Talk:Quentin Alexander

Age content dispute
Paging and  here to discuss, as you are both editwarring and you're both on a WP:ANEW trajectory if you don't stop and talk about this. First off, Jim. I'm going to have to agree with George. Every source you've provided for Quentin's DOB does not, in fact, satisfy Wikipedia's standards of inclusion as you made a point of asserting on George's talkpage. They're all blogs, they're not reliable news sources. Don't use 'em. Instead, as I suggested to George when he brought this up on ANI, use either a publically-available birth certificate or other official document, or writings in a reputable news source like a newspaper or another reporting source that specifically has editorial/quality control-- make sure you either search in WP:RSN's archives to verify its usability, or if it hasn't been asked about before, make a posting asking about its usability and whether it's suitable for the specific assertion you want to cite it for. If you can't find anything that doesn't say more than that he's 21, then just say he's 21 in the article and keep looking for a source for a specific date. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 12:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you for initiating the "talk" section. So my concern is that a simple web search of the subject provided his age. It is on his private Facebook page and is supported by more than blogs.

We should endeavor to provide accurate information.

The first citation I provided is published by the folks at American Idol in connection to there main website. I am concerned that since a majority of the entry for Quenten Alexander has content provided by and that this editor is new to editing Wikipedia less than 3 months of service and is not active on more than a handful of wiki's for American Idol contestants that the editor may be representing or connected in some way to Mr. Alexander directly?!Jimgerbig (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's assume good faith here, Jim - first, it serves no purpose to be casting aspersions on someone's edit count/tenure, or make unsubstantiated claims about a possible connection to the article subject if you've got nothing to back it up with; he's probably just a viewer like you. If tenure mattered, you as a user here for more than a year should at least know better than to get to six reverts in 24 hours.


 * But anyway, it is true that we should provide accurate information, but there are certain things we can use to cite age, and certain things we can't. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY I was actually wrong on one count-- we can't use public records to source personal information about someone; we can only cite a reliable secondary source reporting this information, for privacy reasons.


 * The American Idol wikia is not an official site, if that was what you were referring to as your first citation; it is run by fans and has no editorial control or strict sourcing standards, so I could go over there and edit it to say he was born during the war of 1812 if I so pleased, and sure an admin would revert it eventually, but you get my point. Same thing with Facebook-- too primary of a source; it's easy enough to falsify your birthday on Facebook, so we can't use that, and we can't just use any old blogger or fansite's say on the matter either. Say for example if ABC News or The New York Times or some other consistently reliable source with a board of editors and a precedent for good reporting, wrote something on Alexander, and they out and say what his birthday is or how old he is, then we can use that. For BLP articles, we have to be positively anal about using good sources, and I have yet to see that wrt his age. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 18:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing some extra input here, I'm very happy to have the article reflect Alexander's birthdate once it is reliably sourced, this was the same case with ALL the contestant's birthdates which we had on the main article also poorly sourced to a blog with no apparent authority for reporting the information. I looked for confirmation of his birthdate but didn't find it. I'm happy for all positive changes to the article that are encyclopedic, which generally means they are readily verifiable in reliable sources. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear there is no case for "six" reverts on the same edit. Since we are looking at facts we just want to be accurateJimgerbig (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I misread the dates on two of your edits, but as for the other four I am looking at the facts. If you revert someone else's edits successively, doesn't matter if it's edits to the same part of the article, it counts per WP:3RR policy. George is at 5RR, so neither are you are in a great position. Either way, no more reverting from either of you until this is resolved. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 21:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately", if there is a reliable source giving his personal information as fact on the world encyclopedia then please present it. Otherwise it needs to stay off. Georgeivs vid (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've taken mention of his DOB out of the article for now until we've got a source to go with it. I'd recommend proposing sources either here or on the BLP noticeboard so we can discuss the quality before putting it in. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 15:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding George's most recent revert of me-- So both sources provided for his age say he's 21, so why not just write his age as 21 and not use any retroactive-date templates until his DOB is confirmed? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 18:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the recommended template to use when his age has been reported as of a certain date, until we have a true birthdate, this will provide an appropriate age range that will stay correct over time. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So I asked about this at the Teahouse the other day when I was last around, and a host recommended using his birth year in the article instead of his age in years. Do we know his year of birth? If not, I'd recommend using c. 1994 or something to that effect based on the MOS entry they cited, if we are going to include it at all. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 15:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the way it is is fine. It gives an accurate and sourced range. i think anything else would be us declaring something that isn't sourced. It's very likely the date of birth will be revealed soon enough anyway. That link seemed to be referring to people who lived in the past and we are unlikely to have more to go on than we have already. For a living person I think it's much more likely more information will emerge. Georgeivs vid (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. At the end of the day I don't have that much of a problem with how it's presented, and the use of Template:Age as of date seems pretty appropriate for what sources we have, so it can stay as it is. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 23:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)