Talk:Chase Masterson

Victim vs. plaintiff
A recent edit changed the word "victim" to "plaintiff". But I thought that the legal document used the term "victim" -- at least I think so. Can someone more familiar with the case confirm this? The word "victim" used willy-nilly may be considered inaccurate and vague as the editor suggests, but not if it's part of the legal proceedings. Cheers. 23skidoo 30 June 2005 04:12 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChaseMasterson.jpg
Image:ChaseMasterson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Only" nude scene
I removed a reference to 'Digital Man' being her only nude appearance on screen. She also appeared nude in Songwriter, under the name Christi Carafano. --StarGeek (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment
I have added a quality assessment rating and importance rating to this article. Feel free to change them as the article improves! Also, feel free to add more issues to the list below, and strike them out ( strike ) when they're completed. — OranL (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable issues

 * The article does not have a lead section.
 * The article needs to be broken up into sections.
 * The article needs some more citations.

Birthday?
There have been some edit wars regarding the validity of Masterson's birthday as listed on Wikipedia. Although the page now lists references, two of those references are user-contributed and thus questionable, and the other (AOL) appears to be simply reflecting the 2/26/63 date which is commonly posted on other sites (though not consistently -- I have seen other dates posted on other fansites, and Masterson's personal site had an entirely different birthdate for quite some time, before the site was redesigned).

The 2/26/63 date apparently originally stems from a false profile posted about her by a stalker on Matchmaker.com, which led to a lengthy lawsuit (as referenced in the article) and then made it onto various user-contributed sites, such as IMDb.

I am looking for online confirmation of these references, but unfortunately this information came from a live panel and I have not yet found written or video documentation of it online. Any light shed on this would be welcome.

I am not suggesting that the 2/26/63 date is not extremely prevalent (in fact, it's all over the Internet). However, it does appear to come from a single source, which may have been deliberately inaccurate, and thus is questionable. Cubert (talk) 15 March 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

UPDATE: I have located an email address for the production company of the latest film which Chase starred in. By law they must have her tax forms on file (I-9 and government-issued ID for proof of employability). It's a longshot, but I have sent them a letter requesting the information. As they are apparently a 501(c)(3) they have some transparency. While I doubt they can scan or photocopy an employee's I-9, they may be able to, with the employee's permission, relay certain information from it. We'll see. Cubert (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

No luck in getting an email response, as I assumed would be the case.

Found a few sites that have Masterson's year of birth listed as 1973 (here and here). They are user-edited, though, so they are not more or less admissible than the sites listing her birthdate as 1963. We know the 2/26 day is correct (it is listed at her official fan club); it is the year for which I have found no acceptable original documentation.

I therefore believe we must conclude that the 1963 date does not meet Wiki's verifiability requirements. Due to WP:BLP, it is my analysis that we must err on the side of caution here. To summarize, all references to the 1963 date are from user-contributed sites (not acceptable sources for Wikipedia), or from websites that cite recursively (sites that cite each other as a reference, with no verifiable original source). While the '63 date can be traced to the Matchmaker.com profile, this profile was a hoax and therefore should not be included in Wiki (see WP:HOAX).

(ASIDE: Just FYI, my interest in this matter stems from a convention I attended where there was a fellow who had gone to high school with Chase (Christi then). He had brought their senior yearbook for her to sign; I distinctly remember it being dated 1991 because I commented that that was my graduation date as well. So unless she was 28 years old when she graduated high school, the 1963 date is WP:CB. I recognize that this is totally inadmissible evidence by Wiki's standards because it is a personal anecdote; nevertheless I mention it here for those who are curious.)

In any case, I submit that the '63 date should be struck, with a caveat to see this discussion.

