Talk:Jeffree Star/Archive 1

Birthdate and other things...
In the article, it says he's 21 years old...but if he was born Nov. 15, 1986, he's only 20. Whoever wrote this article probably meant to write 1985 instead...also, I know for a fact he went to Pacifica High School in Garden Grove, California, and graduated in 2003...how do I know this? He's in my yearbook; I graduated in 2005. And yes, his real name is Jeffrey Steininger. He has a younger brother named Phil.


 * This is the first I've heard of Phil, but what about Daniel Hilton? The two have claimed to be twins before and certainly look like they could be fraternal twins. Or is "Daniel" really "Phil"?


 * I haven't heard of Daniel Hilton; I only know Jeffrey has a younger brother named Phil because he is also in my yearbook and I've talked to Pacifica High School teachers about it. Who knows, though...the name "Daniel Hilton" sounds kind of phony anyway so maybe it is an alias of Phil's. - myspace.com/amandalovespurrs


 * What is true and what can be referenced and included on Wikipedia are two separate things. If and when it's sourced that he has a brother (and frankly if it makes sense t include that information in the article) then by all means go for it. Please also sign your comments. Benjiboi 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)`

Wasnt he in class of 1990? making him in his 30's - unsigned comment from Jak3m
 * If you can find a reliable source that confirms it then please post it. Benjiboi 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

gay artist' category
I don't think it he should be in the 'gay artist' category. In interviews, he has mentioned having sex with a woman named Paige. I believe he says it in his video interview with auralsalvation.com. Here are links to the interview: http://www.auralsalvation.com/2005/11/jeffree_star_part_1/ http://www.auralsalvation.com/2005/11/jeffree_star_part_2/ http://www.auralsalvation.com/2005/11/post/


 * He says he's gay but that doesn't mean he's exclusive to men. The category is GLBT so he's covered even if bisexual is more accurate. Benjiboi 14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD
Clearly this needs to go up for another AfD. A bunch of uncited information does not a worthwhile article make.--75.2.32.250 16:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Only one statement appears to be uncited. Most of the statements are cited properly, which is much better than most articles. I don't see this "bunch of uncited information" you describe. As for putting it up for AfD: the previous AfDs were about notability, but now, with the increased media coverage, I don't think that would work anymore. Whether people like it or not, he is now notable. You're welcome to put it up for AfD if you feel there's a case for deletion, though.
 * PS. I've made a header for this topic. -kotra 19:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture
The picture from Perez Hilton has been edited; Perez is known to draw on pictures, usually words or certain 'liquids' dripping from places, always in white. This can clearly be seen in the posted photo; perhaps an unedited one should replace it? 75.8.90.63 12:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I hadn't noticed the white "liquids" on that picture. I've removed it. -kotra 22:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted the image back to the first download, which is from his MySpace profile.-- milk the cows (Talk) 21:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree's BandMerch store.
I think it might possibly be a good idea to add into the page that Jeffree currently has a BandMerch store where he has many different Jeffree Star band merchandise for sale. The store's URL is: http://www.bandmerch.com/java2/BandMerch/jeffreestar/ Huntx 05:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * done. Benjiboi 14:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tone of the article
I commend whoever recently expanded the article to practically 5 times as long. It is much more informative now, and the some of the new references are great. However, the tone of the article is now overwhelmingly positive, like an entertainment magazine article mixed with a biography written by an admiring fan. Peacock words and phrases like "success" "gift for aesthetic beauty", and "impressive" are not very objective, nor are the numerous quotes of glowing praise (like the laughable "digital polymath" quote). The article needs some cleaning up to stick more to the facts and less to personal opinions (even, sometimes, if they're opinions presented by magazines). -kotra 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment, I can't say I'm a fan although I do find his tenacity compelling (like Madonna's). Given the subject's trajectory I'm sure more critical press will soon emerge providing plenty of criticism. The industries he's centered in presently (fashion, make-up, modeling, internet celebrity) are not known to have insightful and critical attention from reliable sources so the article reflects that. I'm sure that once his physical album is released it will be praised and scorned and more information balancing the positive tone of the article will be readily available. The music industry is notoriously brutal to all and Star definitely will get heat even if only for his image. I think within a few months, when his album hits much more mainstream attention will give more balanced opinions on his music and plenty more material to work with. Benjiboi 00:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Star's next untitled album coming out will be available in stores, so I'm sure there will be reviews and information from the mainstream media coming out in the next few months. I have met Star at Warped Tour and he is a very nice person which somewhat contradicts his "I don't give a shit about you" attitude, so maybe the press will get a hold of that. The article does have some weasel words, and the quotes shouldn't be in there unless they're well known within its fan base, other wise this passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC (in other words, there probably won't be another AFD on this anymore since the recent one passed).-- milk the cows (Talk) 01:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup
I cleaned up the article a lot so it's written in the right tone. Thanks for everyone that has contributed to this article, especially with referencing. I'm going to request a peer review to find other things it should be improved on before it goes up as a good article candidate.-- milk the cows (Talk) 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to make Plastic Surgery Slumber Party a separate article again for now since in most cases albums/EPs have their own articles. It looks messy with the EP template in the article along with the main musician template at the top.-- milk the cows (Talk) 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Totally disagree. This flies in the face of the just-closed AfD discussion Articles for deletion/Jeffree Star (2nd nomination) in which the newly rewritten Jeffree Star article was to be kept and the album page deleted with information merged into this article. Although we might not agree with the decision it was a community consensus to take those action and the process should be respected. The article could be recreated once more sources sustain it's notability possibly when the physical version of the album is released (apparently slated for Oct 2007) three months from now. I suggest you reverse your edits or I will seek more experienced editors' input about what appropriate actions are appropriate. I also realize you may simply be doing what seems to make sense but the Plastic Surgery Slumber Party article has just been removed per the AfD process so please reconsider. Benjiboi 19:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will revert it back for now.-- milk the cows (Talk) 19:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have little doubt that it will soon enough be it's own article but the AfD was clear and wasn't even a week old. Benjiboi 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Genderbending, genderfuck
I read gender bender and genderfuck, trying to find the difference. I gathered from them that genderfuck is just an openly defiant or outspoken subset of gender-bending, particularly for performance purposes. Since Star seems to fit that description well, I removed "gender-bending" from "his gender-bending appearance as a genderfuck cross-dresser", because it seemed redundant. It's been changed back, though, because "Star, at times, does one or both". Am I overlooking some major aspect of his persona that can be called "gender-bending" but not "genderfuck"? I'm not totally familiar with Star or genderfuck in general, so it's possible. -kotra 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Genderfuck article indeed needs work so that is probably part of the issue of understanding some of the nuances. Gender-bending speaks to subtle as well as outright bending of gender rules and roles, I think there is little doubt Star does that. Genderfuck is usually over the top "fucking" with gender assumptions, roles and ideas. It can be done, as in Star's case simply with an image that if you only saw him from the neck up you would assume he is a woman but when you see his non-female breasts it's obvious he's not. The present Genderfuck article incorrectly limits the scope to a performance but Star does that as well. Genderfuck also speaks to the DIY and in-your-face attitude both of which Star has exemplified. Benjiboi 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Star does sometimes practice gender-bending that isn't as over-the-top as genderfuck. In that case, logically the word "gender-bending" should be enough. So I've removed "genderfuck" from the sentence accordingly. Feel free to revert it if you disagree. -kotra 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I do and I did. Star regularly is a gender-bender and a genderfucker. Both are appropriate and mean slightly different things. Benjiboi 02:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand how gender-bending isn't necessarily genderfuck, but not how genderfuck isn't necessarily gender-bending. My conclusion from what you and the articles said was that genderfuck is a subset of gender-bending. Could you explain how I'm mistaken? Sorry for being dense. -kotra 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of it I would have to venture is intent (all of this would make a great thesis if I were going for a degree in Gender Studies). Gender-bending is more playing with gender roles and assumptions - sometimes purposeful, sometimes completely unintentional and, I believe, the emphasis is on the viewer to interpret. If someone assumes that pretty model is a young woman then so be it. Genderfuck is more deliberate and an outright smashing of gender confines with the subject either having no choice to choose (as they have genderfluid appearance or manerisms) or usually purposefully confounding assumptions about a person's gender. And there is less subtly open to interpretation - That pretty woman is a guy. I think this might be a "which came first the chicken or the egg" as both these concepts are new-ish and have yet to be fully dissected, compared and contrasted. There is also the added bonus that many folks use the terms interchangably but in my experience those who consider themselves genderfuckers do not see themselves as simply playing with gender or gender-benders. Another aspect is undeniably generational and cultural, it's much more punk and hip for some to be a "fucker" than a "bender." Benjiboi 01:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I gather from your explanation that, as I had previously assumed, gender-bending and genderfuck are basically the same idea except genderfuck is more extreme and overt, but also, against what I had assumed, one isn't necessarily a subset or a synonym of the other. So assuming your explanation is correct (though I think both terms are still ambiguous enough to make pinning down a definite meaning difficult at best), it makes some sense to keep both words. So I won't touch that sentence anymore. Also, one thing I want to note for the record is that in my experience "gender-bending" is an older (1980-85) and more well-known term than "genderfuck" which I hadn't even heard of until I saw it here. Probably in the gay community it's more common though. Thanks again for clearing it up. -kotra 03:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you may be correct that genderfuck is a newer term although both are well-represented in scholarly circles. Benjiboi 17:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree Star is amusing, he has inspired so many teenagers on myspace, to copy his pictures and dress like him :/

