. Paul venter 08:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is full context for those comments which you continue to ignore. -AED 08:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Listing external links that mention Amoils are not article references/sources. If you're going to include links that don't reference specific content in the article, then I'm going to reinsert the above. -AED 06:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

When I started this article, my primary sources of information were a newspaper report and a thumbnail biography received by email from Selig Amoils. I did not copy any information from "his" website since I was not aware of the existence of such a site and even now do not know which site you are referring to. Secondly, it is very immature to threaten to include libellous references because you don't agree with my choices of references/sources. As I read your comments, I get the feeling that you or a close colleague have been personally affronted by Selig Amoils. If that is the case, then I feel that you do not have the required impartiality to work on this biography. Paul venter 06:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I've made you aware of the website multiple times. It is clear that you either copied that website or copied the e-mail that was sent to you. Either way, I have also made it clear why the subject's own website and personal e-mails do not meet the standards in WP:V. Secondly, you were simply listing external links... not adding references. On the other hand, the links I provided were clearly noted as external links (not as made-up references). That you perceive them to be libellous might be a product of your own bias. I am not a surgeon nor was I aware of Amoils prior to seeing this article. The fact that most of it was identical to what appeared in his own website was what caught my attention. -AED 06:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is his website you keep referring to? Please supply the URL. Paul venter 08:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.innovativexcimer.com/about.htm I'm not stating that he maintains the cite, but Amoils apparently has ties with this company as only his biography and research is mentioned and the Amoils Epithelial Scrubber appears to be the only product Innova sells. Regardless, it is clear that you either copied that website or copied the e-mail that was sent to you. -AED 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I note that you have changed your stance from his website to one with which he has ties. I haven't dug into the matter, but I would guess that Innovative Excimer's core business is the selling of the scrubber under licence - they seem to be based in Canada or the US. As for copying his email, I have stated so repeatedly, and it was sent to me at my request for that very purpose. Paul venter 08:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Note what you wish. For all intents and purposes, the content in Innova's website appears to have been dictated by Amoils. -AED 08:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Pure speculation on your part.....Paul venter 10:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The information on the website is word-for-word the same as what you copied from the e-mail he sent you. -AED 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is deplorable - because the content is identical, Amoils was responsible for its dictation. My god, where do you come from?..... Paul venter 18:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for all intents and purposes, the content in Innova's website appears to have been dictated by Amoils. It does not seem likely that Innova independently researched Amoils background in order to sell his epithelial scrubber. I'm sorry you find this so difficult to understand. -AED 22:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources

This is an extremely pedantic approach to the writing of articles. Somewhere in WP it also says that if facts are "not contentious or liable to be challenged by other editors" then citations are not necessary. These facts were imparted by the subject himself and are of an entirely neutral nature - his parents' names, his wife's maiden name and home town and the whereabouts of his son. Are you implying that he is misrepresenting these facts or that they are crucial to the article? Really, you do choose to embark on edit wars over the most trivial issues. Where would you suggest that I find published material covering these facts? Paul venter 10:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't the faintest idea. Pedantic or not, Wikipedia policy is clear on this point: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources." One interpretation of this may be that if it isn't important enough to be published by a reliable source, then it isn't crucial to the article. Contacting the subject of a biographical article to fill in missing details could also be interpreted as original research. -AED 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Go get a life......Paul venter 18:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Per the above, the following statements may be true, but they are not verifiable:

1. "Born 19 July 1933 to Louis Amoils and Jeannie Epstein and educated in Johannesburg, South Africa."
2. "Lives in Johannesburg with his wife Philippa Mary Curtis from Portsmouth. They have two sons, a chartered accountant in South Africa and an investment analyst in Edinburgh. He also has two grandchildren from his eldest son from a previous marriage, living in New York."

I have removed or reworded them accordingly. -AED 14:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

RFC Response There are two issues in the RFC request, the placement of the date of birth and the use of email with the article's subject as a source. I'll discuss separately.

First, the policy on biographies of living people tells us in the section on birthdays that unless the birthdate is already widely published, we should err towards including only the year of birth, not the date. Secondly, the guideline in the Manual of style tells us to put it after the name. This is so we can have a consistent look and feel across multiple articles. If there was a compelling reason to not put it there, it might not be, but I can't imagine one.

