Talk:Nina Oyama

Her B'day
@Idell The current article claims that she is either 29 or 30, or born in 1993 or 1994. Whoever wrote that, is apparently guessing and their edits isn't brimming with accuracy. And why I decided to fix it with the obvious facts. I know Nina Oyama is an established comedian with so many fan, and she has a public Facebook page where she acknowledge that 18th August is her birthday. Her one long time twitter account also thanks her fans every 18th August for wishing her a happy birthday. Is Nina Oyama herself unreliable for stating her own birthday? Like what reason could she have to lie about the date of their birthday? The Rotten Tomatoes also writes her birthdate to be Aug 18, 1993. [] And doubt Rotten tomatoes make mistakes like these. So when reviewing the sources like how her social media page confirms her birthdate written in Rotten Tomatoes, is Rotten Tomatoes and Nina's Twitter and Facebook account for fans, truly unreliable sources for something so basic like her birthday? Or maybe certain editors are just too bureaucratic, when they know from what I wrote above, that she is of course born on Aug 18, 1993.(talk) 11:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * As I have explained on your talk page, on Wikipedia any contentious, poorly-sourced material about living persons, even if positive or neutral in nature, is immediately removed without discussion. Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. Self-published sources are almost never allowed except as sources on the authors themselves in very limited circumstances. Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable. To answer your question, yes you have finally been able to provide acceptable sources to support your claim. You can now go ahead and cite them with your desired changes, as the onus is on the editor who makes the changes. Be advised that just like law requires the utmost sensitivity when writing about living people, which Wikipedians must strictly adhere to without fear of being "too bureaucratic”, personal attacks are also strictly unacceptable.  If something about an established comedian is so obvious a fact, surely there must be some better sources than what you had previously referenced. Idell (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nina doesn't talk about her birthday in media articles so it was tricky to find sources. So thanks for telling me that Rotten Tomatoes is generally reliable, as it saves me the fuss of having to later convince that her twitter and Facebook account are acceptable enough. I actually had a whole argument lined up on why her social media accounts could be used to prove her birthday. Mostly because I doubt her Facebook account is likely run by one freakishly good and highly dedicated catfish who even managed to fool established Studio 10 to link to its Facebook account. And somehow hasn't raised alarms or been shut down by others after so many years. Obviously those social media accounts are real enough, albeit unverified, but I do regret saying you were overly beaucratic as I see where you are coming from. GUPTAkanthan (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Was now informed Rotten tomatoes is not a reliable source. It's getting a lil ridiculous to not be able to add in a simple fact, that shouldn't be this hard to add in. Nonetheless am pinging both 'reverters' to collect your feedback and I argue the Wikipedia rules;  WP:IGNORE can be appropriate in this situation here. As I can prove it is highly likely to be her birthday WITHOUT relying on Rotten Tomatoes. I can prove that her Facebook account is hers; Channel 10 TV show called, (Have You Been Paying Attention?) has its own Facebook page and it's been verified.   Studio Ten also has a verified Facebook account. These are big time outlets and these verified Facebook accounts of major TV show links to Nina's Facebook account directly.  I believe that if the major TV channels link directly to their employee's Facebook account.  And that particular Facebook account has been around for a decade, is ranked highly in Google search algorithm and is regularly showing promotions of Nina's latest comedy shows and there are no conflicting/second Facebook account to be found. Then logically it's obviously her Facebook account and very difficult to argue otherwise. And considering it's hard to deny the obvious Reality that it's her Facebook account, I now recommend to just add her birthday back in via WP:IGNORE as Rotten tomatoes really seems to get this particular fact spot on correct. Your thoughts? GUPTAkanthan (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following this discussion nor looked at the sources, but just dropping the reminder that it is WP:DOB that applies in the case of BLPs. I'll leave others to judge whether those criteria are fulfilled in this case. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no need to tag me here, as I've already explained why the sourcing isn't sufficient at WP:RSN. Woodroar (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is being discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. will be starting an RFC about whether Rotten Tomatoes is also reliable for biographical information. We already have The Guardian for her year of birth, but I just checked what the internet had on her birthday and I found this post from 18 August 2021 made by her verified Instagram account @nina.oyama, quote "... I'm 28 fkn years old today ..." And that settles it according to WP:ABOUTSELF. Idell (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)