I hope one day I become more famous than Jeffree Star, without cross dressing and having pink hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackotheripper (talk • contribs) 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Face the Jury and Facebook
2001-2004 "Jeffry Starr" was once known as user name "CUNT" on FacetheJury.com He had over 100,000 forum posts and most of his pictures were examples of photoshop trickery. Source: Most of Facethejury.com's general forum regulars who witnessed and ridiculed him. --HeXt (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Does he have a Facebook? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.199.2 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

JEFFREE WAS BORN NOVEMBER 15.. 1985 NOT 86! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.90.2 (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What is a reference
This article is/was overly referenced. You do not need to reference EVERYTHING, just things that could be considered unverifiable. The removals of reference tags to myspace are justified and should not be returned. This article has been up for multiple deletions obviously not because of content but rather because of structure and unverifiable content. Myspace is not a reference source. Do not continue to add it as one. CelticGreen 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, You are mistaken. Per WP:SELFPUB - "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:


 * it is relevant to their notability;
 * it is not contentious;
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources." Benjiboi 02:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasons an article is put into the AfD process are numerous not the least of which is some wp folks' distaste for internet celebrities. What counts is making a decent article now. The reasons some may feel points are "over-referenced" is because it is subjective - what you feel needs to be referenced and what someone else feels can certainly be wildly different. As an internet celebrity Star attracts a high amount of vandals and detractors and as such many things that on another article probably wouldn't need a ref do have one here. It's also interesting, to me at least, that in one step you state the article is overly referenced and in the next claim that it must have faced AfD so many times because of unverifiable content. Benjiboi 02:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Y'all can argue all you want about it, but just a glance shows that the links marked as reference go to pages that have nothing to do with what is referenced. That's the least of the problems I see.  Try removing a few of the bad references, as someone tried to, and start from there.  Like I said on the other page, I would support this being cleaned up but if it can't be cleaned, deletion would be the next option. Referencing to myspace is considered unverifiable content as it's put up by the person you are trying to reference.IrishLass0128 13:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very likely that other well-intentioned editors simply deleted and moved things to also "clean-up" the article thus moving something that was referenced but not the reference itself. I personally have no issue with cleaning up work but I do find sweeping deletions of content and refernces based on the mistaken perception that they don't belong as unencyclopedic - well that's problematic. Perhaps a lighter touch would be more appropriate? I disagree that deletion is the next step if clean-up cannot happen and WP:AfD disagrees with you as well, that's abusing that process. Also MySpace might not be an ideal source but is certainly acceptable as outlined above. Whenever I've utilized it it wasn't to assert anything contentious simply verifying what other reliable sources had asserted. Every article can be improved and this one is no exception. Benjiboi 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Update. I've added the clean-up tag to article. Also if you can specify which of the references don't support what they are referring to I'm happy to look into them if no one else wants to. Benjiboi 14:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the very first reference that is supposed to support his birthdate says "my birthday show, November 2007." That's not a reference.  The deletions I saw were bad reference links and links to myspace, the article was actually cleaner by removing these.  They were not valdalization or change in content to the article.  I disagree that this is not overly self promoting but that's not my call.  IrishLass0128 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the article to see the latest round of changes but it did occur to me that many of the refs could simply be moved to the end of the phrases or sentences to make the reading a bit less clunky which should be a common goal. In the case of the birthday ref you mention i really don't know (without digging through the massive pile of deletions, reinsertions and changes what that ref was originally for and is more likely that it was moved from what it was asserting. Benjiboi 05:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Click on the first [1] next to the DOB and it goes to the reference list. Click on the reference and it doesn't go to the actual supposed reference.  There's no need to look at deletions or edits, it is what is on the page currently.  That's what I tried to clean up that you reverted.  I actually have no "feelings" one way or another about "internet stars" but I do care that visually and accuracy wise articles are encyclopedic and acceptable.  Take away preference toward the article and just look at it.  Don't read it, look at it.  It looks HORRID.  That's what I tried to help fix.  The list of references is too long, the "see also" section should be incorporated into the article, not be a list at the end.  There is also the option of adding catagory links, if there are ones that associate with your "see also" section.  No one was trying to kill the page, just clean it.  Look at the first link, just the first link, and see I was only trying to help. CelticGreen 23:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, I removed the ref as it asserted the date was a birthday show, it would have to be combined with another ref to confirm it was on his actual birthday. I do appreciate the concerns you have and generally agree. i think where we differ is perhaps the style in which it's done. I suggest taking each removal of a reference individually rather than mass deleting content and refs altogether. In the past, on this articles and others, that well-intentioned editing has resulted in what an editor thought worked but then had to be reverted partially and cleaned up. I believe in being bold but there is a point where good material is removed with less stellar stuff. This article has a long history of AfD'ing and deletionism and vandalism so I was probably on watch for such activities so apologize if my reaction came off as rude. I don't agree with removing the See Also section although we both see it as a temporary thing, articles that should be incorporated into the main text but haven't been as of yet. To me there is no rush to do so as this article and the subject's career are both in the early stages. Benjiboi 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll also offer, if you or anyone wishes, to recheck any particular section or references as time allows. It can be tedious but I'm somewhat familiar with most of them so I'm happy to recheck to see that what they originally reffed is where they are at.Benjiboi 22:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. I've moved refs off the lede into the infobox as appropriate to clean up the problems outlined above. If there are any other sections that need to be addressed fel free to post which sections or paragraph. Benjiboi 13:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Friend Trey
And as you all know his Best Friend Trey is now in a program for 15 months —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.172.210.140 (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who that is or if it has any bearing on this article. If so please explain it for those of us who don't know. Benjiboi 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it mean his best friend, Trey, meaning Jeffrees friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.237.130 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Trey is in a rehab program, if so I wish them the best but that might not warrant inclusion on Star's article. If a mainstream media outlet covers it and Star's involvement then is certainly possible. Benjiboi 11:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Trey is an amazing person!

We love u! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.25.5 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OMFG TREY IS HOME AND HE IS JEFFREES BEST FRIEND OMG WE LOVE U TREY WELCOME HOME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.25.5 (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Heart Surgery Isn't That Bad
Who keeps changing the link back to his MySpace page?

People want to find out about the song, not listen to it

The link should go to the song's page here, which then provides a link to MySpace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blosk (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe this has been resolved now. Benji boi 09:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Queercore???
Why is he listed under Queercore? It says the music he performs is a mix of electronica and hip hop, Queercore is a category for GLBT Punk artists. If it's because of his look...the Club looks of the late 80's and early 90's certainly had things in common with punk, but I wouldn't list Leigh Bowery under Queercore, or Jeffree Star for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.203.161 (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agreed; I'm deleting this link. A Jeffrey Star AND queercore search brought nothing up. Nothing in the first two pages, anyway. im pissed. jeffree star internet royalty you all want me. we want cunt. --128.119.16.227 (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Or not, the page is protected. --128.119.16.227 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, that wikilink is in the "See also" section which means some editor, possibly me, I don't remember, thought that it was a related-enough topic that it should be incorporated into the article when appropriate. It doesn't mean Star is queercore simply that there is enough similarities that readers may benefit from also looking at that article, all articles are interelated in this way - linking to each other. I believe the spirit and DIY ethic of queercore is quite similar to Star's so would support it being used in the article. Also I apologize for not responding sooner, I must have missed the above comment. last month. Banje boi  00:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

laughable
--- This page is pretty ridiculous. Why the hell does this guy need a wikipedia entry? he hasnt done anything worth while besides being a myspace celebrity, if even that; If were gonna give him an entry we might as well give everyone an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.78.247 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 April 2008


 * Hopefully if you read through this article completely you would discover that there is more than just his myspace fame that he is notable for. Though admittedly, this is a somewhat borderline case of notability, at least judging by the number of deletions there were of this article before it was finally allowed to stay. -kotra (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Author reference
References 20 and 21 in the article should be cited as by "Ryan C" as that's how they are signed on the blogTO.com pages that they are linked to. There were several "Ryans" writing for the site at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photendo (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. -- Banj e  b oi   22:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

sexualltiy
jeffree star is not gay he is bi-sexual many people should know that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.169.22 (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It really isn't clear yet in my opinion. He has stated in a couple of articles that he only likes men. He has also gone on to state that he'd "make out" with a woman.  He's stated that he refuses any kind of label.  I am personally not comfortable placing a label on him in this article when he refuses to claim any.  I also don't think it's relevant to the encyclopedic/biographical nature of the article in this specific case because he's billed himself as androgynous and gender bender.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

nahhh hes gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.17.141 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He mentions having had sex with Raquel Reed because they both thought it would be hilarious.98.225.230.65 (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

jeffree has said recently on facebook "is it wrong to find both genders attractive? everyone's obsessed with labels.. relax and enjoy the pleasures of both" and "men are fucking stupid, maybe I should try girls..."

