Talk:Scott Baio

Birth year

Past discussion: Talk:Scott_Baio/Archive_1#Birth_year

Some early press might help clear it up. He's quoted as saying he was 13 when shooting Bugsy, but as far as I can tell, it was a relatively quickly made film.

I think 1960 is questionable enough that it requires better sources to stand alone. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• [1]
• [2]

Hmmm. --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The 1961 birth date has a Time cite, and thank you for that. We still need a cite for "1960" though, or it can't really stay, per BLP.--2604:2000:1382:E2B2:0:DA07:D6E:614D (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've found two quotes from him where he explicitly denies 1961. From his own mouth, it seems like it was an IMDb error that stuck around a while, which would explain the stray mentions of it in Time and such. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hm, looking around it would appear he did chop a year off his age when he was young. Maybe he wised up with age? :p Nohomersryan (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

His personal website used to say it was '61 (link above).

I think that's good enough to have both. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The New York Birth Index also supports 1960. Muzilon (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This issue is nonsense because Baio put the dispute to rest, in his own voice, on his official Twitter: ("My birthday is September 22, 1960). Are there any reliable sources unequivocally in Baio's own voice saying that his birth year is 1961? No. If you think I'm wrong, please provide the proof. Even the New York Birth Index confirms it's 1960, as do similar websites which get DOBs from official sources. Right now, the only evidence holding the 1961 argument together is an incorrect IMDb mention years ago (now corrected) that some publications copied and printed, including the current, lone reliable source supporting 1961, Time magazine, in which Mark Halperin injected 1961 after taking it from the other website. Everyone here knows now that he was born in 1960 so why pretend it's not so and continue fighting for the sole purpose of playing devil's advocate? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If Baio has given a correction to his previously statements that he was born in '61, then that might settle this. We don't reject reliable sources because of WP:OR or personal opinions. --Hipal (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You said, "We don't reject reliable sources because of WP:OR or personal opinions." Correct, yet that's precisely what you did. I removed no sources at all. I added sources, which you removed because they counter your point of view. Now, stop avoiding the issue with generalities, contradictions and gaslighting, and provide the proof I asked for. You appear to be the only editor since this issue was first discussed trying to take total control of how this is handled. Are you also Ronz? Do not remove reliable sources from the article. A famous entertainer's statement on his official social media account, in this case Twitter, is indeed a reliable source. In this instance, as reliable as you can get to settle this issue. There was absolutely no legitimate consensus to equate the evidence for 1961 to that of 1960. It is abundantly clear, especially from Baio's own statement, that he was born in 1960. Now, either provide the proof that Baio himself stated he was born in 1961 or admit that you don't have any. Finally, do not remove reliable sources again, including the Newsweek one you tried hiding from readers. A celebrity making a statement on an official social media account or official website is a reliable source with regard to personal data such as date of birth. Do you realize how foolish you sound saying that Baio is not a reliable source for his own date of birth ("He's not reliable for his own birth year")? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're not going to bother to read the past, linked, discussion, then I don't see how we can move forward. --Hipal (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've requested the article be protected once more over this. --Hipal (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I had already read everything. Your characterization of the discussions and evidence is inaccurate and self-serving. You have yet to provide the proof requested and instead continue your intransigence and gaslighting. Stop removing reliable sources in order to hide evidence from readers. Your inappropriate and aggressive editing is very disruptive to this project. What does it say? >>> 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As you've read everything, you know this dispute goes back far before I ever edited this article, and has been discussed by many other editors. You have no consensus for your changes, and such consensus is required. --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Your changes"? My "changes" are merely to add reliable sources, which you keep removing, so knock off the nonsense gaslighting. No consensus required for reliable sources. Now, back to the real issue, which you keep pretending doesn't exist. Where's the proof I requested that Baio in his own voice has ever said his birth year is 1961? Stop being a disruptive, instransigent presence on this project and show it if it exists. If it doesn't, be an adult and just admit it. Baio already resolved this absurd dispute: 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Not that it matters, since Baio verified his DOB on his Twitter, but in the Career section in this article its says, "When he was 16, Baio was cast as The Fonz's cousin Chachi Arcola on Happy Days," which is a fact that's been published many times. Baio's first episode was the season 5 premiere called "Hollywood: Part 1" ("First appearance of Fonzie's cousin, Chachi Arcola"), which aired on September 13, 1977, nine days before his birthday. Do the math. That would've made him 16 when he was cast, turning 17 the week after that episode aired. If his birth year was 1961, he would've only been 15. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you wouldn't, or couldn't, provide the proof I was asking for to support your position, I did it for you because I only want accurate, solid content in the article. Having a reliable source in Baio's own voice saying he was born in 1961 was vital to this dispute. All the other evidence was very weak. Although this AP source is great, it's also very old (20 years), which indicates that for some unknown reason Baio portrayed himself as being a year younger at that time. Subsequently, he stopped doing that and apparently wanted to make that clear with the relatively recent post on his Twitter account that he was born in 1960. He also did that in 2017 when he acknowledged turning 57. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yet another unequivocal statement from Baio on his official Twitter account that his DOB is September 22, 1960. "I was born Sept 22 19-SIXTY (NOT 1961) the media has always had it wrong." 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of explanation of Sexual Assault Claim

