Talk:Rehane Abrahams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-03. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] UE

UE = unencyclopedic, either in style or as violative of WP:ENC - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I don't really see why the section that was marked is UE. It seems acceptable. So if someone has a clear reason why maybe they could state it and discuss it. Wjhonson 02:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the original editor could cite a published statement that she was "exorcising the demon..." etc. I've posted a {{fact}} tag on that. If no citation is forthcoming after a few days, than I'll go ahead and remove that part of the statement. Wjhonson 02:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It's an opinion -- She's a haunted woman, and certainly has many demons, doubt if she has managed to exorcise them!-- surely acceptable in a biography about a performer?(Ethnopunk 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It depends. Is it your opinion? Or is this opinion, in a verifiable and reliable source ? If you can quote and cite that source, then it would be fine. However if this is your opinion, than it doesn't belong here at wikipedia. What we are, are basically reporters of what other people write. Wjhonson 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome to report what I write, since I knew her intimately.Ethnopunk 10:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Too much information. Mind WP:NOR - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Reporting what you write would only be acceptable, if you yourself were actually published in some reliable source which is verifiable. Remembering that the encyclopaedia is here to report what's already been published, not new publication of new information. Wjhonson 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Its a moot point, since one of the objectives of the Wikipedia is to be comprehensive. In some areas, there is no alternative but to publish new information, reporting the divergent views and arguments, since underdevelopment in the South has skewed information to benefit of the rich North. You are also more likely to get material about people in the West, published before the online world. Do you want me to publish something on the web, and then report that? Am I a reliable source, is the information verifiable? Perplexing questions, but on the whole I believe my record speaks for itself.Ethnopunk 13:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not moot verifiability is one of wikipedia's policies. None of our records can speak for themselves unless we follow the policies. Wjhonson 16:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

nos consensum auctorum secuturi, quae diversa prodiderint sub nominibus ipsorum trademus. Proposing as I do to follow the consentient testimony of historians, I shall give the differences in their narratives under the writers' names. Tacitus, Annals XIII, 20 – Church/Brodribb translation Surely you are not going to leave out my testimony as a source of information? Besides, she was classified "coloured" by the apartheid regime and won't take kindly to that either. I also see you have trouble understanding her particular brand of "feminism". Ethnopunk 11:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although there are web sites that will publish first-hand details, wikipedia's policy is only to re-publish what has been previously published in a reliable source that is also verifiable. If you can get some South African newspaper to publish a story about her and include your quotes in that story, then that story could be cited here. But first-hand opinions about her motives, art, life, cannot be cited. Wjhonson 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)