I am open to hearing others' opinions in this, including dissenting points of view. Cubert (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * She was credited as a Blonde Prostitute in the movie Confessions of a Serial Killer (1985) therefore your date of 1973 is invalid as that would have made her 12 at the time of filming that particular role...highly unlikely. Morder (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent observation. However, playing devil's advocate, Jody Foster played a prostitute in Taxi Driver when she was 12. Because you personally feel something is "highly unlikely" does not make it "invalid." There is no wiggle room in Wiki's standards; to state the birthdate of a living person one must show verified original-source evidence, of which I have yet to see any.Cubert (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Figured I'd chime in for what's it's worth (not a lot). Chase fan; seen all her films. In Confessions (1985) she plays a teen prostitute who bites it. It doesn't take a expert anatomist to realize she's not 22 in that movie. 12 may be on the young side; I woulda guessed 15 when I watched it. 12 is definitely possible though, if she was a well developed 12 year old. But 22? Nuh uh.
 * This is becoming a common sense issue, above all else. This pic was taken at a con with her last summer. This was from a shoot in May 08. You're telling me that girl is pushing 50?  I know none of this is real evidence or anything for you Wiki rules folks, but for the love of Pete! Smokefree (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarify: "I have seen other dates posted on other fansites, and Masterson's personal site had an entirely different birthdate for quite some time, before the site was redesigned." Birth day ? or Year of Birth? Regardless, this is all based on circumstantial evidence of 1 person contradicting information citeable to non-wiki sites like vh1, blockbuster, etc. The date should not have been removed from her page until it was confirmed wrong, as this in itself could be little more than a hoax, by itself.  --24.236.209.177 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More info...Friend of mine has done some more research and found that she was in college in 1984 and 1985  . Her University apparently also lists her dob as 1963.  (Though this is 3rd party information) We know she did go to UT Austin  . I can't confirm she was 11 when she was in college but the evidence for 1963 seems to be mounting. Anyway, I think this is enough for now. (in response to Smokefree: Photoshop works wonders and you can't just just assume any image isn't untouched anymore, though many stars look great and they're pushing 50 and more) Morder (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition - She was nude in Songwriter (1984) which means she needs to be of legal age to appear nude in said film Morder (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. If the college says that, then you're right, we need more evidence to change it.  FYI, though, your analysis of Songwriter is incorrect... one must be of legal age to appear in a sex scene in a film. Children or underage teens may be photographed nude in films with parental consent; there are no laws against this. Cubert (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Given all the "hoopla" in the US over nude children on cellphones and what-not I had made the incorrect assumption about the laws but given the film was shot in Texas having a nude girl under the age of 18 is against the law and it was a sex scene in Songwriter anyway :) Morder (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the 63 date should stand for now but its still very suspicious. Just fyi I saw Songwriter and it's not really a sex scene. She is naked in a bed. And she looks very "under-developed" if you know what I mean. I would not at all be surprised if she was 11 at the time. Hmmm... makes me wonder if Chase gave the producers a fake birthday in order to do the scene, like Traci Lords you know, and that date stuck? Ha. Who knows. All that stuff is hypothetical so I know it doesn't count here. I say we put this to bed, no pun intended, unless some new evidence comes to light.Cubert (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, wait a minute. The anonymous user above says "The date should not have been removed from her page until it was confirmed wrong." This is faulty analysis. According to WP:BLP (it's even quoted at the top of this discussion page, for Pete's sake) "controversial material about a living person that is... poorly sourced must be removed immediately." We all agree that the date is controversial (there are debates about this all over the place, on fan sites, IMDb, etc., and other sites list other dates) and poorly sourced (while the date is listed all over the web, there is no original source cited anywhere and it appears that all these celebrity sites picked it up from each other). A college yearbook or a nude scene in a film is not evidence of her birthdate. I vote this date gets struck immediately, with prejudice, and does not get reinserted unless an original source can be located. Smokefree (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As it has been four days with no response to my post here or on the noticeboard, I am editing the article to remove the poorly sourced material per WP:BLP. Do not revert the edit (see WP:3RR) without first discussing on the noticeboard  here and reaching a consensus among admins. Smokefree (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Smokefree. Update: We now have official verification from Chase's reps at the production company she last worked with as to her birthdate, and an explanation (sort of along the lines of what I suspected) as to the prevalence of the incorrect '63 date. Looks like my email was answered (indirectly). I'm altering the article accordingly and considering this matter closed. Cubert (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the page at that URL no longer exists, and it seems that the blog that this entry should have come from doesn't even have any entries past 22 January 2009. — OranL (talk) 07:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry that link is now dead. It contained a response from Chase's production company to the emails they were receiving about her birthdate, including the fact that she has always kept her birthdate a matter of private record and that the 2-26-63 date was an invention by someone who posted a false profile of her at Matchmaker.com several years back. Also, I wanted to quote a user on the Memory Alpha boards regarding Morder's earlier attempts to "prove" the 1963 date through articles in a UT yearbook: "I'd like to chime in with an observation here. I noticed several people pointing to these UT college yearbook articles from 1984 saying that someone named "Christi Carafano" was starring in some theatre productions. As a former theatre student myself, I can tell you that this does not mean in any way that she was a student there at that time. College drama departments often bring in people from outside the college to star in plays. At my university our extended ed program brought in high school and even elementary school students to participate in courses and star in shows, sometimes in main (or even the lead) roles. It happens quite frequently. So far I've seen no documentation that Christi Carafano was an enrolled student at UT in 1984, only that she was considered to be in the "senior cast" in a show or two, which could mean anything. She could have been 12 at the time, or she could have been 112. Those yearbooks are not evidence of her birthyear. Also, somebody mentioned that her university listed her birthdate as 1963. But the link that user provided as evidence of this was to the NNDB - a website which lists famous people, including by college, and their supposed birthdays. We have no evidence that that information came from the university itself." The Memory Alpha editors have decided there is no sufficient evidence for any birthyear so they have struck it entirely; it looks like we've reached the same decision here, which I agree with.Cubert (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.175.187 (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anonymous user, you have provided absolutely no citations for any of this information, and made serious personal legal claims here. You are in violation of WP:BLP and WP:NOR; your edits will be struck and your IP address reported to the admins.Cubert (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I just called the LA Country Recorder and CA State Tax Board and they told me that you cannot obtain a citizen's SS# via a tax lien record as you claim to have done.Cubert (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed all of the purported personal information as grossly inappropriate. Dominic·t

