Talk:Kara Young

her husband is not a billionaire

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

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

why isn't it on the internet then? fornes, furtune, ny times, no one says he is a billionaire because he is not. that article does not say anything and people should not have to register on some site to verify information that is already known to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.20.105 (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

your comment is a bit bizarre. The RS verifies facts, not editors. Fasttimes68 (talk)< —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

My comment is normal. He's not reported in Forbes or Fortune as being a billionaire. He himself claims he is a billionaire. Anyone can claim anything and it can still be false. State that he "claims" it. Your reverting the article so many times is a bit bizarre actually. 108.46.128.94 (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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

That factoid, useless, trivial allegation contributes nothing to this article, which is not even about him. She's not a billionaire, he only claims to be one in a brief interview, and no where in his official biography listed here[[2]] here[[3]] or here[[4]] does it state such by third party sources. Hershebar (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Excellent summary. One of the editors can't seem to get point #1. Regarding #2, I think the subjects husband is notable enough to warrant referencing his occupation and contributions to his industry. Self reported phrase doesn't bother me in the least. I too can't fathom the contention, especially with respect to the Financial Times article and the asinine insistence that Forbes has to include a reference, or that a reference has to be easily accessible online. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If the only article anyone can find that her husband is a self-proclaimed "billionaire" is on a site where you have to sign up to view it, then he's really NOT a real, reported billionaire. Show several articles that anyone can view where he is accurately reported to be a verified billionaire. Even his own site does not state he is one. Why? Because he is NOT. 71.183.68.51 (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The source reports it. Don't like it? Call the FT and get them to retract. Are you jealous of the subject that she is married to a billionaire or that she has an article on Wikipedia? Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I see what the problem with fasttimes68 is. After looking at his past (and rather excessive) edits, he lost a battle with editing a playboy bunny's article (by the way, she won a huge million dollar case recently - good for her) and now fasttimes68 is on to other battles here in wiki. you don't own wiki. This retired model's hubby isn't a billionaire. The disputed comment is being removed again and will probably continue being removed so perhaps you need to let it go and go with the consensus. People on wiki aren't "jealous" of subjects (maybe you were of that playmate though) but nevertheless, personal attacks are unnecessary...and so is the false "billionaire" comment. JohnJaySee (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing Personal Section

It's only a few sentences, hasn't been documented or publicized much, has nothing to do with the former model's career, and does not contribute in any way towards the main topic of the article. JohnJaySee (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Other editors disagreed I guess. Please be mindful of BRD. This content has been in the article for some time, so consensus must be respected. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

FT68, you do not own this article or Wikipedia. The edits made prior were good. Stop changing them to how you want the article to sound, especially when it is not accurate. Husband only claims to be a billionaire. It was never reported by a third party ever. Topic is not about him anyway, it's about her and what makes her notable is her career as a model. 108.41.20.22 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)