I have reverted the deletion of a minor edit by dmies that removed the reason Baio claimed Eggert's claims against him had been undermined by her own prior words. It provides a useful explanation of a well established element of the page and is notable. I'd request it not be deleted again without consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgmitchell45 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

ronz has now followed me to this article, as well as a prior article I edited, and undone my edits. This is not normal protocol for editing disputes Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol. I would appreciate other editors weighing on on this before I decide whether escalation is justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgmitchell45 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Michaelgmitchell45, although I would leave out the word "adamantly." The additional information Michael included is cited in the article, and does help to clarify the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orville1974 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid Michaelgmitchell45 accusation that I'm following him is wrong. Please withdraw the accusation. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Years active; birth date.

An anonymous editor is making the same change repeatedly without explanation.

They are changing Baio's "Years active" to end in 2017 rather than 2015. The last professional date I see is 2015.

They are also are removing one of the disputed birth years, as discussed previously.

As I am at 3RR, I will not be reverting further tonight. If the same changes are made again without discussion, I will revert again tomorrow night, with a WP:3RR warning for them.

Other editors, of course, are free to revert them in the meantime and/or comment on the issues. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how anything beyond 2015 is verified, and proper verification is required per BLP. --Ronz (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

He's not reliable for his own birth year

We've already established that he's given both 60 and 61 as his year of birth, so we have to use independent sources at this point. We have two reliable sources for the two years, so we've been including both. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Who's the "we" and "we've" you keep injecting? The few editors who've discussed this in the past? You claim that "He's" given 61 as his year of birth?? Really? Please provide reliable sources that show Baio, in his own voice, says his birth year was 1961. I'll bet zero exist. We know that he clearly addressed this matter on his official Twitter account when he said, "My birthday is September 22, 1960." One other point. You said there are "two reliable sources" for 1960. Actually, there are dozens of strong, reliable sources for 1960. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

See the previous discussion. --Hipal (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You see the previous discussion and provide the proof requested. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that in a previous discussion (Talk:Scott_Baio/Archive_1#Could_someone_flesh_out_Early_life_with_this_from_1977_interview, Baio is quoted as giving 1962 as well. I've not been able to find a copy of the reference to verify it. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yet again, no proof. Just talk. Show me, in Baio's own voice, him ever saying he was born in 1961 or any year other than 1960. This is proof in Baio's own voice that he was born in 1960: 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

His own website said 1961 [3][4], until 2010 when it was changed to 1960 [5]. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That was not in Baio's voice and it's the same source in duplicate. It was merely someone managing that website that posted the information. And, as you pointed out, it was later change e.g. corrected, which further supports 1960. But everyone, including you, already knew it was 1960 once Baio posted his full date of birth, himself, on his official Twitter account. Instead of trying so hard to "win," just admit that you know and believe he was born in 1960. The tone of all your comments indicate you don't even believe your own words. Please, just stop this foolishness. You knew as soon as you saw Baio's Twitter post >>> <<< that he was born in 1960. Just acknowledge it and move on. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We agree he's given multiple years, so he's unreliable. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Called Obama a Muslim and said that the death of Heather Heyer and the Sandy Hook shooting were hoaxes, I don't see why we can't call him a conspiracy theorist.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That's OR from what I see so far. What specifically do the sources say on the matter? Do any reliable sources specifically call him that, or use "conspiracy theory" or something similar? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing all the refs, I don't think the category is appropriate. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not OR, If you believe in that and promote it you're a conspiracy theorist.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please retract or refactor your comment.