Please verify songwriting and fashion designing claims
Is there any credible information to back these claims up? The only fashion lines involving him were designed on his behalf, and he did not write the majority of his songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.18.66 (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe sources concur with what's presently in the article, for sngwriting credits you may want to check the album article. Banje boi  06:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it appears from sources cited that he did at least originally write his own music. That's good enough.

Is there any reliable citation for his fashion designer claim? The link cited is broken and appears to be someone's personal blog anyway. Granny Bebeb (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the "South End Newspaper" reference, I marked the link dead and am going through the other refs looking for something. If I can't find anything, I'll research who designed the Hot Topic line and anything else relevant trying to come up with a source. Failing that, I'll remove the claim.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As to the fashion designer claim. I've not seen anything yet mentioning his designing the clothing. I'm still reading though so I haven't removed it.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can pretty easily verify that he designs clothing for Hot Topic in the US, but you may not find a link to an article on it. Also worth noting that although Marc Jacobs designs with a team, you won't see that mentioned in most online article -- IMO, it's problematic to verify design work based on online articles.  He also created a lot of independent clothing to promote his music even before he released an album.  This would have been before he would have really had a budget to outsource design.  I have seen quite a few pictures of him in clothes that promote his work, but that don't ever wind up for sale.  So my guess is that he wears them to appearances to gauge reaction before mass-producing them.  Just my guess. 98.225.230.65 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Age Verification
He wasn't born in 1986, he was born in 1985. Who keeps reverting this? You can even find in recent articles that he just turned 22 in November, not 21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.98.31 (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, we don't seem to have a reliable source that states his birthdate or age. If you have one either add it or post it here for someone else to. Benji boi 09:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

HE WAS BORN IN 1985.. NOT 86. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS DO A PUBLIC VITAL RECORD SEARCH FOR CALIFORNIA, AND HE WAS BORN IN L.A COUNTY NOT ORANGE COUNTY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.90.2 (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually a reliable source per wikipedia's standards would be better, if you happen to see something in an article or interview feel free to post it here so others can check it out. Banje boi  06:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this change requires a source at the moment since the original date doesn't have a citation. You are simply changing it back to uphold a standard that wasn't upheld in it's original creation.  Either remove the reference to the birth date or change it.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.22.30.2 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source: http://www86.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Jeffree+star (Anon) 11:42, 20 May 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.22.30.2 (talk)

I've changed the birthdate to 1985 citing IMDB's database. Also, as an aside, you can search the occourts.org online case access under traffic tickets and put in either Jeffree Star or his original name along with a birthdate. The year 1986 returns no results, but 1985 does. I don't know if/how anyone can cite this. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Birthdate verified through Orange County Court system website (occourts.org). Case #46563KH, speeding in the carpool lane (by himself) on 9/2/09.  It shows his original driver's license read Jeffrey Lynn Steininger, but that his license now reads Jeffree Star.  It also shows the info that he listed on his Driver's License (which is not verified for accuracy!): 6'0", 98lbs, Brown Eyes, Red Hair.98.225.230.65 (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sales
jeffree has had over 115 thousand downloads. he states this on his myspace page so could we put it in the main wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.144.198 (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Feud with Trace Cyrus section
Star allegedly had a falling out with friend and model Hanna Beth, who is also a good friend of Mylie Cyrus. He posted a bulletin on MySpace stating he had always supported Beth through difficult times, including those in which her boyfriend, Metro Station vocalist/guitarist Trace Cyrus, was doing drugs. Trace Cyrus responded by sending Star a series of threatening text messages which Star photographed and e-mailed to gossip blogger Perez Hilton who posted them. Trace Cyrus denies Star's claim.

This needs to be sourced better and presented neutrally per WP:BLP policies. Youtube is generally not a reliable source. Banj e b oi   23:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, we have several issues. I've cleaned up the text a bit. Probably the most pressing besides WP:BLP concerns is notability. That is, this issue - although certainly interesting on some level - just isn't that big of deal or that notable as of yet. It might be at some point but we should probably wait a bit. I'm also concerned that wikipedia isn't used to generate or propagate gossip. Let's see if this really is a big deal or just blows over. If it starts to be published in some reliable sources besides Perez Hilton that would help too. Banj e  b oi   03:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Include where J* is selling his new EP!! in the Music section, As well should probably add where he got his early start
On his Profile( Calender/tour dates). He posted where his new EP,"Cup cakes taste violence" will be sold. Bestbuy,SmartPunk,Target,Hot Topic,Amazon. Wikipedia should include this for further information.! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Famous-Partcher (talk • contribs)
 * Actually we generally don't include such information in an encyclopedia. We do have links to his sites and people can follow those. -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Before he got big and huge on a lot of other internet sites he was really big on melodramatic.com, his site page is here http://melodramatic.com/users/cunt

While all of his earlier posts where deleted by him, the page remains there with an included picture of him on as the avatar. Check it out if you want, but I think it should be somewhere.

OCD
Want to remove Star recalls that his obsessive compulsive disorder as a child pushed him into wearing his mother's makeup and clothes.[9] but haven't. I searched on google for site:http://blogs.myspace.com/jeffreestar for ocd, compulsive, high school, and obsessive and couldn't find anything regarding his having OCD.

