Talk:Rande Gerber

Neutrality
This article does not strike me as neutral. Aside from the fact that it reads like a personal "About Me" page (the tone is very informal and flattering, e.g. "He’s achieved extraordinary success...", refers to subject by first name, etc.), a lot of the sources appear to be websites owned by the subject, e.g. gerberspirits.com, gerberbars.com, casamigostequila.com.

I'd like to get some more input before starting cleanup. Attys (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Rande Gerber birthdate
Transposing pertinent discussion from User:Tenebrae talk page

Hello Tenebrae, How are you? I would like to ask you a question about the birthdate of Rande Gerber. Most articles tells that his birthdate is April 27, 1962 but all of them are not "serious" sources to my opinion. I found an article in The Boston Herald who cite a source from People that on Thursday April 27, 2017 Rande Gerber celebrates this day his 54th anniversary. If we do the math it means he would have been born on April 27... 1963 ! It's the only serious source I found but I'm not sure if the journalist from People is meaning really this or if he/she miscalculated by accident. I don't dare risking putting this source on the wiki article for his birthdate in 1963. I would like to ask you your advice for that, if you want. Here is the link -> Thanks, my friend. --Danielvis08 (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the original article by Nicole Sands from People -> --Danielvis08 (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oy! Yes, my guess is your guess, especially given how the tequila company for which he had modeled said "bringing the party since '62." I think what I can do is point out the discrepancy to People and see how they handle it — they may recheck their figures and update the article.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tenebrae. Specially since I saw another serious source who, on May 17, 2017 say that he is aged 55 years old and born in 1962 in Long Island -> . --Danielvis08 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the confluence of so many outlets saying 1962 indicates that the 1963 suggestion is a fringe outlier and likely a math error. I think you're right. I'd support that. (People hasn't changed anything on its April 27 article.) --Tenebrae (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)