Stumbled across this site on only a vaguely related matter but I can't resist a mystery. I found the following clues. 1. http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=4c21c05d5adf6 At this link on Trek Web, Chase is interviewed by Gustavo Leao just this past June. Relevant portion to this discussion was when she referred to working with Nana Visitor... "I had seen her dance in a Broadway musical when I was a kid". So in this first person account she places the time frame she saw Nana Visitor as when she was a "kid". 2. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000684/otherworks The IMDB lists her "other works" as being broadway shows in 83 and 84. 3. http://nanavision.com/?page_id=2 Nana Visitor's website biography says that her first major broadway role was in 1980. 4. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0135895/bio The bio on IMDB says that she had auditioned for a part on DS-9 in 1994 "but was told that, at age 21, she was a bit too old to be romantically involved with the teenage Jake character." This came from director Avery Brooks per the IMDB with quite a bit of detail. So here we have her discussing her age at sometime between 1980-1984, deducing the years from other sources, as being a "kid". An age of 17 to 21 would be unlikely for her to refer to herself as a "kid". We also have the IMDB sourcing the director Avery Brooks as dating her at 21 in 1994 which would support a birthday in 1973. Although the IMDB info is only second hand, if we assume the links from sources 1 and 3 are reported honestly then there is enough to help support the claim in link number 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.157.58 (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:RS issues
Regardless of whatever "consensus" may have been reached elsewhere, sites like "Chickipedia" aren't reliable sources and can't be cited as Wikipedia references. Discussions of contentious/sensitive material like litigation involving the article subject must be sourced under the BLP policies. Please don't keep edit warring on this, and provide reliable sources meeting our policy if you reinstate the latter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the one engaging in edit-warring. Post your concerns to an admin noticeboard of you don't like the results of previous consensus.76.176.166.241 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo, let me just start out by saying that it's usually not the best way to state your case on Wikipedia by starting with a statement to the effect of you're going to edit a page "regardless" of the consensus reached previously on the admin boards. Not a way to endear yourself to the admins or win brownie points in your argument, IMHO. Just sayin'. :) Anyway... I made some edits on the page that will hopefully address your concerns. But I have to wonder why you didn't do the same. First of all, regarding Masterson's birth year, the "citation needed" tag has no place on a biography of a living person.  Per WP:BLP, if you feel that there is poorly cited or uncited material, you should either cite it, or remove it. Secondly, re: the Carafano vs. Metrosplash sentence that you keep removing... Why? This is not "controversial" information (the case is taught in every modern law school), it does not relate to ongoing litigation, and the sentence in question contained a link to the primary Wikipedia article about the court case. If this is not sufficient citation for you, then why not simply add a citation, like I have? Removing the sentence entirely strikes me as an unhelpful thing to do.Smokefree (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignore him. Hullaballoo has a reputation for trolling Wiki articles and deleting absolutely anything and everything that isn't cited, rather than simply citing it himself. All the while continually invoking various Wikipedia policies to defend his agenda, and making statements like "our policy," as if to suggest that he is somehow more directly affiliated with Wikipedia than other editors. This is referred to as "gaming the system" (WP:GAME), and he is what we call a destructive, rather than constructive, editor. In reality he has no affiliation with Wikipedia, despite his implications, and he has been banned by admins in the past; he likely will be again. Best way to deal with him is simply to revert his edits.Cubert (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRIVACY
I have recently noticed that WP:PRIVACY states that individuals' birthdates and legal/birth names are not permitted to be disclosed anywhere on Wikipedia. Since the rule states that this applies to all people regardless of whether or not they are editors, I am assuming it applies to celebrities as well? In any case, since Miss Masterson is an editor on Wikipedia (she has an editor account although she doesn't use it to edit her own article), I would say that the rule definitely applies here. Feel free to discuss. For now, I am removing the material that appears to violate WP:PRIVACY. Thank you. Smokefree (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The information is not being put in for the purpose of disclosing a wikipedia editor's identity. I don't even know the account that Masterson supposedly edits under and whether it is actually her. However, her real name is verified by multiple reliable sources making her identity already public. There is no disclosure in this kind of scenario. The point of WP:PRIVACY is to protect an editor's anonymity. Apparently you already know that Chase is an editor and you know which account she's using. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's to prevent outing - you cannot out a celebrity who's real name has been widely reported in reliable sources, that's just nonsense. The name is verifiable by multiple reliable sources. In addition, you cannot out someone who edits under their real name! By that logic, Jimbo Wales article should have his real name removed from it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The WP:PRIVACY claim is a pretext raised by a couple SPAs, presumably fans of the actress, who are industriously editing in support of the actress's publicists' efforts to shave a few years off her reported age. Her early film roles were credited to her birthname (also used in some online pages reporting her collegiate acting career); with that name in the article, it's easy to find references, to a B-movie where she had a nude scene produced in a year where her publicists would have her only 12 years old. I don't see any reasonable, good faith basis for the claim, particularly since the birthname remains partially stated in the article, remains in Wikipedia as a redirect page to this article, is fully stated in linked pages and references, and has been put in the public record by the actress herself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I came to Hullaballoo in good faith to ask why he was repeatedly deleting citations in this article. He responded by blanking my comments and issuing personal insults. I see he is back to his old tricks again. :) As for WP:PRIVACY, I understand the points raised above by Cameron and Morbid, and they seem valid to me. Most of what Hullaballoo is saying above, though, is not even related to this. We're not even talking about her age here. Some nonsense about publicists or something.. I don't know what he is going on about. He seems to be suggesting that the subject of the article or her "publicists" are involved in editing? Can he provide evidence of this? I've looked all over and I can find nothing from the actress or ay publicists (who?) about her birthdate - absolutely nada. Everything out there appears to be speculation, and there doesn't appear to be any public affirmation or denial from the article's subject as to her birthday. In any case, this is WAY off subject. The article was protected due to Hullaballoo's continued unexplained deletions of citations in the article, replacing them with citation needed tags which have no place in a WP:BLP. Until he gives a cogent explanation as to why he feels he should be doing this, he won't be editing this article. Smokefree (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please post some of the citations that he deleted so that we can determine if they are appropriate/reliable to use as a reference in the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The citations he keeps deleting are the ones that are presently in the article. The admins protected the page with the citations intact. Smokefree (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 (the discussion page) is not a proper reference. 5, a press release, is also not a proper reference to assert her popularity at star trek conventions. The femme fatale citations should be reformatted without linking to a vendor. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent points. Hullaballoo wasn't saying any of that. He was just blanking citations (including 4, which seems perfectly valid) for no given reason and saying citation needed, even though that tag has no place on a WP:BLP. When editing opens back up for this article, we should repair those particular citations.


