User talk:Declair

Why was this edited to remove so much family history? It removes the reference to the surname "Wonskolaser", which several sources consider to be the pre-Anglicized family name.

Most of the family history was retained. My contributions are based on research into primary records, and where they contradicted what was already on the page, I made changes. Otherwise, I recommend reading the cited source in note #3. There are errors in published accounts on the early history of the family, and since Wikipedia articles should be of encyclopedic quality, the errors should be corrected. Please sign your posts. Thanks Declair (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jack Warner
As a contributor to this article who played a major role in bringing it to FA status, I welcome any contributions that will help to improve it. Therefore, when attempting to restore sourced material that had been removed over the past several months, I was careful to retain a number of your contributions, including a reference to the family's pre-Anglicized name (which, for some reason or another, was rendered as "Wonsol" in the version I read). In addition, I took time to properly format your inline citations.

Regarding sources, I'm not sure who is in charge of determining which ones meet Wikipedia standards. The vast majority of sources cited in this article were published by reputable publishing houses. Furthermore, none of them is treated as "God's truth" in the context of the article. They are claims and interpretations that were published. Not all of them agree. Eliminating cited material because you have decided that it draws on faulty sources may not be consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia.

Best, twelsht (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't believe everything I read, and I agree with you that Hollywood biographies aren't necessarily long on truth. The article could benefit from the inclusion of phrases like "according to" and "one writer contended." (I'll try to get on that.) If sourced material strikes you as unreliable, however, it might be more appropriate to cite a published source that calls this material into question. We're not in a position to offer opinions on the reliability of one source over another, but it's perfectly appropriate to present competing claims. Moreover, you could refer to published sources who call into question widely disseminated stories that have little basis in fact. In the end, this might be a more effective way to stem the flow of misinformation. Best, twelsht (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)