Talk:Kate Fischer

Fair use rationale for Image:Kate Fischer with mum.jpg

Image:Kate Fischer with mum.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kate Fischer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207215824/http://www.antonellagambottoburke.com/BiographyPublished.htm to http://www.antonellagambottoburke.com/BiographyPublished.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322034802/http://shop.abc.net.au/products/elle-mcfeast-special to http://shop.abc.net.au/products/elle-mcfeast-special

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kate Fischer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120924074927/http://womansday.ninemsn.com.au/celebrityheadlines/7941108/kate-fisher-why-i-went-into-hiding to http://womansday.ninemsn.com.au/celebrityheadlines/7941108/kate-fisher-why-i-went-into-hiding

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

BLP concerns

WP:BLP specifies (amongst other things) that you must never write anything in a living person's article that is unsourced and that whatever is unsourced should be removed immediately. A couple of things to start with; "although the cash settlement amount she received has never been substantiated, most likely due to a non disclose agreement [22] [23]" We shouldnt say things like "reportedly"; Wikipedia should not be speading speculation- something has happened, or it hasnt. Unless you have a source that says $10 million straight out, dont put it in. If it "hasnt been substantiated", again, dont put it in! As none of the sources say anything about a non disclosure agreement it is pure speculation.

The "interview with Steve Price" was a discussion between two reality TV competitors. There is nothing in the source that says the matter has never been substantiated. Putting that statement in serves no purpose except to imply the subject is lying; and as the source doesnt say that, you cannot say it in Wikipedia's voice.

Finally, there is just far too much detail; two paragraphs on the back and forth between her and Channel Nine (which has already been perfectly well dealt with in an above section with the single sentence "Following her eviction, she made news headlines after some awkward post-eviction interviews"), paragraphs of the minutae of her arrests. The dramas of the last two years of her personal life now take up over half the article, making for WP:UNDUE weight. One or two short paragraphs perhaps (with better sources than News.com.au); this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag or an attack article. Curdle (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Womans Day refs; its not a good source. I just reformatted the refs for those; left them in because what they supported was pretty uncontroversial and mentioned in several other (good) sources that are already used as references. I thought it of interest to note that during her modelling career she had an eating disorder, as models are always put up as an ideal of what all women should look like,(although I would integrate it into the modelling section, not personal) but if you think its not important, fair enough.

The conversion to Judaism should go back, as its why she changed her name, the name she uses now is in the lead and has to stay there, and the name change needs some sort of explanation. The $250,000 is there because it is the only figure that can be pinned down. The statement is directly attributed to her so readers can see where it comes from, and use their own judgement on whether she is a reliable source. As other amounts are only mentioned as rumour and supposition, the alternative is to use wording such as "an undisclosed financial settlement" or similar which would probably be better, anyway.

If you read past the sensational headlines of the "homeless shelter stories", she wasnt actually in one for 22 months..she appears to have gone to one, and they put her in a boarding house. Housing shelters usually only do emergency accomodation of a few nights, and you dont get your own room as described in at least one article. Thats why I changed that bit, to be a bit more accurate. Hmm..the ref that was used for that one is a kinda garbagey news.com one. And the currently working as a care worker statement...undecided on that one- a brief statement of her current career might be of interest to readers, and its in half a dozen decent references. Removing it altogether leaves an unreferenced and undiscussed statement in the lead. As the lead should be a summary of whats in the article, it does need to go from there (its hardly what she is known for, anyway, and probably shouldnt have been in the lead to start with), unless you want to put it back into the body of the article. Any thoughts on the above? Curdle (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The reference used ‘how I ended up in a homeless shelter for two years’. Majikalex32 (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