 * At least now we are having a cogent discussion rather than senseless COI destructive edits. My faith in Wikipedia's impartiality is (somewhat) restored. :) Smokefree (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's get this over with quickly. The issues involve the second paragraph under career. The first pair of citations, relating to Femmes Fatales magazie, go to a used magazine retailer's site, [not an acceptable source, especially for a BLP] where none of the text actually mentions Masterson, nothing supports the claim that the magazine named her "one of the world's '50 Sexiest Women'", and there are no independent third party sources indicating that being one the magazine's cover twice (assuming that's her in the small thumbnail cover images), once in a moderately large group photo, is any sort of "distinction." The second claim, TV Guide, turns out to lack reliable sourcing; the claim goes back to a press release issued in connection with one of her public appearances, but aren't supported by the TV Guide site itself or by any news sources -- unlike other, similar, older TV Guide polls, for example   The third cite is just out-and-out phony; the text claims she won multiple polls at "Star Trek conventions," "over the years," but the cited article refers to a single poll in a single year at a non-Star Trek convention, and isn't even a very good source for that (again, appears to come from a press kit, not a source independent of the subject. The problems with citations have already been discussed repeatedly with regard to this and similar articles, and demands like Smokefree's that the same issues be revisited over and over and over are just disruptive editing meant only to obstruct removal of promotional claims, not legitimate content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is already over with; the article is protected. And BTW, my "demand" was not that "issues be revisited over and over." My demand was for WP:BLP articles to be edited constructively, not destructively, and that if an editor feels a citation needs replacement, the citation should be fixed or the sentence erased, and discussed on the talk page -- not replaced with a citation needed tag on a WP:BLP. The admins agree, and the page has been protected as is. I also "demand" that conversations about source validity be treated with respect, and not be blanked with personal attacks (you referred to my polite discussion as "unreasonable nonsense," which is unacceptable conduct on Wikipedia and will get you nowhere). In short, your repeated violations of WP:AGF, tendency to edit destructively, and insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a "sock," "SPA," or some other random insult, has grated on the community's nerves for quite a while and will continue to backfire. Smokefree (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the WP guidance is badly worded, but it is obviously meant to apply to WP editors, not subjects of articles. Is Shakespeare's birthdate not allowed? Get real. --FormerIP (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur; I completely disagree with Smokefree; WP:PRIVACY is not supposed to prevent you from posting celeb's birthdays. The issue here, though, is not one of privacy, but of there being too many conflicting sources, all of them citing each other recursively, and no real original source for the date(s) that are being thrown around. Until that changes, under WP:BLP, poorly sourced info cannot be included. Cubert (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no poorly sourced information involved. The birthdate was cited to a highly reliable source, and you reverted it with the edit summary "nope," followed by a string of personal attacks. Now unless you can explain why one of the largest and most heavily used publisher of reference works in the US is a "poor source," you should just crawl back into your sock drawer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My "personal attacks" against you (like "scraping barnacles") were actually just quotes that you have used against me and others in the past! You are the queen of personal bad faith attacks, throwing the term "sock" and "nonsense" around like there's no tomorrow, and insulting people. (Which is ironic for someone who is a sock of a previous banned user.) But when you get a taste of your own medicine - when the exact same words are used against you - you cry foul. You are truly a kick, my old friend(s).