As a separate question: is a Myspace profile a source that can be used for this article? Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I read up on WP:SELFPUB so I see that you are right. There should be a way to link directly to the blog posts that tell the information that is referenced.  His entire myspace page is rather large and there is no easy way to find some of the referenced material. I think doing this would also avoid points 1, 2, and 3 of the WP:SELFPUB.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting that crossdressing as a compulsion is primarily a stereotype of drag queens and cross-dressers. Drag is common, but compulsive drag is extremely rare (and also not related to transsexuality, for future note).98.225.230.65 (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"obsessive compulsive disorder as a child pushed him into wearing his mother's makeup and clothes" -- His interest to wear makeup derived from a disorder? No citation, stereotyping, negative connotation. REMOVAL? --207.172.250.58 (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OCD is a debilitating disorder, not a desire or tendency to do stuff. Remove the reference herein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.88.111 (talk)

So what do we do about the dead links?
Sorry I just deleted the reference to thesouthend article, but it's dead and archive.org doesn't have it. I thought that deletion was the best course of action for now because this is a biographical page. What would have been a better way of editing it?Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Think I figured it out. I'm adding the dead link template in the appropriate places.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Assaults/Jail et al
Star admitted on DJ Rossstar's Punk Rock Show in 2007 that he had been to jail three times for assault.

On June 23, 2007, Star reportedly punched a female audience member in the face after she, according to Star, threw "shit" at him on stage at Pride Toronto. He later admitted that the girl merely gave him the finger all night which he said "pissed [him] off". However, in an interview with the girl, she claimed to had done nothing that could have upset Star and was actually a fan of him. As a result of the attack, Star has been banned from future Pride Toronto events. He was not charged for the attack.

Star was arrested at Burbank Airport, California on September 12, 2008, for carrying a knife in his luggage. He was released on bail the following day and did a month of community service in 2009 by removing graffiti. This postponed the release date of Star's debut album, Beauty Killer.

Whilst on Warped Tour 2009 in Las Cruces, New Mexico eye-witnesses accused Star of allegedly tasing a man three times and kicking him after he threw water in his face. Videos post-fight later surfaced onto the Internet.

I've pulled this from the article for clean-up - let's present this as encyclopedically as possible with neutrality and strong sourcing. Let's also avoid glorifying violence and "punk rock attitude" etc. We don't need to do it let the verifiable facts speak for themselves. I think it would be smart to include this content with due weight and in context. ''Star has stated in an interview that "just because I'm skinny doesn't mean I won't kick someone's ass" he also confirmed that he has been jailed three times for assault. He has been involved in a number of incidents, often tied to his stage performances, where he has assaulted people he felt were in some way attacking him.'' We can then add the most notable and sourced ones without a lot of trivial detail. Thoughts? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   21:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty easy to accidentally leave a pocket knife or something similar in your luggage, but I can't comment on whether you should punch rowdy fans that throw something at you. ;-) "Post-fight" videos are meaningless really, I could make one in five minutes claiming to be punched. And the only somewhat-reliable source in that whole segment is Blender, who brought up the knife thing.  It could all be true, but it needs a source, even just court case numbers or local newspapers.98.225.230.65 (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Middle name?
Proof his middle name is Lynn?

Call him. His phone number is (310) XXX-XXXX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.71.211 (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted the number just because I feel sorry for the MAC makeup people whose phone number you listed. Just to be clear, that was not his phone number.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * California court records (Orange County #46563KH) indicate that his first ID was as Jeffrey Lynn Steininger. Current ID does not list a middle name, per the court records. So he could still have that middle name.  "Lynn" is also gender-neutral, having been mostly a man's name through history.98.225.230.65 (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sequence of recordings
In the "2009-" section regarding his recording career, the first paragraph talks about a record release in 2009 but then the second paragraph goes back to work he did in 2007-2008. I think this section just needs to be rearranged so it is in chronological order. It's confusing as it's written now.

Obsessive compulsive interest in makeup?
That seems very unusual. OCD usually manifests in repetitive, useless tasks which relieve anxiety in the sufferer. Since this is sourced from his MySpace profile, which doesn't seem to be too much of a reliable source, perhaps it could be hyperbole on Jeffrey's part? Maybe it should be changed to "intense interest." WMFEssaywriter (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sponsorship of Chelsea Grin
It became aparent that Jefree Star is supporting the extreme metal band Chelsea Grin. See this picture. 69.109.44.142 (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent video appearance
He recently appeared in the music video for Ke$ha's 'Take it Off'. Idk how to do this right, soo.....someone add it plz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tu Puteo (talk • contribs) 06:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

birth date
the current revision states he was born in 1988 but the article is categorized 1986 births. i added cn tags. -badmachine 22:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Associated Acts
Deuce (Artist)? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueBlue9LIVES (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood Undead, Breathe Carolina, Austin Carlile. He made songs with the following artists. Deuce does not have an article about him, it's part of HU (even though he's not a part of HU anymore) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.207.24 (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Being featured in a song is not an associated act. • GunMetal Angel  19:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 8 October 2011
"year's" mistakenly used for "years"