She called it a homeless shelter. Edit accurately and be impartial Majikalex32 (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The payout she got from Packer needs to be addressed. She states it was $250,000 and media reports say it was up to $10,000,000. This needs to be included. You really think Packer only gave her $250,000? And just because she said it was only $250,000 doesn’t make it true or accurate Majikalex32 (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• What I think, doesnt matter. What you think doesnt matter. It is what can be verified by reliable sources that counts. If you can find a reliable source that states $10,000,000, without "reports say", "it has been reported" (what reports, who) or "rumours say" or "allegedly" then it can go in. Yep, the one that says "By 2011, she was living in a ‘rooming house’ for homeless and vulnerable women, having been sent there by the Sacred Heart Mission." and "where she found herself living in the boarding house, sharing a kitchen with 36 other women."Curdle (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
• @Majikalex32: Sorry, forgot to ping so you know theres a new post. Btw, you should read this Help:Introduction to talk pages it explains pinging and indenting for talkpages Curdle (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Curdle:. the amount she sold the unit for is relevant information. why do you keep removing it? stop being biased in editing this page. no wonder I question your motives. I still think you are being paid by someone to edit this page. I have also added a section about her drink driving charge. do not remove this just because you don't like it or I will open dispute resolution

Majikalex32 (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Majikalex32: Editors can request pages be protected; only admins can protect pages. It even says that on the template you posted! Read WP:PP. I told you where you could go if you wanted assistance from other editors. If you want to report me for paid editing/conflict of interest, go to WP:COIN. You asked me, I answered you; thats fine. Continuing to cast aspersions is not. Either report me or drop it please. If you want to report me to an admin, go to WP:ANI.

If you want to consult other editors about BLP issues go to WP:BLP- I was thinking about posting there myself for advice, as I'm not to sure how much emphasis should be placed on the whole arrest saga thing. Plus, not sure how to deal with the renaming issue- Newspapers (apart from the headlines) tend to refer to her as Malkah, being the name she uses now, so it probably means we should too. Not necessarily rename the article but it might be the correct thing to refer to her as Malkah in the text.

The amount she sold it for is trivia- if people want to know they can look at the ref! The homeless thing was the final last minute edit I made to this article and I explained it in the edit summary "removed currently unsourced information." Your previous edits removed that reference, you didnt bother to find another one, and I didnt like leaving it there unreffed any longer. Your recent edits borked one of the other references; I have been reformatting your references into proper citations, but you really should learn to do it yorself. See WP:REFB.

ok..you need to read and double check your references against what you are writing- you have "Victoria Police allege that she hit three roundabouts and a parked car", supported by the Herald Sun ref, which doesnt seem to mention roundabouts at all. The Channel Nine ref does, but just says "The court was told...two witnesses saw Malkah driving erratically through Toorak, hitting three roundabouts"-nothing about what police said about it. Curdle (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Yahboo:. of course details of her arrest belong in the personal life section. its certainly not part of 'life and career' if you want to discuss and tell my WHY you think it's not about her personal life then discuss it here, rather than just editing

"Personal life" sections are only for information on people's family members and personal interests, not on controversies. Obviously this information only belongs in the "LIFE and career" section and nowhere else. Yahboo (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Yahboo: where is the wiki standards about categorisation listed... or is this your own opinion? I asked if we could discuss this first, rather than you just change it back. its not a controversy. its a factual part of her life. just like her relationships. and her name change. its certainly not part of her career.

• @Yahboo: there you go. I created a new section for her Legal Issues. as per other peoples bio wiki pages. problem solved. before you delete this entry or move it, please discuss any problems you have on this talk page. its what its for

I certainly don't need any lessons on proper editing from someone as disruptive as yourself who continuously ignores any editing protocols which don't meet your personal agenda. Yahboo (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Yahboo: the only one with a personal agenda is Curdle who has a vested interest in keeping this page squeaky clean. you do need some lessons clearly, you seem to consider yourself some form of wiki moderator... if you have issues, use the correct recourse for discussion.... the talk page. have a nice day. <blows kiss>

@Majikalex32: and @Yahboo: If you were truly concerned about me being a paid editor, you would report me to WP:COIN, instead of attempting to use slurs to score points and steam roller through BLP violating edits that do not have concensus. The amount of extraneous details, and having them in a separate section gives far to much undue weight to those events. If you put that sort of stuff into a BLP, the ideal should be to cut extraneous detail, integrate them into the article, and ensure they are impeccably sourced so as not to give undue weight to them. Curdle (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Curdle: Huh? I don't have any issues or concerns with you. If you think I do then you are confused for some mysterious reason. I do have concerns about @Majikalex32: who is highly disruptive and has no clue about Wikipedia editing principles. Yahboo (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yahboo: Sorry..I should have made that into two separate posts. I didnt mean to imply you were involved in the Coi thing. You are just cleanig up the mess too.

