Talk:Vera Kobalia

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Georgia (country) Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have doubts as to whether the "Controversies" section should remain in this biography, as it seems to be little more than tabloid tittle-tattle. If you follow the links to view the actual photos, there seems to be absolutely nothing controversial about it - this seems like a controversy brewed up for political reasons. As it seems to have not gone anywhere, should we keep it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There having been no response for several days, I will go ahead and remove it now as tabloid trivia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly enough about the section to want to joust about it; but while the bit about the photos does seem absurd, the part where the primary employer on the resume of a government cabinet minister denies that person ever worked for them did seem at the time as if it might have lasting impact. The subsequent news coverage seems to indicate otherwise however. Ford MF (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could be persuaded, too. I suppose time will tell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal. This person is a public figure and this issue has been covered in both the Russian press and the Independent (UK). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite a big deal here in Vancouver, too, where she spent much of her life. I think the investigation into her qualifications is legitimately noteworthy, since she does hold a position of power. The photos I'm rather iffy on, but I would prefer them to be included, even if the are somewhat tabloid-y junk. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 08:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left notes at seeking additional thoughtful opinions from experienced editors at:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Vera Kobalia (permanent link)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Georgia (country)#Vera Kobalia BLP edits (permanent link)

I've also semi-protected the article and this talk page for now to prevent anonymous mischief.[1]
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point about the résumé irregularities; that last paragraph might be salvageable. I'd prefer to see more sources for it in order to establish notability, though. The first two paragraphs Jimbo removed, however, are undue emphasis and tabloid journalism. They could be replaced with a single sentence establishing that the résumé issues came to light as a result of the controversy over the photos. One sentence wouldn't be undue, but two paragraphs... definitely so. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some articles:

• Shields, Samantha (16-09-2010). "INTERVIEW: Georgia's economy ministry dances to new beat". businessneweurope. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Walker, Shaun (28 July 2010). "Russia rails at female Georgian minister's 'stripper' photos". The Independent. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
• Holloway, Katya (30 July 2010). "Vancouver Sun gets dressing-down from Georgian minister in `stripper' scandal". Canada.com. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
• Holloway, Katya (30 July 2010). "Georgian minister's resume error exposed after 'stripper' scandal: Calls Vancouver paper Russian propaganda". Canada.com. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
• Holloway, Katya (28 July 2010). "Georgian minister accused of stripping at Vancouver club". Canada.com. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
• Holloway, Katya (29 July 2010). "Racy photo of Georgian minister stirs controversy". Canada.com. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
• Holloway, Katya (28 July 2010). "A scandal with legs: Georgian minister's 'stripper' photo sparks outrage". Canada.com. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
• "Economy Minister Denies Doctoring CV". Civil Georgia. 29 July 2010. Retrieved 26 September 2010.
• Collin, Matthew (02 August 2010). "Georgian Scandal Over Economics and Bimbos". Moscow Times. Retrieved 26 September 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • All but the article lede are behind a pay-wall but it appears the article may be sympathetic to Ms. Kobalia

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, as the creator of the article and the person who initially wrote that controversies section, I do think discretion might be the better part of BLP for now. Yes, there has been a flurry of coverage over this specific incident, much of it (though not all) prurient and tabloidy, but I think not nearly enough time has passed to judge whether or not any of this is a notably permanent addition to her encyclopedic biography.

That being said, I also think protection is a completely unwarranted step for this article at this point. There has been no evidence of malicious behavior or edit warring, and nothing beside civil discussion here on the talk page. And since when do we protect articles "pre-emptively"? Ford MF (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that protection seems unwarranted. I don't think we are even having a disagreement here at the talk page, just some discussion. As far as I can tell, we're all more or less on the same page here: inclusion seems borderline and worthy of exploration.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm normally reluctant to semi-protect articles and especially talk pages. I was unsure whether to do it in this case but was swayed by: the attention from Wikipedia Review and the fact that this was a BLP issue. I'd rather err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs. As for Wikipedia Review, I think that whatever animus many contributors there might feel towards Wikipedia, the vast majority would not vandalize this article but I can think of one or two that might. I don't claim to have all the answers, though, so I'll unprotect this now. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attention from Wikipedia Review? Ford MF (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, those dudes. Never mind. Ford MF (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I'm curious as to how you came to take an interest in this article. 174.52.211.133 (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Caesar and your great grandmother sent me a telegram about it, written in Hungarian. Of course.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vera Kobalia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080515194323/http://www.government.gov.ge/eng/ to http://www.government.gov.ge/eng/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]