Talk:Yaheh Hallegua

Sammy has passed on
http://medicoanthropologist.blogspot.com/2009/09/sad-news-of-death-of-sammy-hallegua-in.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.108.219 (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2011

Earlier versions of the article named Sammy Hallegua, the synagogue warden, as Yaheh's brother. This seemed odd to me, as reports of Sammy's death described him as an octogenarian. Going back to the book The last Jews of Kerala, the primary source for the article, it appears that was a misinterpretation of the text by an earlier editor. Quoting from the book: "Her name was Yaheh Hallegua, daughter of Johnny and Juliette Hallegua, the sister of Sammy the synagogue warden." Sammy was Juliette's brother, not Yaheh's. I've amended the article accordingly. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment
This article seems like an unnecessary article. This poor woman is a private citizen who has done nothing to deserve a wikipedia article that vaguely quotes sources that she is "frosty". Furthermore her reproductive decisions are her own and have no place being discussed on an internet encyclopedia. I would flag this article for deletion, but sadly I do not know how to do that Ahassan05 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)ahassan05
 * She happens to meet our notability standard and all the content in the article has been previously published in reliable sources so I don't think it's likely to be deleted. Please don't try and censor the page by deleting cited material. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  condominium  ─╢ 07:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The unacceptability begins where the article lacks a basic assertion of notability. Keep in mind that reliable secondary sources are no substitute for a proper explanation in the article prose of what makes an article subject notable. Being "the youngest female Paradesi Jew in Cochin, Kerala, south India, and indeed the only Cochin Jew of childbearing age" does not automatically make her notable. The controversy and media coverage surrounding it is what makes the situation notable. And while the situation surrounding her is imho sufficiently notable, she is probably not. That's why the article should not be about her, but about the whole situation surrounding her, providing and in fact starting with at least a bare essential minimum of context. The article places entirely undue focus on the woman herself. Thirdly, a verbatim quotation, when presented in Wikipedia's own voice (which it is, regardless of the window-dressing quotation marks) which alleges that she is "periodically shrilling instructions", "brusquely turning away [people]" etc, is (apart from being abysmal writing style) completely unacceptable: We need to attribute this to its author(s) within the prose, and never assert an author's opinions and perceptions as facts like the current article does (again: the quotmarks are window-dressing, and no substitute for properly attributing the quoted opinions to their respective authors). Also, the proportion of verbatim quotation in the lede is completely out of hand to begin with. --213.168.110.92 (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The current article reads like an attack piece on her. It is absolutely unacceptable by WP:BLP's standards. It needs to be completely rewritten ASAP (preferably not focusing solely on her, but on the whole situation, the cultural circumstances etc.). The page should be stubbyfied or deleted until someone gets around to do it properly. Also, please keep in mind that censorship is is sometimes acceptable, slandering living persons is absolutely not ever. --213.168.110.92 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which parts are slander? (=Which parts are untrue?) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sundries  ─╢ 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP and NPOV are more subtle than you appear to believe. Something does not need to be counterfactual to be slanderous. An undue presentation of (in and of themselves verifiable) facts can very well be slanderous, as is the case here.
 * Everything in the article has been extensively commented on in reliable sources. Furthermore, every reliable source on this subject which I have been able to find has been used to the greatest extent possible, so there are no concerns with WP:UNDUE. If you do not like the writing, then making the cosmetic changes you think best would be a better strategy than attacking it, and if you think that the sources listed do not constitute significant coverage, then nominate the article for deletion. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Acting Returning Officer  ─╢ 14:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the article for deletion, and explained my reasoning at Sad Lil Artsy Guy (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well at least that wasn't a completely un-necessary waste of time. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  presiding officer  ─╢ 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

To what purpose is it necessary to mention that she is "periodically shrilling instructions to cover their bare shoulders, or brusquely turning away those who disrespectfully wore above-the-knee skirts or shorts." She has been identified as being "notoriously frosty with visitors." If you want to mention that she is the last Cochin Jew then fine, but these vague personal attacks (even if they were found in some book) seem unnecessary, she is after all a private citizen and it seems highly unfair to her to have these nasty comments about her kept on Wikipedia which claims to be a storehouse of knowledge. Similarly the comment about her dog being her only known hobby, seems like it does not at all have to be on Wikipedia, rather it seems like something one might read in a tabloid. If this article is going to stay it needs to be rewritten to respect this individual as a private citizen. Ahassan05 (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)ahassan05
 * I've responded to this at the AfD, where you posted the exact same comment but with better formatting. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Captain-Regent  ─╢ 07:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)