• @Curdle: it doesnt matter what I seem to do, you just delete what you dont like. I added an extra section for her legal troubles as per other wiki pages from other people. I gave a minimalist description of what happened in each case, because last time you didnt like what I wrote. if you are biased in editing this page, then I will report you to WP:COIN. what I have written is not a violation of the BLP. go on. delete what I wrote without discussion and you will be reported and a moderator can sort this out. I am pretty sick of your BS

If you want to report anyone then you better watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Yahboo (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Curdle: okay I've removed the quotation marks are you happy now? will you stop editing my entries? geez. control freak much?

• @Yahboo: I am a new editor on wiki. I dont know the ropes. both of you are just being bullies really. I thought the talk page was for discussion so we can mediate a solution that is amicable. all you both do is delete my entries. Curdle deletes anything that isnt positive about this person. what is the motive for that? the arrests are relevant to this persons life. if you dont like what ive written, fine. discuss it here and edit it perhaps. dont delete it completely. and I will report this for moderation. ive had enough

I doubt that you are a new editor. And you are the one doing the actual bullying so you can stop it with your hypocritical warnings and you can start editing in a mature and sensible manner instead. Yahboo (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Yahboo: I dont care what you think Yahboo. edit this page fairly and there will be no problem. I dont delete what you have written. it is both of you who are being unreasonable.

Any editor is entitled to delete or revert things if they don't conform with accepted editing policies or principles. Have a close read of WP:OWN because it applies to your behaviour. Yahboo (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine I will initiate dispute resolution. Or you initiate it if you feel you are in the right. I am over discussing this. You are both being hypocritical no one owns this page but editing out relevant info just because you don’t agree with the content would surely be a breach of wiki policy. Majikalex32 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You are putting stuff in that is not supported by the references you are using! correcting that is not bullying or control freakery. I have been trying to AGF and be patient with a new editor, but its getting ridiculous. I dont know how many times I have pointed to policies, and tried to explain the reasoning behind them. Its like talking to a brick wall. Curdle (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Curdle: so now you have taken out the sold price for there Bondi property, again. you have also sanitised the details about her arrest. this is not YOUR article. this should be discussed on this forum first, rather than you just taking the liberties that YOU SEE FIT. once again I say. you have a vested interest in this page. time to report you.

• @Curdle: I have reported you I dont know how else to notify you. you wont listen to me when I ask you to discuss on here before editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

• @Yahboo: I am allowed to edit as well. the things I have added are relevant. discuss, before just editing out my stuff. if you have issues, start a dispute resolution, with your friend Curdle. Majikalex32 (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Yahboo: *@Curdle:. I am asking for discussion. what is wrong with my edit? the price the Bondi unit sold for has relevance. and so do the edits I made to her legal issues. why do you keep changing my edits without discussion on here? Curdle, in your edits you say 'I have been told" and Yahboo you said 'based on consensus'. you guys are just editors as well. if you continue to change my edits without a discussion then I will start a dispute resolution. no one has ownership of this page. the massive amount of editing done by Curdle the other day without discussion first??? it is not your article exclusively. Majikalex32 (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Curdle has repeatedly discussed what he thinks are the problems with your edits. If one or more other editors has a problem then the added information is not included in the article unless and until there is consensus to include it. This is especially so with BLP articles. This is how editing articles works. If you don't like this process then you have other choices with what to do with your time. Yahboo (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Curdle is not the authority. the price the Bondi unit sold for is relevant. the legal issues edits I have done are brief, to the point and accurate. what exactly is your problem? it is clear you and Curdle have an alliance. I will keep reverting the edit until I am given valid reasoning why it should not be included, or it is put through resolution by an independent moderator. Majikalex32 (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