76.169.225.72 (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ <sup style="color:red;">Avic <sub style="color:blue;">ennasis @ 20:01, 10 Tishrei 5772 / 20:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Deuce
Can we throw Deuce in to the associated acts, please? :) New single from Deuce's album coming out this month with Jeffree on it, supposed to be really dirty! Gonna be a party banger for sure. TrueBlue9LIVES (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability
Does Jeffree Star seriously warrant a wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.152.221 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, just by virtue of the fact that he's a popular singer. Mcavic (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Information from 2011 onward?
Currently, the article says nothing of Star's career after 2010 and his Beauty Killer album. Since he has released several singles, a music video, signed to a major label, and has plans of releasing a new extended play soon, shouldn't this information be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethjohnson95 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Omit November 15, 1985 birth date
I think we should omit the November 15, 1985 birth date at this point. The first posting of the birth date was this on May 29, 2012 by Shivertimbers433, and the next edit was on June 2, 2012 by Jsteininger who changed the year from 1985 to 1987. The first posting of the birth date doesn't appear to be supported by a reliable source and, as OlYeller noted, there is no indication that the website linked is showing "the" Jeff Steininger of this article, just "a" Jeff Steininger. Shivertimbers433 then added a second reference, which does't appear to support the listed born date. Two other editors looking at the reference thought that it supported the November 15, 1985 birth date, so I might be missing something. Jsteininger then added a link to Jeffree Star's twitter account that has Jeffree Star confirming November 15 as his birthday, but that doesn't help. There's no dispute over the November 15 date, (but we don't have a Wikipedia reliable source for that either). The dispute is whether he was born in 1985 or 1987. This article says he was 22 years old on the date November 21, 2008. If he was born November 15, 1985, he would be 23? Of course, the article could have been written before November 15, 2008 and only published on November 21, 2008. He was 20 on the date May 22, 2007. Two days later, was 21 on the date May 24, 2007. Another article says he was 21 on the date November 2, 2007. He 23 on the date December 8, 2010. He was 23 on the date December 9, 2010. Not sure if this helps but another article says "Jeffree Star started off as a make-up artist at the age of 15." At around age 18, Star put a couple of videos online for fun. I don't think we can confirm his birtdate from any of the above sources. Some of the info for case numbers 20235CM, CY298836, CM46498PEA, and 46563KH at https://ocapps.occourts.org/CourtIndex/ is available. His birth date is 11/15/1985 per the court records, but WP:BLPPRIMARY say public records for date of birth are not viable as sources for articles. Since we have no Wikipedia reliable sources for the November 15th date or either 1985 or 1987 year, the issue is over contentious material, and a survey of the reliable sources above put his age as varying, seems best to omit date of birth from the article, including metadata and categories, at this point in time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest leaving the November 15 and remove the year. and maybe include a notation that a reliable source has to be presented. Insomesia (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead refs
Could someone remove the double reference in the lead? Also, some of those links probably need to go. Ticket sales sites are reliable for selling tickets, not biographical data. Nor should they be considered reliable for actual sales data, as they have their own COI at stake. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of those were there originally to establish notability. I guess that's not surprising with it having been in AfD or DRV 9 times.  I think the whole article relies far too heavily on primary sources but the lead does seem to have far more references than it needs and sometimes, the reference doesn't support the claim it's used for.  They may still be valuable but we'll have to take the time to check each one.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  18:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Clean up
I'm going to take a break for a while but wanted to give others an idea as to what I'm doing. When I started, the most glaring problem I saw was that, while almost every claim in the article had a reference, the references used were often dead, primary sources, poor sources for information, or simply didn't support the claim they were meant to. I've been attempting to go through and clean up all the references in the article so that when they're all cleaned up, one can easily go through and read each claim and either verify it on their own or check the reference to see that it verifies the information it's intended to verify. As I mentioned before, there are still lots of primary sources to verify information and I think finding secondary sources may be an issue as most of Star's sales are driven by him and his MySpace page as opposed to media coverage. If that's the case, we can address each contentious claim that only has a primary reference.  Ol Yeller21 <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  19:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Career section needs cleaning up as well. The article reads as a timeline, not a biography of the salient points of Starr's career. There is much promotional fluff that needs to be removed or toned downed. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree; there is a great deal of non-notable detail masquerading as significant achievement. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that as well. I won't been editing the article for another few hours, it at all tonight.  Feel free to pare down the career section if you have time.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  21:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I took a stab, but it needs a lot more work. Perhaps we need just two graphs.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

COI
The article has been edited heavily by the subject of the article. He has added claims such as that videos of his have "gone viral" when there's no indication that this is the case. The editor has been asked several times to communicate with others but refuses and continues to edit the page regularly.

Recently, has attempted to remove the COI template without explanation and has refused, after several attempts, to use the talk page. Here's the place where Insomesia can explain why the article is OK and indicate if they've even read through it for issues instead of edit warring.  Ol Yeller21 <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  05:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, here, here, and here are the COIN discussions regarding this situation that Insomesia has been alerted to but ignored.