If you can indicate a high-quality source as required by WP:BLP, then we can make some progress together. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for refactoring your comment [6]. I'd hoped you might remove more. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: I am responding to the request for a third opinion regarding this issue. Since there is no verified material in the prose of the article that explicitly labels him as a conspiracy theorist, I think it is inappropriate to add the category. As a reminder, any material about living people must include reliable sources or it will be removed. This especially applies to contentious labels, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels for more information. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Found two sources that called him a conspiracy theorist. https://patch.com/connecticut/newtown/soto-family-speaks-out-after-scott-baio-tweets-conspiracy-theory-photo https://apnews.com/e5729f9afc8649db9411bf43e55ba303 Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Patch.com is a poor source in general, this specific article looks like tabloid journalism, and it doesn't actually verify the information. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The APNews article doesn't verify the information.

I'll be removing the category if no verification is forthcoming. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's another source. https://popculture.com/celebrity/news/scott-baio-sandy-hook-conspiracy-twitter/ Jaydoggmarco (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A poorer source that once again doesn't verify the information. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the category. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Senate bid tweet

In November 2020 Baio floated the idea of moving to Utah in order to run against Mitt Romney in 2024 for the United States Senate. Baio floated the idea in response Romney's criticism of Trump.

References

From my perspective, that's a case of WP:NOTNEWS. If there's substantially more to it than a tweet and an article about how some people are upset at Romney, then we might want to revisit it. --Hipal (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely not the case of WP:NOTNEWS. It is not as if the subject of this biography routinely announces that he will run or the US Senate. He tweeted the idea that he will run, and it was picked up by a major newspaper in the state. That makes it notable. We don't need WP:109PAPERS to report it to be notable. We just need one WP:RS that is independent of the subject to make it notable. While it's not notable in the article 2024 United States Senate election in Utah (once that article forms), it is certainly notable within the biography of the subject when the subject says that he'll run for the US Senate and a WP:RS reports on it. Banana Republic (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So it's just the one article then, and that article is focused on Romney, not Baio. So NOTNEWS, SOAP, and UNDUE. --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it's a lot more than one single article that quoted Baio

• KUTV
• Fox 13
• Wonder Walls
• MSN (for national coverage)

All those articles (including the original one in the Salt Lake City Tribune) are about Scott Baio, not about Mitt Romney (just look at the titles). Banana Republic (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional refs.

The first is Salt Lake tv news channel, operated by Sinclair. Given this is a political matter, I don't think it should be given any weight, rather it should make us consider whether this is SOAP, propaganda, and NOTNEWS.

The second is a local Fox news bit. Same as above.

The third and fourth are the same article, with MSN simply republishing it. The author is a contributor to WonderWall. We shouldn't be using a contributor's article to an entertainment publisher for political information.

This isn't encyclopedic content at all in my opinion. ArbEnf applies on multiple levels here. If Baio follow up with anything substantial beyond words, we should reconsider including content on the matter. --Hipal (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

01:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)2601:205:C003:6300:FC00:EE3E:E793:99F6 (talk)

Political views are out of scope

The section under political views contains topics that are beyond the scope of Baio's political views, and should be broken out into a separate section labeled "controversies". For instance:

"In an interview with Ashley Webster, Baio described President Barack Obama as being "either dumb, a Muslim, or a Muslim sympathizer, and I don't think he's dumb".[25]"

This is not a political view per-se, but a personal opinion as to the intelligence of a political figure. The controversy is the pejorative used against a President.

"On December 15, 2016, Baio accused Nancy Mack, wife of Chad Smith, drummer for Red Hot Chili Peppers, of physically assaulting him at their children's elementary school function. Baio claims Mack began berating and cursing him over his support of Trump and at one point attacked him, grabbing him under his arms and then shaking and pushing him. Mack said she was merely trying to show Baio how Trump hugs women and denies any intentional physical aggression.[26]"

This is not discussing Baio's politics, but an assault that occurred because of the woman's politics. Her assault does not reflect directly on his political views, but hers, and should be under a Controversies sub-section.