And you are still refactoring comments on talkpages! This is seen as fundamentally dishonest. If you regret saying something, strike it through, but do not remove it. Curdle (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

regardless what has been said previously, I am trying to negotiate via intelligent discussion. explain to me why I am not allowed to edit this page. explain to me what is wrong with my additions. rather than just taking ownership of this page Majikalex32 (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

An adminstrator just told you less that 48 hours ago that further edit warring would earn you an indefinate block. Why are you continuing to do it? Curdle (talk)

What "intelligent discussion" have you provided? And are you the "authority" rather than Curdle or anyone else? And you can stop your nonsense about an "alliance". You have already been blocked once for your edit warring. You obviously have no intention of trying to edit in a way which seeks consensus as you are just repeating exactly the same behaviour. Yahboo (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

why am I not allowed to edit? I was blocked for 24 hours for abusing you, allegedly. not edit warring. stop trying to ddd weight to your opinion with false statements... lets study my last edit shall we, the one you both continue to undo. she is an aged care worker. I provided a reference. she was reported by a member of the public for driving erratically. she was detained for 12 hours by police. she did sell the unit for $2,825,000. what exactly is your problem with thee brief, accurate, factual edits apart from that you dont like them and you are claiming ownership of this article? why are you curdle allowed to do as many edits as you want, continually.. yet I cannot seem to add anything without your expressed permission?????Majikalex32 (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the abuse of Curdle, your block message included this information: "Further, if you edit once more against talk page consensus, your block duration would be increased indefinitely. Stop edit warring and follow consensus strictly on the article Kate Fischer. Your edits are contravening BLP, and there will be no further warning." Which part of this message don't you understand? Yahboo (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

as per my statement above. what is wrong with my recent edits? instead of being schoolyard bullies. answer my question ... Majikalex32 (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

And as per my own statement above, it has already been stated to you (repeatedly) what Curdle thinks is wrong with your recent edits. But you don't agree so you continue to insist on your version despite having failed to reach consensus. As your block message stated : Stop edit warring and follow consensus strictly on the article Kate Fischer. Yahboo (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

umm no. he addressed my previous edits, what he thought was wrong with them. I have taken what he said onboard. my recent edit, like I said is accurate. referenced and brief and to the point. once again I ask, what is wrong with my RECENT edit? either of you feel free to answer rather than just changing my edit. of course I'm going to change it back. you have not given a valid reason why the information shouldn't be included in the article... Majikalex32 (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

what is a MOS problem, for instance. it is you two unwilling to discuss Majikalex32 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

BLP policy states that controversial material should be played down not up, and integrated into the main part of the article. Placing it into a seperate section just highlights and emphasises it. Adding irrelevant detail just expands it. That, and the fact that you are edit warring it in, are all against policy. And once again, it is not up to us to justify its removal, It is up to you to gain consensus for it being in there in the first place!Curdle (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

MOS= Manual of style- there are certain grammar and style formats you are expected to abide by. And can you please start indenting and using talk pages properly.Curdle (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see your "recent" edits are only or mostly just repeats of your previous ones. Reasons for removal have been given over and over but you don't accept that they are valid reasons. The onus is on you to persuade other editors otherwise. Yahboo (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

if its up to a consensus, why can you seem to add and remove from the article as you wish?

very other article I have seen has the legal issues included in the "personal Life" section. I am happy to take it out of the "legal issues" section. I have seen other articles with a "legal issues' section.

