User talk:Philkoz

Welcome!
Hello, Philkoz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Barbara, Lady Judge. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Hans Adler 22:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * PS: This kind of information on the biography of a living person always needs a reliable source. Amazingly, the marriage announcement was in the New York Times, but of course it doesn't mention the divorce. As she married again and a man who perfectly fits the description is still alive, this is sort of obvious, but I felt I still had to remove that part. I think this also serves encyclopedic brevity, as it is what readers will guess under the circumstances. If you have a reliable source for the divorce (or tying Mr. Kozloff to his ex-wife at the time of her second marriage), then by all means return the information to the article.
 * Technically speaking, you caught me at a mistake: The wording about first and second marriage was mine, and was prompted by the subject's incomplete biographies. If you have reason to believe we have the complete list of husbands now, I am happy to leave things as they are. Otherwise I would like to move to more open wording without numbers, just to be on the safe side. Hans Adler 22:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Divorce
There is no question in my mind that the parties were divorced prior to the subject's second marriage as TJK is still alive and bigamy was always out of the question for all parties referenced.

Having said that, I am indifferent to an editorial deletion although it creates unnecessary ambiguity which I would think contrary to Wikipedia objectives.

Philkoz (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I googled for the name and found someone who has precisely the right name and went to the right university at the right time and obviously was alive at least very recently. The problem is that if I put this together with the fact that the subject of the article married again later, then that is considered original research, and more precisely original synthesis. It's a very harmless case of it, but for BLP articles we must be extra careful, and this article needs even more care as it was involved in a case of paid editing. Cleaning up after that is how I got involved.
 * I don't think anyone will think of bigamy. More likely, people will wonder whether her first husband died, and if they are really interested, will find out through a quick Google search just like I did. Still, if you restore the divorce I don't mind and won't revert you. Hans Adler 09:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your very reasonable position and I can appreciate the difficulties of operating within these subtle constraints. I suppose that accounts for absence of specifics with reference to (i) Lady Judge's first unnamed law firm, {ii} her unnamed academic awards, and (iii) her son's unnamed university. Having said that, I do not understand why my insertion of the wordage in question now would not be objectionable whereas it was when I first entered it. I will let it stand as it is. Philkoz (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)