"On August 26, 2017, Baio re-tweeted a Sandy Hook "truther" meme, insinuating that the recent death of Heather Heyer and the Sandy Hook shooting were linked hoaxes.[27][28]"

Tweeting a meme does not necessary discern ones political views.

These additions seem to be to link a given party to a specific set of beliefs, and that is pigeonholing and "othering" a group over the particular actions of an individual.

Therefore, these instances and examples should be separated into a section on "controversies" as is common with public figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:C003:6300:FC00:EE3E:E793:99F6 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

At a glance, it seems fine. What do the references actually say? --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that you did not read the references, and just glanced at the post?2601:205:C003:6300:FC00:EE3E:E793:99F6 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If one refuses to look at the content, and admits to such, there can be no discussion based on content. I pointed out that the content in that section should be moved to "controversies" as is usually for public figures.

So, why should it not be moved as such?2601:205:C003:6300:FC00:EE3E:E793:99F6 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming past editors have worked in good faith to make the article what it is, and have met the requirements of the relevant content policies. If you want to change what consensus there is, you'll have to demonstrate policy-based reason to do so.

I gave the logical reasons. "Good faith" does not mean that errors are not made. What "Policy based" reasons are you saying is required? I gave the reasons why the "Political beliefs" section contains material that is out of scope, and I have not seen any arguments as to why that material is considered in-scope.2601:205:C003:6300:6401:C85A:E85A:886 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversy sections should be avoided per policy. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Per what policy?2601:205:C003:6300:6401:C85A:E85A:886 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Logical reasons? Howso? If those "logical reasons" are not based in policy, they don't matter.

If you're not extremely familiar with policy, you face a block or ban quite easily when working on an article like this that falls under multiple sanctions.

Take some time to learn your way around Wikipedia, and strongly consider getting yourself an account.

As far as the section is concerned, see WP:CRITS and WP:STRUCTURE. Review WP:BLP and WP:POV please. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

So, looking at the section you linked, it seems that a breakout section is warranted rather than integrated per

"Philosophy, religion, or politics

For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – ::::: it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue ::::: the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets." Like I stated above, this biography is written as to conflate the general outlook of a political ideology with that of a person. 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)  Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like your own OR still. What do the references actually say? --Hipal (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, are you saying you did not read the references? Are you arguing that because a reference is construing a single persons ideology as representative of that of an entire party?2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on Policy under WP:CRITS these items past stating Baio's political affiliation is out of scope, and should be addressed in a "Criticism of..." sub article. 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're not going to answer questions focusing on policy, and insist on breaking policy, then you're not going to make any progress here. --Hipal (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You are refusing to discuss the policy I am referencing, or answer any of my questions in good faith. I have pointed out where the policy supports my arguments several times, but you are causing issues and being unproductive. Is that your goal? 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am requesting a resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Scott_Baio 2601:205:C003:6300:D820:FACB:5F9C:4338 (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not refusing anything, but if you cannot base your requests on what is in references, we will get nowhere. --Hipal (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You are refusing to be productive. You keep stating "what is in the references" without clarifying if you mean the references you gave me regarding Criticism WP:CRITS or of the references used in the topic of discussion. If it is the later they are moot as they do not address the point I am making. You are being unhelpful, opaque, pedantic and threatening, and thus I requested a resolution on the notice board.2601:205:C003:6300:D820:FACB:5F9C:4338 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

We disagree, and I'm not wasting my time where basic content and behavioral policy is not being followed. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Years Active.

Shouldn't this be changed as he's now acting again. 109.150.194.28 (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Please indicate a reference? --Hipal (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000281/ 109.150.194.28 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. We shouldn't use IMDB directly, but it gives us the credits to use to search for proper refs. --Hipal (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem, isn't IMDb a reliable source? Thanks anyway. 86.188.32.235 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

IMDB is not reliable, per WP:IMDB. I don't see either recent acting job listed at IMDB, Quigley and Courting Mom and Dad, as having articles or mention anywhere in Wikipedia, so we'll have to find references of our own. --Hipal (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

How to properly present and verify his date of birth

Relevant policies are WP:BLP (especially WP:DOB, and note the 2021 RFC), WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV.