the price she sold the unit for is relevant. you edited it to say she received ..several hundred thousand dollars in the break up.... the price the unit sold for is known. there is no reason not to include this. she was/is an aged care worker. I included a link with this reference. she was incarcerated for 12 hours and she was originally arrested because a member of public alerted police about her erratic driving. all factual, brief, relevent and referenced edits. what exactly is wrong with this? Majikalex32 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

see this proves that you just won't let me add anything to the page. I removed the "Legal issues" section and added the legal issues to the Personal Life section. and Yahboo undid the edit. lol. thats what you wanted I thought? i conceded that having a seperate section for 'legal issues' appears to add to much weight. Majikalex32 (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This "proves" nothing. The information wasn't removed. You were told previously that it didn't belong in the "Personal life" section and it was moved to the "Life and career" section where, if it belongs in the article at all, this is where it should be. You decided to create a special "Legal issues" section for it. It does not belong in a "Personal life" section. This should be obvious. Yahboo (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Legal issues section and added the info the the personal life section... and you undid the change! you didnt even read my edit before you deleted it. it proves you are being unreasonable. I have looked at numbers other wiki pages and the legal issue stuff is always in the personal life section... its certainly issues to do with her personal life. getting arrested. it definitely doesnt belong in life and career... just because you say so Yahboo. check other wiki pages for similar... like I said. and stop being unreasonable for the sake of it. Majikalex32 (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC

'i was told'. 'you have been told'.. this is the attitude of these two editors. not willing to discuss. Majikalex32 (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you now have psychic awareness of what I do. The information had already been moved by me from the "Personal life" section because it doesn't belong there. You moved it back there without seeking discussion or consensus first. This is edit warring on your part because you keep insisting that your version of the article is accepted and you won't accept anything to the contrary. Yahboo (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you Yahboo. I believe it belongs in the personal life section. its not part of her career. every other page I have seen with similar entries, the information has been added to the personal life section. what are you basing your opinion on? I moved the info from the legal issues section, deleted the heading and put the info in the personal life section... and you moved it back. I thought you wanted the legal issues heading deleted and the info moved. Majikalex32 (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

and a consensus only works when it's impartial. what you are doing is biased and bullying. go check other wiki articles. show me one where similar info is added to the life and career section... Majikalex32 (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Curdle: I don't know who you are, or who you think you are. but you are not a moderator. you are not admin. you are a mere editor of wiki. you do not own this page. no one owns this page. if I want to edit and add stuff it is quite within my rights to do so. it is not based on a consensus when that consensus is not democratic, and unbiased like it should be. what you and Yahboo have been doing to me is just cyber bullying. if the info I add is sourced correctly and to the point. referenced and impartial. then it can stay. why should it be the case that YOU can completely rework this article whenever you feel like it yet I add 400 charactersand straight away you change what I wrote, or delete it? then when I change it back you accuse me of warring? then you complain to moderators that I am being abusive, and warring when I am not and am actually trying to negotiate via the talk page like you are meant to? I notice you never answered my questions before, why in YOUR opinion (because it is only jus that - your opinion) can I not add the info about her double arrests. her working in aged care. the price her unit sold for..? you never provided me a valid reason. I assume it does not meet the 'agenda' of yours keeping this page squeaky clean and nice.. like I have said to you previously I suggest you check out WP:COI

if I want to edit this page. then I will. you will not be able to bully me into submission. I welcome an independent moderation of this matter. tonight has clearly demonstrated to me that you have no intention of consolidation, negotiation about this page. you consider it yours. well guess what. ive got news for you.. Majikalex32 (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Curdle: wow this page looks messy. have been having a read after seeing issues on this page via the notice board. I do agree with Curdle about some of, but not all the unnecessary detail concerning the arrest / legal problems details.. however I dont agree that this should be added to "life and career'. inline with other wiki BLP's it is usual to add these details to the 'Personal Life' section. Tuck1970 (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Curdle: I dont agree that the amount the 'house' 'apartment' sold for is trivia. considering there is talk of a settlement with a vague reference to how much. this amount the apartment sold for is factual and should be included in the article. Tuck1970 (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Curdle: rather than having one persons 'take' on this article its preferable that its discussed on the talk page here before being heavily edited to come to an editors consensus as per wiki policy Tuck1970 (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

