Talk:Virginia Graham

Grandkids rather than marriage complication?
An IP keeps making this change. I keep reverting it. Seems to me that the marriage disclosure is more relevant than any unnamed, probably non-notable grandchildren. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @SergeWoodzing, I've verified that the book does indeed contain the claim, but since it is a single sentence from the memoir of an acquaintance/friend (so a bit WP:PRIMARY), I wouldn't say it is strongly sourced. Perhaps it may be added with better wording like "Ballard claimed in her memoir that Graham told her she had found .." but it doesn't seem to me that the claims add much to the article. Hemanthah (talk) 06:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Untrue
I am Virginia Graham’s granddaughter and the quote from Kaye Ballard about my grandfather and the butler is flat out untrue. I have not read her book, but that comment wiki is quoting from has been taken out of context either by Kaye or wiki. Either way, this didn’t happen (I should know). Please remove it immediately.

Thank you, Jan Bohrer — Preceding unsigned comment added by VGrahamexpert (talk • contribs)


 * , you can see the context here (see under 'search results' entries). Such claims would have been removed immediately if the subject was a living person as poorly sourced, but here it isn't straightforward.


 * , I've removed it for now as the source is the memoir of an acquaintance and the author herself says the claim was the subject's own report. Hence the claim is WP:PRIMARY. Strong claims need strong sources, stronger than WP:PRIMARY, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Source is weak enough to need some discussion here before it can be added back.


 * If any of you need opinion of other editors in assessing the reliability of this source, you can post this issue at Reliable sources noticeboard. --Hemanthah (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The item was in the article for a long time. I had nothing to do with it, and its inclusion is not that important to me. I only reacted to someone claiming to be an "expert" having removed it and found the "expert" less reliable than the Balland ref. Anyone can claim to be a deceased person's grandchild and start removing sourced info. That's a no-no.
 * In any case, this should not (not) have been removed again without consensus on this page. No-no #2. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first point. On the second, I removed it because the source doesn't seem reliable and it was challenged. It would be helpful if you could explain why you think it's reliable enough for inclusion. --Hemanthah (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not said or even inferred that it is, only that the sourced item should not have been removed without consensus. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)