Secondly, the ultimate reason for sourcing is to adhere to the policy on making it possible for another editor to verify the statements. A privately received communication, such as an email, is not verifiable by another editor unless that private communication is published. So the sourcing to the private email is somewhere between highly suspect and useless. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia instead of a genealogy site, information about the family of an article subject is not necessary content. Indeed, unless it is relevant to the public noteworthiness of the subject, it is irrelevant content. This doesn't mean that it would have to go, especially if reliable sources had chosen to publish it, but if it is not necessary to being a good encyclopedia article and not verifiable, there is no real reason to keep it. In the case of living people, this is even more significant as we generally wish to err toward the side of respecting their privacy. GRBerry 23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm responding to a request for 3rd opinion at the Pump. There is no question that AED and GRBerry are quite correct; we cannot use the info unless it has been published by a reliable source. Bio info provided by the subject that's not published elsewhere would constitute original research. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"[edit] Using the subject as a source

In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

• It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies.
• It is relevant to the person's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;
• There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject

unquote Paul venter 12:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Emphasizing what you quoted: "It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies" (which is also outlined in the introductory statement to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) and "It is relevant to the person's notability." -AED 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Like all good pharisees you interpret the rules to suit your POV and blandly ignore all else. Paul venter 20:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've solicited other opinions and it appears that they agree with me. -AED 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

.....and therefor you must be right.....silly me!! Paul venter 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Format

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), information regarding date or year of birth goes immediately after name. -AED 22:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"The objective of this Manual of Style (or style guide) is to provide guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency. Adherence to the following guidelines is not required; however, usage of these guidelines is recommended. By maintaining consistency, Wikipedia will be read, written, edited, navigated, and used more easily by readers and editors alike." Paul venter 20:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Placing year of birth after the name is recommended. Inserting dates not published elsewhere is prohibited. -AED 04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Prohibited"!!! Where exactly did you see that? To quote "This Manual of Style, like all style guides, attempts to encourage consistency and ease of reading. The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules; one way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read, write and edit.

New contributors are reminded that clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. (See Wikipedia:Editing policy.)

"If the date does not contain both a month and a day, date preferences do not apply: linking or not linking the date will make no difference to the text that the reader sees. So when considering whether such a date should be linked or not, editors should take into account the usual considerations about links, including the recommendations of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context." . Despite being a notable pharisee, you do seem to have specious interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Paul venter 09:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia:Verifiability states: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." This is policy. There is no reliable source that has published Amoils' full date of birth. Secondly, where the date of birth should go is a guideline. You appear to be opposed to following that guideline simply because I am in favor of following it. Thirdly, your quote regarding "If the date does not contain both a month and a day, date preferences do not apply..." applies to general wikilinking of dates within an article; not specifically dates of birth and death. Finally, Wikipedia:No personal attacks is policy. -AED 16:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See above for exceptions applicable to biographies of living people. Secondly, don't flatter yourself that I oppose your ideas simply because they happen to be yours - you chose to become embroiled in an edit war because you consider the article to fall within your area of expertise. Thirdly, you were evasive about not being in the ophthalmology field when I first raised the possibility of your bias "I am not a surgeon", but you write "I've seen over a 1,000 patients with strabismus" . Seems to me that you have a problem in discerning the line between truth and falsehood, and I can only hope that you don't allow this moral tunnel vision to spill over into your professional life. Paul venter 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

First: As you have noted, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states that information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if it meets the policies outlined in WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. It does not. Second: You have not indicated any good reason why the guideline regarding placement of the date should not be followed. Third: The charge of evasiveness or bias is irrelevant to this thread, but I'll refresh your memory. You stated: "I get the feeling that you or a close colleague have been personally affronted by Selig Amoils. If that is the case, then I feel that you do not have the required impartiality to work on this biography." One can infer that a "close colleage" of Amoils would be another surgeon. I am not. The "bias" that I have here is that you copied information directly from elsewhere to start this article and you refuse to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines when editing it. -AED 21:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have written repeatedly, your quoting of Wikipedia policies that support your case, should more correctly be seen as your interpretation of the policies. Your chronic problem is that you cannot tolerate a view which differs from yours.Also I never mentioned a close colleague of Amoils, but wrote "you or a close colleague"... distortions of facts such as these, make me despair of having a constructive discussion with you. Paul venter 07:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia:Verifiability is pretty clear, I have solicited additional opinions to ensure that my interpretation of the policy is in line with that of other Wikipedians. Thus far, three others have agreed with me and none with you. I'm willing to follow Wikipedia rules and abide by consensus opinion, but you are not. -AED 08:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at Segolene Royal article and raise your ophthalmic hands in horror at what the editors of that article achieve without multiple references or being hamstrung by pharisees. Paul venter 16:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3O

Someone asked for a third opinion at WP:3O, but it seems that someone has also asked for input via an article RFC and at the villiage pump. I don't know what to do beyond repeating the opinions you got there, namely that the date of birth goes in parentheses after the name; and unless the e-mail from the person is published someplace it doesn't count as a reliable source. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable source

RE: "Scientific Progress vol 14 no. 2, 1981". This citation appears to be incomplete as I can find no such journal by this name. Removed per WP:V. -AED 21:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Could it be that your resources are inadequate?.....Paul venter 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

