Talk:Noah Munck

Birth date
I don't know why Noah's birth date is being constantly removed. Twitter can be used as a source, and currently used on several bio pages. I don't get why all of a sudden there is an issue. If it is removed again, please discuss it here. If his Twitter isn't good, then would this site be acceptable? I realize this site is a blog:, but the article has pictures of his 15th birthday on the iCarly set, implying it's May 3, 1996.

Tinton5 (talk) 02:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The working Twitter link does not give his birthdate. The tweet, dated "May 3" says, "@iCarly_FTW I just asked my mom and she told me I was born @6:19 pm.". How that translates to the assumption he was born on May 3 of any particular year is beyond me. The blog, of course, is not a reliable source. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you make a valid argument. However, this post, he says he is 15 years old. So if we could at least mention a birth year, say circa 1996. No matter what you type in a Google search, Noah Munck, May 3, 1996, all the results will match that. Tinton5 (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care how many blogs, fansites and other SPSs say May 3, 1996. They are likely copying each other. They might or might not be right. The new tweet does establish a vague idea. However, it is not "circa 1996". Please use (age age) in the infobox. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I've managed to find a solid source with the year. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, there we go. Nice one, Summer. Let's see this May 3, if we can eyeball several birthday wishes on his Twitter, heh. Tinton5 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

His birthday is confirmed on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/noahBmunck?sk=info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.10.144 (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He has a verified twitter at https://twitter.com/noahmunck. His twitter page links to a personal website http://www.noahmunck.com/. His personal website links to his facebook acct https://www.facebook.com/noahBmunck which inturn links back to his twitter. His facebook infopage https://www.facebook.com/noahBmunck?sk=info gives his birthday as May 3, 1996. According to WP:ABOUTSELF "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" ... "1. the material is not unduly self-serving; and "4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;". Based on this we have a usable WP:RS for his birthday of May 3, 1996. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

TruGreen ads
Can we mention that he has appeared in several ads, including for TruGreen? https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/trugreen-brings-back-popular-neighborhood-lawn-kid-in-new-national-marketing-campaign-to-launch-tree-and-shrub-service-117066973.html https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42337941 149.19.40.233 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Updated info being reverted
@Magical Golden Whip Please stop with the unwarranted undoing of my revisions to the article. Your claims that my edits are "disruptive" are incorrect. My sources are within the Wikipedia guidelines:

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." - Everything I have used was indeed published by the subject.

"Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." - They are being used with care as they are the only possible sources to use, no secondary sources exist for my edits or else of course I would use those instead.

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." - All of my edits fall under this statement. Not only that, but user @Dan arndt already added a warning message on primary/unreliable sources, which is more than enough without undoing all of the important up-to-date information I have fixed. I have changed any YouTube/Spotify links to Soundcloud links, as the Soundcloud page is officially verified as Munck. That was what you complained about. I'm not sure why you reverted again with the only comment being "still no" - that is very unbecoming.

Please do not revert the page entirely again. It is unnecessary and stubborn. Other users have made the same complaints on your profile. Use the Talk page on this article, or make your own adjustments instead of just undoing work. Thank you. Brutallust (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * SoundCloud, Spotify and YouTube are not acceptable or reliable sources. In addition you are now being very disruptive in editing. Gibby's last name can't be used as it is unsourced and needs to be listed how the credits appear. Nick names are also are unsourced and pretty unbelievable. You need to find better sources. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * SoundCloud is acceptable as a verified primary source as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines. The account used is officially verified as Noah Munck. I have already removed the Spotify and YouTube sources. I will revert Gibby's last name. Calling the other names "unbelievable" is just lazy. It would take ten seconds for you to find out they are correct. Why are you wasting your time pestering me over something you're not even aware of and clearly haven't bothered to check? Please stop threatening me on my Talk page too. It is pathetic and frustrating. Brutallust (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Dan arndt has already stated that SoundCloud, Spotify and YouTube are not acceptable or reliable sources in one of the edit summaries. In addition You are linking each the entire podcats and no one is going to listen to all of them to find that information, it needs to be properly sourced. I suggest you revert your edit as you are in a massive edit war. I know I already reverted one too many, but you have done way more. I warned you accordingly. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * SoundCloud is somewhat acceptable as a verified primary source as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines as the account is officially verified. That is all I can say. I am not linking podca[s]ts, I don't know what you're talking about? I made new discography sections and linked to each song/album. There is no information to listen through, it's music - the only "relevant information" anyone would have to find is the names I guess, which are directly on the verified artists page. I don't know what an edit war is but it sounds lame lol, I don't think I am. I'm just trying to keep relevant information on this article. You threatened me on my Talk, posing as a warning message, stating that this was my "only warning" and that you'd somehow block me from editing if I didn't stop, which is just laughable. Thankfully, @Dan arndt has kindly, constructively further improved my edits by adding clarity in ways I don't know how to do, rather than just undoing it all like it's nothing. This is my first time going out of my way to edit a Wikipedia article and if it wasn't for him you might've put me off it. You make a bad impression of this site's userbase and need to check your ego. Brutallust (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'm struggling to see how Soundcloud is an acceptable source, particularly in respect to notability. In my experience Soundcloud is considered a primary source, with no independent editorial oversight, so without third party verification is not considered reliable. Dan arndt (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whilst SoundCloud generally does not have independent editorial oversight, they do have some in place. They use a verification system on profiles to signify that an account is authentic and officially who they state they are. I think it is a step above Spotify or YouTube thanks to this. The statements in the Wikipedia guidelines "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" and "Never use self-published sources [...] unless written or published by the subject of the article." give further credibility to this as it proves for a fact that the account and the content published on it reputably comes directly from Noah Munck.
 * Furthermore, there is a reliable source (Polygon) used as a reference in the article surrounding Munck's 'Sadworld' endeavours, which only further confirms that everything used on the page is factual.
 * Of course, in an ideal world, there is a perfect, reliable, secondary source containing info on Munck's current music career - but as there is not, I think what I have used is sufficient and is near impossible to contain anything untrue or confusing.
 * On top of that, using more general common sense rather than Wikipedia guidelines - all it takes is one search for any of the aliases online to see that they are in fact Munck, as he features throughout the social media profiles and many music videos for the projects. I know none of this alone would be sufficient, but altogether I think it is more than justifiable, especially considering the only other option is to have a severely out-of-date page. Brutallust (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I think you mean . Also why you you even add those tags when that is coming from an unreliable source in the first place, while yes I was in the wrong getting into an edit war as well, but that information probably should have been added and reverted again? All other users I have seen would have reverted this information and not allowed it in the article. Instead you just tagged the information as it was links to a list of podcasts. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is built on factual information not common seance. Even another admin has stated that your sources are unreliable in the 3RR page. All this information should be supported by facts that we can easily access not looking through hundreds of hours of podcasts to figure out witch one this information is coming from. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that you still think podcasts are somehow involved in any of this says more than I possibly could. Brutallust (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay it is music but my point still stands as it is not an acceptable source, and gives you nothing for the information you are adding expect links to the music. There i no reading information that tells me what you are adding is true in the sadworld and Noah praise god sections, it is just music or information without a source. That's why it was reverted and should stay out until sources are found. The music does need better sources though. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)