My take is that we list '60 and '61. The one ref for '62 is worth considering. I'm not finding any reliable sources for '59, nor any other years.

How much, if any, weight does Baio's recent tweets deserve, given that he's stated at least three different years, and the majority of his life he's said '61? My interpretation of policy and the general consensus is to leave them out completely, unless there's an independent, reliable source that discusses the different years. As I already pointed out, a correction from Baio would be worth considering. I expect we'll be headed to BLPN at some point, but I'd like to be at a point where all proposals are supported by policy. --Hipal (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you're trying to pull, but this is now the third thread you've started on the current talk page about this this very topic/dispute; first as Ronz and then in the others as Hipal. Just yesterday, you refused to participate in a discussion on the second thread because you claimed you didn't want the discussion split, and so referred back to the first one. With the creation of this third thread, any reasonable person might conclude that you're purposely trying to confuse editors and steer them away from all the prior evidence and discussion, or lack thereof on your part. In any case, anyone can see from the above threads that your frequent pattern is to either ignore what's being said to you or, alternately, speak in very vague terms, and instead refer or link to an endless number of policy, guideline, essay, and other pages, even if they do not apply; and, most importantly, refuse to cooperatively participate to solve problems. It's as if your goal is to wear other editors down with your ongoing intransigence and gaslighting in the hopes that they will eventually get so frustrated with you that they'll simply give up and you'll "win". You have filed your noticeboard complaint about what's going on this article and, sadly, have refused to listen to the excellent feedback they have given you, preferring instead to fight on to the bitter end. > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1077758860#Ip_disrupting_Scott_Baio 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm summarizing my perspective, and the policies that apply. --Hipal (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If you felt your perspective needed to be repeated, you should've done it in the already-existing thread(s). For the record, your long list of links are not all policies, nor do you provide any context whatsoever in terms of how each of them applies to this very focused dispute. While you included WP:V, an extremely important link you failed to specifically mention is its subsection WP:ABOUTSELF (or WP:TWITTER), which directly applies to this tweet and this tweet from Baio. You claim in this thread that "a correction from Baio would be worth considering", yet you have continually refused to accept his two very clear and definitive tweets about his own year of birth. One could conclude by all your actions that you actually have no interest in this dispute ever being settled because a stance like yours would guarantee it. Perhaps you should ask yourself one question: Who knows Scott Baio's date of birth more: a secondary source such as a newspaper, magazine or book; or Scott Baio? I'll post any future comments in the previously-existing threads on this topic, not here. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping to find common ground with you and whoever else will participate. I'll continue here. --Hipal (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The lede ideally should not have any references, as it summarizes the article body. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus per MOS:LEADCITE. --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You allude to MOS:LEADCITE and decide that the interpretation and overall summary of it that you'll present to other editors is essentially that the lead shouldn't have any references? Well, "ideally". It is distractions, absurd comments, and misrepresentations like this that only serve to support the concern that your presence may be a disruption not only to this article, but more importantly to our collective goal of improving this project. Now, let's take a glance at the Manual of Style section you presented and see what it really says, particularly with regard to this dispute. It says, Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. The guideline also tells us that there is not...an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. We'll assume that you're not disputing the glaring fact that the debate over the subject's birth year began over eight years ago. The birth date or year is not even mentioned in the body. Finally, it should also be noted that your edit history shows that you added a ref to the lead as early as 2018, when you took control of this message board, and also did so as recently as a few days ago. You also restored the infamous Time magazine source in 2018 that had been removed. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The birth date should be in the body of the article, properly referenced. --Hipal (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