More likely that you've provided inadequate information per Wikipedia:Citing sources. -AED 04:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing properly sourced material

I have no wish to take part in the general discussion on this article. However, I wish to stress that it is wrong to remove properly sourced material from an article. The suggestions that it is insensitive to record someone's Jewish ethnicity in an article, or that the subject of a biography should be consulted about its content, do not conform to Wikipedia policy. See WP:BLP, WP:AUTO and WP:V.--Runcorn 22:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone considers that WP:BLP has been violated, please put a notice on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.--Runcorn 11:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The following thread pasted from Robth's talk page:

Category dispute

I need advice with regard to an editor persisting in adding the category "South African Jew" to an article Selig Percy Amoils which I started. The subject is a living person and I feel that his "Jewishness" is a private matter and that without his express consent, it should not appear in this article. I am going by what I feel is intended in WP-Biographies of living persons, which cautions editors not to include insensitive material in articles. What do you suggest I do? Thanks Paul venter 13:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not a policy I am particularly familiar with; however, reading the section on non-public figures, I can see how the caution to limit the scope to matters related to the subject's notability could be relevant, depending on how one views the issue of a subject's religious beliefs. My suggestion would be to stop trying to make the change in the article for now and limit yourself to talk page discussion, hoping to convince the other editors that the material is not necessary. Looking at the talk page, it appears that the discussion has trended towards personal disputes. Avoid that at all costs; no matter what you think the other editors' motivations are, shifting the discussion away from the content achieves no good and greatly decreases the chance of reaching a peaceable settlement. --Robth^Talk 15:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion has also been sought. Jewishness is an ethnicity as well as a religion, and ethnicity is not covered by WP:BLP. Interestingly, one of the disputes is that Mr Venter quoted the subject's exact date of birth while other editors removed it. WP:BLP does have something to say about that: "Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date."--Runcorn 22:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that caution with regard to a living person's birthday would be advisable normally. In this case the subject of the article provided the exact birthdate, knowing that it would be included in the biography, so that the usual caution would be unnecessary. With regard to the subject's Jewishness, whether ethnic or religious, my feeling is that in terms of WP:BLP editors are urged not to include potentially harmful material - calling for no less tact and sensitivity displayed in handling of the birthdate.Paul venter 06:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! Fellas, I'm not going to be getting involved in this one to any greater degree than giving the paragraph's worth of advice you see above--I'm not familiar enough with either the BLP policy or this particular case. I'd encourage you to continue this discussion over on the article's talk page. --Robth^Talk 06:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. At any rate, the BLP policy says this:

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
• The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

I think it's pretty clear that he can't be listed as a Jew.

Ken Arromdee 16:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. BTW it's hard for me to see why he should be the subject of such controversy. Steve Dufour 18:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Judaism is an ethnic category, so is not coverted by WP:BLP.--Runcorn 18:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is his Jewishness important? Steve Dufour 18:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a perverse argument. Why is the fact that his invention is on display in London important? Do you wish to delete everything that you do not consider important? There is absolutely no policy to delete this information. Thousands of living people have their ethnicity noted, and it violates WP:NPOV to say that uniquely Dr. Amoils should not have it noted.--Runcorn 19:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference provided by Runcorn does not specify whether the American Jewish Year Book deals with ethnic Jews or religious Jews. How did Runcorn deduce that it concerned itself with ethnic Jews? Very puzzling......Paul venter 19:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been asked to give yet another independent opinion. I am baffled by those who object to this category. Is it the case in South Africa that people are ashamed of being Jewish, or frightened of being "outed"? A comparable figure in Britain, like Robert Winston, is proud to assert his Jewishness. Paul venter says that he has spoken to Dr. Amoils on the phone. Did he ask him if he is ashamed or frightened? As to Paul venter's last comment, obviously if he is a religious Jew he is an ethnic one unless he is a convert. If he is a convert, then he has publicly self-identified with Judaism so under WP:BLP the category certainly can be included.--Brownlee 22:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No reason for bafflement here. Runcorn has created a category in this article and the reference he has cited in support of that category does not list Amoils as an ethnic Jew. Consequently the category is presumptuous and should be removed - Wikipedia only permits verifiable material to be added.Paul venter 22:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. Either he is an ethnic Jew or he is a convert. What else could he be? Please explain what you mean by "presumptuous" (bearing in mind WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL). And please phone Dr. Amoils and ask him if he is ashamed or frightened to be identified as Jewish.--Brownlee 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Earlier posts by Paul venter on another editor's talkpage here, indicate that the primary concern is sensitivity to the subject's (Amoil's) feelings. This is not actually a valid concern. The information is properly biographical in scope, and there is no serious assertion that the category is inaccurate. Therefore, it is appropriate to include the information. Why this is subject to such controversy is somewhat puzzling. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't let you include information just because it's "biographical in scope" and its accuracy is not disputed. Unless he publically self-identifies as a Jew or his Jewishness is related to why he is notable, you can't include it. While sensitivity to the subject's feelings is not itself policy, it is the rationale behind much of the policy. For instance, the policy says Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Being a Jew is not relevant to his notability, so it's not permitted in the article, whether it's true or not.