 * I understand wanting to remove COI tags from articles that don't need it but doing so without doing any actual research is just a waste of other's time. Insomesia, had you simply checked COIN like I suggested or even stated that you see no issue with the article, this could have been avoided.  Instead, it looks like you've been blindly edit warring because you're afraid of a "mark of shame".  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  05:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion at COIN, here. The tag clearly states that the article is being edited by someone with a conflict of interests and it "may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies".  Unless someone can verify that it doesn't, the tag holds up.  No one has.  Furthermore, I'm not going to do it if it means to keep the articles good state will require checking the plethora of edits that the subject of the article makes to the article on a regular basis.  I have no desire to be the enabling watchdog not do I have any desire to edit war with an editor who wishes to remove the template because they emotionally feel that it's a mark of shame.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  05:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The tag is vague and unhelpful to pointing out what specific clean-up issues are being flagged. That's why you were asked several times to be specific if you weren't willing to address the problems more constructively. We should not have to guess what's on your mind. One of those discussions, by the way, pointed out that another user had a fan site about the subject, another discussion pointed out that still another user was claiming to represent him ... and another discussion was about removing date of birth which was poorly sourced and contentious. Now that several people have hacked through this can the tags be removed or do you have some other clean up issue? Insomesia (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the subject has filled this article with YouTube links, "sourced" content to his own blog, scattered namedropping and peacock words throughout, etc. Until some further de-crappifying is done, and we establish that the subject will not come along and revert our cleanup, seems to me the tag needs to stay on. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with OrangeMike. If you read the tag, it indicates that problems may exist and until we can not only be sure that the article conforms to all WP policies and guidelines, but that the subject of the article won't continue to cause issues in the article, the tag should stay.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can make the same inane supposition about almost every article - they all could have problems, they all may have someone with a COI show up at some point. Shall we let fear of possibilities govern policies now? Insomesia (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me add, I have seen no evidence that the subject has been unreasonable about collaboration. He may simply not understand how biographies are crafted on wikipedia-en. It wouldn't be the first time a BLP subject has in good faith attempted to edit "their" article against policy and guideline.  It is our job to assist them edit within policy -- not to make them feel unwelcome.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do my best to work with people who are attempting edit an article with which they have a connection. Here, here, and here are where I tried to communicate with the editor.   tried to communicate with the editor here.   tried to communicate with them here.   attempted to here (although it was more of a warning than an attempt at communication).  That's just on his talk page which he's never edited let alone responded on.   may have scared them off and in this edit summary, Steininger claims to have recieved hatemail from Devin.  The editor has never used a talk page and seems to only communicate with others through edit summaries.  Personally, I think others have been more than accommodating but I'd be willing to look past all transgressions if he'd just communicate with someone.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  23:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot, claimed to represent Steininger was indefinitely blocked for edit warring and blanking sourced content.  Soon after the block,  appeared, editing the same articles.  It's clear that that one claims to be Steininger while the other claims to represent him.  Just thought I'd mention that so people can get an idea as to how long the subject of the article and a representative of the article have been attempting to control the content of the article.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  23:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Allegedly. You have zero evidence whatsoever that the subject has any knowledge or connection to this article at all. Unless one of these users demonstrates indisputable ties then we can only assume it's someone infatuated with the subject which would seem to fit into the subject's career spanning nearly a decade of social network activities with super fans supporting him. We cannot assume these accounts are in any way tied to the subject. Insomesia (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Zero evidence? You do realize that they claim to be the subject of this article and a representative of that same person, right?  I assumed good faith and used WP:DUCK to take them at their word.  Do you have any evidence that they are not who they claim to be?  In case you're just not trusting me or haven't seen the diffs, here is where  claims to be the subject of the article (he's done it multiple times).  Here's where  claims to represent the subject of the article.


 * Why would we assume they're lying? Even if they're overzealous super fans, are we really going to spend time splitting hairs here and move between the designation of COI and POV issues when ultimately, the article obviously needs attention either way?  Who are we protecting?  An editor that has absolutely no interest interacting with other editors who are trying to assist them?