So, after these many years of your involvement in this dispute, you suddenly decide, while in the midst of your days-long noticeboard pleas, that Baio's birth date should be in the body of the article? This aligns with your other sudden determinations over the past 24 hours; that the neutrality of the entire article should be in dispute, that there are too many refs in the lead, and then that there shouldn't be any refs in the lead at all. It's not about the editing choices, but rather your constant inconsistencies and contradictions in what you say and do. But what's far more concerning is the fact that you've once again completely ignored almost every word an editor has said to you in response to your comments. You mischaracterized an important guideline, I countered it with evidence, and you pretend it doesn't exist. Your ongoing poking, prodding, and other disruptive actions, as well as your refusal to cooperatively participate in any meaningful discussion with editors is very problematic. Anyone can read this message board to verify what I'm saying. Your maneuvers go on and on, non-stop, including on the the noticeboard. One must wonder if you're here to help or incite. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hipal, please stop your disruptive editing. You mischaracterized MOS:LEADCITE (above), I responded and corrected with quoted evidence, you ignored everything I said, and then, finally, you had the nerve to make an edit with this edit summary. You not only pretended what you did never happened, but falsely implied that there was some sort of consensus or agreement. Then, on top of that, you do this, and justify it again by throwing out some non-linked policies with no context and and yet another essay. You reverted your "test" (which should not be done in an article), but these edits again show why you make it very difficult for other editors to work with you. You do not care what anyone tells you, and rarely even acknowledge what is being said to you. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what, if any, indication should be used when multiple possible birth dates are presented (eg some articles mention "sources differ"). I'll look further, but this might be best to bring to BLPN. --Hipal (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yet more evidence of my earlier concern: that you appear to have absolutely no interest in simply settling this matter by accepting what Baio has consistently and repeatedly stated himself on his official accounts over the past 10+ years, as he did here and here, confirming that he was born in 1960 Also, he includes it here on his official website, which he is actively involved in operating to this day. Even the New York Birth Index, which uses data from official government records, verifies it. Although we cannot use the NYBI as a source here, it's yet more solid evidence of the birth year. I am asking you again to please provide all links you have that show Baio, in his own voice, stating he was born in any year other than 1960. Just give us a simple list, so all editors can see it. You have continually insisted that Baio himself has said he was born in 1959, 1961, and 1962, but have provided no proof. So, please, show us that Baio actually stated another birth year. That way, we can review what was stated, the credibility of the sources, and the dates they were published. If you can provide anything that was put out after 2010, that would be very valuable since his tweet saying "I was born Sept 22 19-SIXTY (NOT 1961)" was in 2010. Please do not ignore this request once again; either provide the proof or simply acknowledge that you cannot find any. If that's the case, we could/should list his birth year as 1960, as he has definitively stated publicly, and then perhaps add a sentence that simply explains that prior to year XXXX, secondary sources differed on his birth year. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

A reminder to other editors that you are welcome to participate in the two previously-existing threads that Hipal/Ron started, rather than continuing the confusion caused by this third discussion he started on the same topic: "Birth year" (thread 1) and "He's not reliable for his own birth year" (thread 2). 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've made a version that I believe meets the relevant policies and general consensus for similar situations: [7]. --Hipal (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? After everything that editors have been telling you, are you seriously proposing a layout that removes every source from Baio's official accounts, including his two tweets definitively stating that 1960 is his birth year? You do not listen to or even acknowledge anything that anyone says to you. A reasonable person can only wonder if you are actually trolling all of us. Finally, and for the second time, stop doing live test edits in the article. Do it somewhere else. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It's the beginning of a proposal to change the article in an effort to resolve this eleven-year-old dispute. What is your preferred version other than the current version? --Hipal (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we examine all refs for DOB info?

It might be helpful to examine all references for dob information. My impression is that few said '60 before the reality shows, and very slowly '61 became more common after. If there's anything about the discrepancy in a reliable source, it would be helpful to include. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

(refactor) I'm unclear how common '60 vs '61 is at this point. I've found no independent, reliable sources discussing the two possible years. --Hipal (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

As a side note biography.com used to list '61: [8] --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

As we seem to still have a dispute, I'll give them a look over. --Hipal (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's an archive for the Confessions... ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20090106004523/http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/confessions_of_a_teen_idol/series_about.jhtml --Hipal (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