(Notice that this doesn't contain any exceptions if it's an ethnicity instead of a religion.)Ken Arromdee 04:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh. I hate being wrong. Still, it appears that Ken Arromdee's interpretation is correct. In a BLP the deciding factor for inclusion is relevance, not accuracy. There is no assertion that being Jewish is relevant to his professional status, and that's what he is notable for. Unless being a "South African Jew" is somehow notable in its own right, this is actually a case for non-inclusion. My only defense is to claim ignorance of some of the finer points of policy...WP is a learning process. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc Tropics will be pleased to hear that he was not wrong. Firstly, who says that Dr. Amoils is not a public figure? He is certainly high-profile enough to have been mentioned in the British press on several occasions. In any case, the policy is intended to debar sensationalist material such as messy divorces. If it is interpreted as meaning that no material whatsoever may be included that is not directly relevant to his notability, we should start with his year of birth and the fact that he was born and raised in Johannesburg. Can anyone seriously accept that interpretation? - Brownlee 12:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep it. It's not particularly sensitive controversial information, and it is documented by a reliable source (the American Jewish Congress paper, which lists him among Jews in South Africa receiving awards). Here is what the motivation for that relevance section of WP:BLP is all about:

“ In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. ”

If this were a sensational or titillating claim, this would be different. It's not. If this were something he were secretive about, similarly. It's not. It's not his primary relevance, but if that were the primary factor, then most people of a particular religion would be unmarked - relatively few are famous mainly for their religion. It is important enough to include. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to why people think his being Jewish is important one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned it could be mentioned or not with very little difference between them. Steve Dufour 18:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)p.s. I never heard of him before. I just followed a link from the living persons noticeboard.

• Question: Is he a Jewish activist? A rabbi? A member of the ADL? A teacher at Aish HaTorah? Active in the Jewish National Fund? Or anything similar? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• There has been no evidence cited that the subject is any kind of Jewish activist, but there is some evidence in the AJC paper that other South Africans/Jews might regard him as being a "notable Jew" based on awards received. It seems to me that the interpretation could go either way, so I'm glad to see input from editors who are well-versed in policy. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Then it isn't relevant. There is no reason to include it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a question of interpreting policy, with valid points made by both sides. I might propose an RfC at this point, but we have received input from a variety of editors, and I suspect that consensus is unlikely due to the polarizing nature of the issue. Without some kind of resolution, this will probably turn into a slow-grinding revert war, which I have no interest in participating in. Does anyone have a suggestion for how to proceed, without resorting to flamethrowers? Right now I lean towards not including the cat, yet the fact that it is a topic of such interest to so many editors seems to imply that it might well have some kind of inherent notability. Ohhh, my head hurts! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You could always hold a straw poll, with people giving their reasons. I'm unclear on why anyone wants it in, or why anyone wants it out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Date of Birth

When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.Paul venter 05:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me a source for his date of birth? If not, discussions of WP:BLP are moot. Trebor 15:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The date came from Amoils himself and shouldn't be challenged. Paul venter 09:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is threatening to go totally LAME. Since my sig is on this talkpage, I really don't want to end up as a humorous footnote in an archive; let me make a suggestion:

• The subject is indeed a living person and Paul venter states the he has had email contact with Mr. Amoils regarding his DOB. I suggest that we accept Mr. Amoils as a reliable source on the matter of his own birthday, and that we assume good faith in Paul. If Paul can simply forward a copy of the email to one of us (mine is enabled), that could confirm the info. In the meantime, can we please stop reverting while it's being discussed? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 10:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, if the subject supplies his DOB and says he does not mind having it on the site, and there's no reasonable doubt that it's him e-mailing then it could probably be included. But it would need to be confirmed by at least two editors - preferably directly, as a forwarded e-mail could be altered. Trebor 16:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why, thank you Trebor for your vote of confidence in my honesty! Actually, I've grown tired of battling idiot editors - it tends to bog one down and reduces any creative output. So have fun on this page - I certainly won't be back.... Paul venter 03:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure, I'm just trying to make Wikipedia verifiable, y'know. Nothing important. I don't quite know what you mean by "creative output", but if it means filling an article with information directly from the subject and not in a third-party source, then I think reducing this output would be a good idea. So it's nothing to do with a "vote of confidence", just ensuring that information added is accurate. Trebor 09:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)