 * In any case, this is the second time the admins have had to protect this page from your vandalism. You lose, and you'll continue to lose, every time. Cubert (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, you have no justification for describing the claim as "poorly sourced," so you're going to whine about The Big Bad Wolfowitz. And you are lying about the "sock of a previously banned user" garbage, as you know perfectly well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you hear something? I swear I hear something... Sounds like a little old queen crying, but it's too faint to make out. Cubert (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer the question. What is your basis for claiming that a reference work published by Gale is a "poor source"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A.) I wasn't avoiding anything; I was answering your concerns. YOU are the one who went off-topic and cried about how I issued "personal attacks" against you. I then pointed out that I was merely quoting YOU. Which you had no answer for, because you were caught in your own hypocracy. So you suddenly want to drop the discussion of personal attacks, and talk about the actual matter at hand. Clever.
 * B.) My answer is the same as that given by numerous users above. That birthdate is prevalent, but consensus is that it is not based on an original source but instead is a self-perpetuating meme. You yourself have argued (when it suits your agenda to) that even valid sources (like AOL News) must be dismissed if it appears that they cite recursively and don't give their original source. Unless you can demonstrate that Gale has some type of original source that has not yet come to light, the reason for dismissing it is the same as the reason for dismissing all the other conflicting dates.
 * C.) I find it ironic/sad that the self-declared police of Wikipedia, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who spends countless hours striking things from BLP's if they are even slightly disputed, is now insisting that somehow this particular Xerox of a book page is sufficient evidence to overcome a consensus. It would be funny if it weren't so transparent. Cubert (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Utter nonsense. The referenced source is a 2002 publication predating the occurrences of the supposed "self-perpetuating meme." Thst's quite different than a news piece published after a disputed claim appeared in Wikipedia and had proved unverifiable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the admins feel that it's a valid source, as they now appear to, then yes, it should stay. But still waiting for your reply to my first point: Why mean-spirited personal insults and fabricated accusations of sockpuppetry, when coming out of your mouths, are acceptable; yet when the exact same words come from someone else against you, you cry foul. Cubert (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:PRIVACY has nothing to do with articles. Checking other articles shows the obvious: articles include birth dates when they are reliably sourced. The source for 1963 is a book (not a "Xerox of a book page") which satisfies verification. If there are other reliable sources which dispute that date, or which claim that the date is not known, the article may need a minor modification to reflect that situation. A birth date of 1963 is not extraordinary, so there is no need to get multiple verifications.
 * Regarding the lack of civility in some of the comments above: It does not matter who was first to be uncivil. The strong civility policy mandates that editors must be civil, even if provoked. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Numerous other verified reputable srouces have been cited throughout this article's history and the controversy surrounding it, which list a different date. The consensus among the admins has always been that, because numerous valid and reputable sources have conflicting dates, this constitutes an extenuating circumstance and therefore no valid date should be included unless an original source (i.e., birth record) could be produced. No one has done so. In fact, all Hullaballoo did here is the same thing that countless other editors have done in the past, which is find one particular source online (granted, a reputable and valid source) and cited it, while ignoring the sum-total of other equally reputable sources that have different dates. That is the thrust of the argument here, and it is being entirely ignored. In short, whether or not Gale is "valid" is irrelevant, because there are countless other "valid" sources that say differently. The standard that the community consensus agreed to was that an original source should be found before including a date in this particular article, and that standard should remain intact. Cubert (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The production company is not a reliable source, since they could have a vested interest in keeping Masterson's age unknown or lower than it actually is as a boon to marketing their film. I'm not aware of any other reliable source for a non-1963 birthdate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That logic escapes me, but regardless, I'm not talking about a production company. Cubert (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, what then? What reliable source gives her birth date as something other than 1963? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet-induced "consensus"
A sockpuppet complaint was filed here, the results of which were:


 * ✅ the following appear to be matches:

Therefore, any supposed "consensus" reached above as a result of discussion between these accounts is, in fact, bogus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Birthday again
Here a former student, who apparently attended Burges High School in El Paso, Texas from 1979 to 1982, says Hello to many persons, among them Christi Carafano, “from drama, chior, dance, Gnatsum and classes”, suggesting that this Christi Carafano attended this particular high school around the same time. Doesn't prove anything, I know, but given the fact that the Christi Carafano we're talking about apparently went to college in Texas and one of the debated birth years is 1963, which would fit, could this be her? Anyone have access to the yearbooks of this particular high school from 1981 or 1982? --Rosenzweig (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The 1973 birthdate is a fabrication; the references don't check out (for example, the first cited ref didn't turn up in a GBooks search, but the indexing for the series shows a 1963 birthdate. I've replaced the prior text, which includes a citation to a highly reliable source that can be viewed directly. Unfortunately, GBooks access to the source is more limited than it was when I first found the source; all that can now be displayed is the index entry, which includes the 1963 birthdate. That ref you've turned up is another useful piece of evidence of the 1973 date's being a hoaxster at work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've filed an SPI on User:Scott Scott Hayden and the IPs since this is probably the return of puppetmaster User:Sorrywrongnumber Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've requested that the article be semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This topic seems to be a veritable hornets' nest :-) My web find isn't really any "evidence" though, it's just a hint that a person named Christi Carafano seems to have attended this particular school in those particular years. The name seems to be rather rare, so there's a good chance it might be her. To be certain, however, someone (probably someone from the vicinity of El Paso) would have to check out those old high school yearbooks, which seem to go by the title Hoofbeats. WorldCat says the El Paso Public Library and the Dallas Public Library have them. The same goes for the college yearbooks mentioned above. I'm quite far from Texas myself, unfortunately ;-)