And for the ShowBizNews ref: [9] --Hipal (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The author for the wsj article is Mike Vilensky. --Hipal (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The author for the BuzzFeed ref is Matt Stopera. This is a very poor ref because it's simply a list. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2015/03/11/scott-baio-supports-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-for-president/ could be used as a replacement. --Hipal (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are two refs for his campaigning for and attending the funeral of Reagan. The Hollywood.com ref should be fine. The quote from a different reference may be undue per WP:QUOTE. --Hipal (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The second yahoo.com ref is dated July 19, 2016, authored by Hunter Walker. --Hipal (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The news.com.au ref is dated August 27, 2017. --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Mercury News ref was authored by Martha Ross. --Hipal (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The 2018 Newsweek ref should be titled "Who Is Renee Sloan? Scott Baio's Wife Diagnosed With Microvascular Brain Disease" --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason to continue here. If there's an independent reference that addresses the discrepancies directly, it might be useful to look closer. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the reference changes mentioned above. I didn't remove the quote. --Hipal (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive behavior. As was previously stated, no changes can be made until a clear consensus is reached. You are not the judge and jury here. Revert yourself. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Baio's date of birth: admin noticeboard discussion

Editors may view the entire discussion, which has been closed. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That's no reason to revert or continue edit-warring. --Hipal (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Pre-Bugsy work

I've been running across mentions of pre-Bugsy acting. It might be worth searching for early biographies written around his success in Bugsy and Happy Days. --Hipal (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

References in dispute

Current references in dispute: ...1960 or 1961

References

Per V, OR, and POV; we don't add references to demonstrate weight or viewpoints not actually in the references.

Per NOT, POV, and OR; we don't use non-independent sources to highlight the viewpoints in them without independent sources demonstrating that those viewpoints are noteworthy and of encyclopedic value. Such independent sources have not been found.

To address these problems, I continue to propose that we remove all but the Newsweek and AP references. --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

A date of birth isn't a viewpoint; it's a simple biographical statement of fact. Why shouldn't we use the first or second refs per WP:ABOUTSELF to source 1960 and then include {{efn|Some publications state that Baio was born in 1961.}} (citing the sources that support 1961 in the note, of course)? Schazjmd (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

What do the ABOUTSELF refs provide that the BLP-quality ones do not?

As mentioned above, he's given '61 most of his life, and even '62. He's not reliable for this information. --Hipal (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I've gone through the previous discussions, including in the archive, and don't find any sources mentioned of him specifically stating he was born in 1961. Publications saying he was born in 1961 could have been given the information by his manager or publicity team or copied it from each other, but we can't know where they got it and that does not make him personally an unreliable source for his date of birth. (Frankly, I suspect that his manager wanted to keep him in the "teen idol" age range as long as possible, so made him younger; there are even a few articles years ago that suggest he was born in '62.) But I don't think there's any good reason not to use his self-reported birthdate, sourced to him, then address the differing reported years in a footnote or even in the body. (There was even a charity party for his 50th in 2010[10] — not an RS, but suggestive that 1960 is correct.) We can even attribute it: Baio states he was born September 22, 1960, although for much of his career, it was reported that he was born in 1961 or 1962. Schazjmd (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The AP reference has him saying he was 40 when if he was born in 60, he was 41. Many references are like that, quoting him stating his age incorrectly. It's a common situation in the entertainment industry. I believe there's strong consensus to treat the person as unreliable in such situations, but that's something we could take to BLPN.

So, why give weight to these ABOUTSELF sources when we have better ones that quote him stating ages or birth years that are conflicting?

WP:DOB has been changed in the past year to reflect the results of this RfC which directly addresses conflicting sources. I'd like to go to BLPN to build upon that, but let's get rid of the cherry-picking and WP:OVERKILL problems first. --Hipal (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I was looking for an independent source that discusses the discrepancies in the reporting of Baio's age or evidence that we might claim a clear and consistent date of birth has been widely reported(quote from the RfC). I didn't find either, which puts us in a situation where it's unclear what to do beyond list '60 and '61, possibly '62 as well.

