Talk:Sunday Sharpe

Birthdate
The artist's date of birth is 1946, but it has been removed repeatedly, first for a lack of sources and then after because the cited sources were not reliable enough. Does anyone have a reliable source so it can be re-added into the article?  —Entropy (T/C) 23:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, if you don't have a reliable source, how do you know Sharpe's date of birth? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming this date is correct because it was listed in two secondary sources, the ones I added into the article originally. You mentioned the second source had nothing to do with the subject, but the subject's name and birthdate are clearly listed as #16. I agree finding a reliable source is ideal, but if multiple miscellaneous sources cite the same date, is it not worth noting in the article?  —Entropy (T/C) 23:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, sorry about missing Sharpe in the 2nd link - I did a search, and for some reason it didn't find it. As for 'multiple sources', that is risky - less-than-reliable ones often use Wikipedia as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another note, other information (including that the artist is from Florida) was removed at the same time as the birthdate, but a quick Google search turns up many sources confirming she is from Florida. Furthermore, a third source confirming she was born in 1946 and is from Florida can be found here. —Entropy (T/C) 23:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * None of the sources you've listed thus far, above or in the article, are reliable sources. With livibng persons especially we require high quality sourcing and err on the side of keeping out unsourced content where it appears contentious. A date of birth is not inherently contentious but is rendered so when a person claiming to be the subject protests. WP:BURDEN might be relevant also, however the post at the help desk did not state the date of birth was wrong but only that including it was objectionable. I just checked Google News Archive and Books and nada.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, we've no real way of ascertaining whether it really was Sharpe who posted at the help desk anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Entropy, your third source is taken from Wikipedia - it provides a link back to our article... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I didn't check it carefully. I don't mean to cause a fuss here, I just think it's important to include as much information as possible in the article as long as we have reasonable assurance that it's correct. I'll try and find more sources confirming the birthdate, but in the meantime there are several listed in a Google search for "sunday sharpe" +1946.  —Entropy (T/C) 00:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * They look like more Wikipedia mirrors (and uncited ripoffs) to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true but not, I think, highly relevant. We don't require proof of identity where a contest is made about a fact and the nature of BLPs is such that we should assume the person is who they say within reason. By analogy, WP:BLPEDIT does not look to proof of identity (though it travels slightly different ground).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point - though I don't think we can take the posting as conclusive evidence that the date was right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to imply we should assume it was correct because it's accuracy was not addressed. I only mentioned she did not say it was incorrect to underline that WP:BURDEN was not clearly at play, which it would be if she had said the date was inaccurate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are even fighting about this. Surely it is a lady's prerogative to keep her age out of the public eye and what real value does it add to this article anyway?  Astronaut (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between fighting and debating, and I think debating is all we've been doing thus far. With regards to your comment about her age, it does add value to the article; would you want to know the age and other details of your favorite singer? It's unfortunate if she indeed doesn't want her age published, but we can't verify the message on the helpdesk was even posted by her; furthermore, if we start taking birth information out of articles whenever the subject doesn't want their age published, it's sort of a slippery slope. What if they then don't want their middle name published? Their relationship status? If we allow articles about people to be censored by the subjects, then why not companies? In order to keep with Wikipedia's purpose of providing complete, accurate, unbiased information, it's important for us to include any facts which add to the article in the article itself if we can reasonably assume they're correct.  —Entropy (T/C) 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If and only if we have reliable sources, then of course it should be included, per WP:NOTCENSORED. At this point, I have to agree that the sourcing is too weak for us to do so. The note on the help diesk is irrelevant. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)