 * I can support the observation that "the references don't check out" for the 1973 birth year, at least for the second of the three given, which was “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion (third ed.). 2002. p. 96.” The Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion only had one edition as far as I can tell, published in 2000, and none of the bibliographic databases and websites I searched showed any evidence of further editions. I'm quite certain the Memory Alpha article Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion would have faithfully noted any editions beyond the first, as they have done with the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion.


 * The first (and most likely onely) edition of that book lies before me right now, and on page 96, which deals with the second season episode Rules of Acquisition, Chase Masterson or her role Leeta are not mentioned. Not surprisingly, as she first appeared in the third season. --Rosenzweig (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The TV Guide cite is phony, too -- The date doesn't match up to the actual issue (a "problem" with the TV Guide cites provided by the original sockfarmer, too). He's quite a piece of work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Almost everything said here (in the top paragraph) is original research and therefore can't be taken into consideration. The 1963 birthdate appears to be a fabricated reference too, because the link is dead and doesn't check out. 99.67.62.224 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This link? It isn't dead and shows p. 464 (some kind of index apparently) of Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television, Volume 75 with the entry Masterson, Chase 1963—     CTFT-45. --Rosenzweig (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the sockpuppeteer lied, what a surprise! Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently the El Paso connection was correct, see my recent additions to the article. --Rosenzweig (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)