There's also an alternative presentation we could use: One footnote with a brief explanation as in Taylor Lorenz (one of the subjects of the RfC) and Lee Grant--Hipal (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: What would you prefer as an alternative? One independent reference for each year, plus the 2014 Twitter ref that seems to meet BLPSPS? Maybe presented as a single note rather than three separate citations? --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hipal, thanks for the link to that RfC, I missed that conversation when it happened. I'm not persuaded that a direct statement from Baio now is unreliable just because he was presented as younger through most of his career, but I recognize that you're not persuaded that he is, so a detailed note with refs such as in Lorenz and Grant seems to make the most sense. Schazjmd (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thank you for your input. Your first two posts in this thread present a great, logical summary, especially your opening sentence, which says, "I've gone through the previous discussions, including in the archive, and don't find any sources mentioned of him specifically stating he was born in 1961." Exactly. I asked Hipal/Ronz repeatedly to provide reliable sources that show Baio himself stating he was born in any year other than 1960. Each time, as you can see, he ignored the request and diverted the discussion. Baio himself has been abundantly clear, consistent and insistent over the past 10+ years that he was born in 1960. Baio's tweets comply perfectly with WP:ABOUTSELF (WP:TWITTER) and are vital to settle this dispute. Even the New York Birth Index, which I realize can't be used as a source, confirms 1960 as the birth year; the NYBI doesn't get birth dates wrong; they are taken straight from official government records. Not a single editor over the past month or so has agreed with Hipal/Ronz over the birth year, and the majority since this dispute began have said 1960. Administrator Uncle G provided excellent feedback and analysis about the situation in this noticeboard complaint that Hipal/Ronz filed a few weeks ago. Please read what Uncle G said. In any case, I believe the birth year should be shown in the lead as it is with Irene Cara, using just one birth year (1960) and then clarifying with a detailed note. Keep in mind that Baio's own statements (as opposed to sources merely framing what he allegedly said) have been firm and consistent, unlike Cara. The 50th and 60th birthday celebrations in 2010 and 2020 provide additional, overwhelming evidence that he was born in 1960. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for indicating a proposal. Could you indicate what references you want to use and what the "detailed note" that goes with them would say?

Please WP:FOC. Your statements about other editors are disruptive. Please stop.

Ignoring policy is not an option. WP:DOB says, If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, the consensus is to include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth

Ignoring references is not an option. For example: After hours of searching for and requesting any reliable sources for a DOB of 1961 __in Baio's own voice__, I finally found a solid one.[11] --Hipal (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I look forward to hearing your thoughts. As you can see from all the threads discussing this issue, it is probably necessary to now open an RFC, as an administrator suggested. It's likely the only way to get through the roadblocks that continue to be put up. This dispute requires analysis and input from numerous editors to open the road to a resolution. Would you be willing to start and facilitate the RFC? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd, please also note that when the other editor referred to WP:DOB just above (without linking it), he failed to include an extremely important part of that policy, which says: A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.1 Besides Baio having a 50th birthday celebration in 2010, and 60th in 2020, which received media coverage, we have, most importantly, his multiple tweets unequivocally stating his full birth date. Cherry-picking information from (unlinked) policies, guidelines, and other useful pages creates an impediment to problem-solving. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No proposal from the ip then? --Hipal (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone against removing all but three refs, as in: ...September 22, 1960 or 1961

(I'm not concerned at this moment which location in the article this is done, or if we group these refs into a single note) --Hipal (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

References

@Schazjmd, please indicate if you would be willing to start an RFC? If not, another unbiased editor can be found. We cannot make any changes to the disputed content until we receive input from numerous editors over an appropriate period of time and reach a clear consensus. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reduced the references to just three. --Hipal (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I see five concerns:

1. There appear to be reliable sources where Baio states he was born in '62. They are not included in the article currently.
2. The use of Baio's twitter feed as a ref for his year of birth is redundant, and Baio may be considered unreliable.
3. There may be a case for presenting only '60. There are no independent, reliable sources addressing the discrepancies with his year of birth, so editors need to take care to avoid SYN/OR.
4. There may be a case for making a note explaining the discrepancies of Baio's birth year. Again, there are no independent, reliable sources addressing the issue, and SYN/OR problems could result.
5. The positioning of the references should be in the article body rather than the lede per MOS:LEADCITE.

I suggest we whittle this down through discussion here and through BLPN, then try an RfC if we still need it. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive behavior. As was previously stated, no changes can be made until a clear consensus is reached. You are not the judge and jury here. Revert yourself. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)