agree with Tuck1970 and Majikalex32 arrest details should be aded to Personal Life not Life and Career. its definitely details about her personal life. please get consensus before editing Curdle Misermeanie (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Yahboo: please stop edit warring like you appear to have done previously on this page. the information about her arrests should be contained in the personal life section in line with other wiki bio's with similar entries. its not suited in life and career, that is for her career, which is what it contains. this information is about her personal life. you need to get consensus. Majikalex, Misermeanie and I have consensus. thanks. Tuck1970 (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about her selling the house in 2000. It's sourced to https://www.domain.com.au/news/notts-landing-buyers-pass-up-packers-bondi-pad-20101106-17i3x/ which was in the article, but not actually supporting any text (presumably because the text had been removed, but the reference left in place). The source seems reasonable enough, and because the value of the house appears to be many times that of the cash settlement, it ought to be mentioned. Otherwise the article gives a false impression of the total value of the settlement, and we should not be misleading our readers. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Article layout question from my talk page

WP:DENY sock ——SerialNumber54129 13:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Moved here as the question relates to this page's layout)[1] Hello. Can you please explain, on MOS principles, why you have moved the information on Fischer's arrests to the "Personal life" section from the "Life and career" section. Although this information has nothing to do with her "career" as such it has a lot to do with her public "life". I do not understand how you can justify including such information being in a "private life" section. This information seems to be very much more about her public life rather than her personal life as I understand the purpose of "personal life" information. It seems to me that you have got this wrong. Thanks, Yahboo (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @Yahboo: That information has nothing to do with her public life, and would not be reported on unless she had previously been the famous Kate Fischer. People are convicted of those kinds of offences every day of the week without it being reported by Channel 9 or the Herald Sun. I can't find a MOS page that talks about a "Personal life" section at all. The alternative would be to merge the two sections chronologically (which would require some paragraphs to be split) then dividing with headings like Childhood, Modelling career, Acting career, Later life. That doesn't quite work as she hasn't got a defined retirement to separate Acting and Later. What makes you think those events are part of her "public life"? --Scott Davis Talk 03:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @ScottDavis:, Thanks for replying but I am still not convinced by your argument. The correct question, in my view, is how are such relatively minor "controversies" specifically part of her "personal life" rather than her life in general? I think that User:Curdle has some views on this matter and may want to also comment. I will also try to seek the opinions of other editors on the appropriate discussion page. Cheers, Yahboo (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @ScottDavis: @Yahboo: I can see arguments in favour of putting them in either section, which could be resolved by using a chronological layout as Scott Davis suggested. I couldnt quite figure out how to make it work either. The chronological version might be doable if you changed the subheadings to say; Childhood, Modelling, Acting, and call the last one Return to Australia perhaps, get rid of the "Personal" section, and weave what is in the Personal section into the appropriate section timewise? Or is that very against MOS? For instance, she is currently called Fischer in the article for the I'm a Celebrity appearance because its under "career", although she did appear officially as Malkah; but then it would be confusing to just start calling her Malkah with no explanation either, which would be resolved if the layout was more chronological. Otherwise My main concern was that having their own section makes for far too much undue weight, and is basically just a "controversy" section under another name. Curdle (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC) The question of whether or not to include content dealing with her driving conviction is a matter for WP:DUE, and that tells us to look at the sources. As the coverage extends over multiple sources (search Google for "kate fischer driving conviction" to get an idea of how much attention it received), it probably belongs in the article. However, it's clearly not a big part of her life story, so we ought not to do more than concisely report the event. As for where it is placed, conventionally it would appear in a Personal life section. The first section in short BLPs is often called Early life and career – in other words, her life before her career and then her career. It's not the place to put details of events from her adult life. I've tentatively renamed the first section to see if that helps other editors avoid confusion about how best to organise material. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @ScottDavis:@RexxS:@Lourdes:@Majikalex32:@Misermeanie:@Tuck1970:it is the consensus on this page that her convictions are relevant information and were widely reported in the media and therefore should be included in her personal life bio. please read other editors and wiki moderators comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauly38 (talk • contribs) 03:56, January 12, 2019 (UTC) Well, no. I don't see any consensus. I see Scott being ambivalent. I notice RexxS wanting to put it but also mentioning that it "probably" belongs to the article. In BLPs, the term "probably" should be equated to "not include" than "include". I'm open to changing my mind; but I don't see any strong consensus here with a spectacular number of editors wanting to keep the material. My question to you Pauly38 is, why would you in your second edit on Wikipedia want to include negative material about a BLP, material which is not noteworthy at all and for which thousands keep getting convicted across the globe, including celebs? Lourdes 04:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC) as per the conversations above, it seems more editors think the information should be included in the article, rather than not. in my mind it demonstrates part of her 'fall from grace' if you like. it has been widely reported in the media, and is relevant to her life story. numerous other 'celebrities' have had issue with the law, and more often than not this is also included in their bio's. the information is referenced, and is condensed. why would you not consider this relevant? wiki pages are not to be sanitised, they are meant to be an accurate and true representation. both Scott and RexxS consider it relevant and have reverted edits by other users to include this information. that is not being 'ambivalent Pauly38 (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Umm, absolutely not. Your reading about Scott and RexxS (that both consider it relevant) is misrepresentation of their statements. This is not about sanitation. This is about your attempts to vilify a BLP based on run-of-the-mill news. This article has seen quite a few socks. I've opened up a sock investigation on you for now. If you come clean, I'll continue this discussion. Till then, I would prefer you to wait for other editors' comments. Thanks, Lourdes 06:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC) I am quite happy to wait for Scott and RexxS opinions. why would you start a socks investigation? I assure you I have nothing to hide. and I do not have an agenda. if anything I think you are trying to sanitise this wiki bio and I am curious as to why. why don't you post on the notice board and ask for other opinions whether the information is relevant. we can agree to disagree "The question of whether or not to include content dealing with her driving conviction is a matter for WP:DUE, and that tells us to look at the sources. As the coverage extends over multiple sources (search Google for "kate fischer driving conviction" to get an idea of how much attention it received), it probably belongs in the article." "That information has nothing to do with her public life, and would not be reported on unless she had previously been the famous Kate Fischer. People are convicted of those kinds of offences every day of the week without it being reported by Channel 9 or the Herald Sun'" Pauly38 (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Sure. We'll continue this discussion post the sock investigation. Thanks, Lourdes 06:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC) And please don't add to or change your comments after others have posted on the talk page, which is what you've been doing. Thanks, Lourdes 06:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC) sorry I didn't realise that wasn't allowed. no problem Pauly38 (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Ambivalent" is a fair description of my attitude. I think it deserves mention in the article only because it has been reported by multiple mainstream news sources. Mention need not be two full paragraphs - a sentence or two would be more appropriate weight. These convictions do not relate to her wikinotability in the slightest. Also - a note to Pauly38: Wikipedia does not have "moderators". Content is negotiated by consensus. Admins have greater technical permissions, but are required to use them to support the consensus, not overrule it. --Scott Davis Talk 06:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC) well there seems to be more people that support this information should appear in the BIO, that to me is consensus. I feel the entries are short, sharp and to the point I do not see how they could be edited or reduced without omitting relevant information. Pauly38 (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Given that Scott has also mentioned that "a sentence or two would be more than appropriate weight", which I agree with, I'm proceeding to edit the article. Pauly, I suspect you have absolutely no idea what consensus means. Please read Consensus to understand how Wikipedia defines it. Warmly, Lourdes 10:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC) And now with Serial Number 54129 agreeing with removing the said content (which was my original preference), I think we can see consensus to remove becoming stronger. Lourdes 10:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC) I have requested on the BLP noticeboard that other editors and admin look at this issue and offer their opinions. there is no consensus between you Lourdes and Serial Number. there are still more editors who believe that this information should be in the article. its clear to me you have a COI. Pauly38 (talk) 11:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC) so now you just delete all the entries completely? how about waiting for other editors to offer their opinions first. not good enough, especially for an experienced editor like you Lourdes. you should know better. like I said, I have asked for admin assistance. we shall let others resolve this issue. have a good night Pauly38 (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

jewish roots or just a convert?

her family record Is well documented. I COULD not find any jewish grandmother. 2A02:908:193:FA40:15BC:BA25:6F14:411E (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)