 * At any rate, I don't see your arguments gaining traction. Perhaps we can move on and improve the article?  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  02:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, zero evidence except that some anonymous person claims to have an association. That amounts to us having zero evidence that they are. Hacking away at the article has already taken place and yet you have failed to demonstrate that this is meant as a badge of shame rather than the cleanup tag that it is. We don't leave it in place, we do whatever clean up and remove it. Since you are showing extraordinary ownership issues and I have been unable to read your mind up to this point, perhaps you can be clear when - assuming deletion is not the goal - will the article be free of these shame badges? Insomesia (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. I refuse to participate in the conspiracy theories and it appears that everyone else feels the same way.  If you want to actually improve the article, I'll be here for discussion.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  14:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you can get back to the core of the issue? When will you remove the COI tags? Or are they a semi-permanent fixture? I already been improving the article so there's no reason to infer I haven't. Insomesia (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We can remove the tag when we agree here that the COI editor's affect on the article has been addressed. You've been improving the article?  You made one edit.
 * As I thought, WP:Ownership. Why should I do anything right now when the three of you are tag-teaming to remove - so far - two-thirds of the article. You seem to be operating from a standard that exists only in your minds. It's really disgusting to watch. Insomesia (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the edits i have removed the COI tags - both of them - as the accused editor's contributions have all been effectively obliterated. What remains are cleanup issues that they had nothing to do with so continuing to imply that the subject is involved in shaping the article is false. Clean up can of course take place but we should not be advertising that the subject is somehow to blame for what is currently there. Insomesia (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In no way have all of the concerns been addressed. Insomesia, it seems clear now that you're goal here is not to improve the article.  You continually edit war to remove the tag but have made one single edit to try and improve the article and frankly, it looks like you just blanked sourced content.  I have no faith that your intent is to do what's best for Wikipedia in this case as it seems that your main and only goal is to remove improvement templates.  What exactly is your point here?  All I've heard you say, ever, is that you don't like the COI tag, all while requiring others to do work that you yourself are not willing to do.  If this continues and you continue to ignore the opinions of others and remove the templates before clean up has finished and consensus has been reached that the article is in good shape, I'll be forced to request a topic ban.  This has gone on long enough.  Help with actually improving the article and the encyclopedia or I'll do what I need to do to keep you from hindering that process.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * False again. I asked you for specific clean-up items and you didn't both with anything until you filed a (what seems to me) trumped up COIN report, now the three of you are simply removing content and refs regardless if they actually improve anything or not. No wonder other editors feel unwelcome here. At least with my voice you can't pretend there is consensus. It's more a case of 3 vs 1 all while maintaining the accused COI-er, whose edits have all been obliterated, is somehow responsible for all other editors' actions on the article. Clearly you are overly passionate, and not in a good way that serves this article. Threatening me with a topic ban seems to fall in line with the heavy-handed tactics I've witnessed so far. Why would I want to work in this toxic atmosphere? I'll wait until your pogrom is done and hope i can keep the article from being deleted, but maybe just stubbing it down to a few sentences is the goal? Insomesia (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Insomesia, I'm going to copy the response I left you on my talk page:
 * Insomesia, I think we can both agree that you have the intention of protecting LBGT related articles. Is it possible that your wish to protect a group is clouding your judgement?  Your accusations hurt me, honestly.  To accuse me of attacking someone in such a way is hurtful and baseless.  If your goal was to hurt me and reduce my desire to edit Wikipedia, you've succeeded.
 * I'm not going to cite policy or threaten to go tell on you but is this really the way to get what you want? Is it more likely that you're right or five other editors are right (well established editors).  Is this really the best way to get what you want?  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  22:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * @Insomesia: Thanks for the casual acknowledgement of my existence ("now the three of you are simply removing content and refs regardless if they actually improve anything or not"). I have not been removing anything without regard, on the contrary if you actually study the changes I have made, you will see I have been removing some references which do not conform to WP:IRS, I have adjusted sentences so that they actually reflect what the cited source says, and I have just restored some content about a notable achievement, with a new reference. I advise you Insomesia to be more circumspect before rushing to judgement, and I agree with OlYeller21 that your judgement seems to be clouded. This is not an issue about LGBT, it's about sources and COI. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, my true disappointment is that in a rush to "clean" we are dismissing why some of this content was added in the first place. Perhaps it no longer serves any purpose but to wholesale remove entire swaths of music history from a music artist seems obscene. I very much appreciate conscientious editing but do still think that some obliviousness to non-normative gender issues may also be a factor. I hope someday this can be a great article and I'm disappointed in these turn of events. I do stand by my concerns that we are labeling this a COI issue when it seems obvious the majority of content was not added by the subject or their agents. And we have no actual proof their is a COI. Insomesia (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As regards the removal of content, it all depends on whether the music history is notable; there was certainly too much inconsequential detail previously, which doesn't serve anyone's purposes, not least the readers. I am of the view that maybe Little green rosetta used rather broad brush strokes of removal, which is why I reinserted the text about the LP release; there may be other bits of information which qualify for reinsertion. As regards your statement that you think "some obliviousness to non-normative gender issues may also be a factor", you will have to clarify exactly what you mean. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Star was in the vanguard of transgressive gender-benders parlaying internet fame into a lucrative modeling and music career. Their image is striking and ground-breaking. This point is pretty much lost in the article and nowadays artists like Lady Gaga and Nikki Minaj make this high concept personal art expression almost commonplace. But when he started Star was revolutionary in this regard. They heightened gender-bending into an art form and career. Insomesia (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But how is any of that "a factor" in the recent editing, which has been primarily about clean-up? This article is like any other in that its content should be determined by sources. If a reliable secondary source refers to Star in the way you describe, the information can be included in the article; if no RS can be found, the subject matter isn't sufficiently notable. We can't dictate what the sources should be covering. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When you go from 35k to 9k bytes in less than 24 hours you are guaranteed to lose the story. Youtube as a reference, for instance, sounds bad but when it is an interview with the subject suddenly the relevance is more obvious. We are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and deleting content simply because the source we have isn't the best one available. We are using a sledgehammer when a scissors might be more appropriate. Another issue possibly lost on other editos here is that this subject is a double reliable source minority in that they exist primarily on the Internet and those sources are scorned, and they are in the LGBT sphere and those sources are also scorned. The double whammy ensures that Wikipedia editors present only the most conservative and condemnational aspects of this BLP. This is common for LGBT subjects. Insomesia (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem might be not that the sources in the article are not the best available, but that they're the only ones available; I have tried googling "jeffree star" combined with many other words (such as "transgressive", "crossdressing", "analysis", "guardian" (a respected UK printed source)), but each time the result of the search (or at least the first page or two) is a list of unreliable and/or user-generated sources. It seems possible that Jeffree Star has not made much impact outside his own part of the internet, because if he had, better sources would exist. If that's the case, so be it - it's not for Wikipedia editors to try and redress the balance. Sources such as Youtube videos, even if comprising an interview with the article subject, can only be used to verify minor facts, or to support statements such as "[Article subject] has claimed that....", because otherwise Wikipedia could be including all sorts of claims which people make about themselves. This is particularly apposite in this instance because Jeffree Star's notoriety rests to a significant degree on his own platforming of himself and particularly his appearance, rather than his having achieved notable success in a particular field of work. Contrast the case of Star with that of Pete Burns or Boy George or even Marilyn, who are all similarly 'transgressive' in their own ways, yet have had significant coverage in reliable sources because they have achieved mainstream success within a particular field. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And much if the sourcing isn't even secondary sourcing. Interviews are nice, but the ones we have here don't appear to be serious in nature.  Eg fact checking. Not to say the article is devoid of any RS, nor is the subject non notable.  His ability to gain a social media following kind of makes him a pioneer.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Insomesia (I know, big surprise), the wholesale deletion of the majority of the article has been a very poor job at telling the story of this BLP, and seems more a vendetta against Insomesia by Little Green Rosetta whole is a serial reverter and holds POV grudges against LGBT subjects, they were the second fiddle to Belchfire who has been (again) blocked for edit warring. I simply don't trust Little Green Rosetta to accurately reflect anything when it comes to LGBT subjects and this is just the latest example. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Tags
Insomesia seems distraught about the tags. I've gone through all of the sources and things look ok to me. Can someone confirm this so that we may remove the tags? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There's still a little fine sifting to do (for example in the lead, neither of the 2 refs given supports the assertion that he's a fashion designer, not as far as I can see anyway), but I have no objection to those 2 tags (the COI and autobiog ones) coming down - the work required on the article is now within "normal" range. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article has been gutted so Little Green Rosetta's gutting can certainly be seen as completing any COI issues to rest. I agree that this process has been disgusting, shame on anyone who has stood aside while the machetes have flown, I hope this haunts you till the end of time! Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's certainly not constructive. Not to mention, you haven't done anything to help here so you would be included in the "stood aside while the machetes have flown" group.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  15:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Partially loading ref
A ref used in the lead doesn't fully load on my screen, so I can't check if it supports the text. The ref is: Bolter, Helen (2007-11-29). "Let's Talk About C*NT! - Jeffree Star". Gigwise. Retrieved 28 February 2013. Can anyone load it successfully and see if it's a valid ref? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked it (and put it there). You're looking at a Wayback Machine link.  The article existed, can be verified, and I verified it.  You have to mess with flash to not have a menu come up and block the screen which is what's making it look like it's not loading.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  22:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! (Apologies for the delay - time available for editing tends to be a bit brief much of the time). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)