Talk:Joe Alwyn

Puffery

Some of the edits recently made to this article read as if Alwyn's personal publicist or someone else connected with the actor is attempting to promote him. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. Per WP:BRD, now that these edits have been reverted, please discuss them here on this talk page rather than edit-war. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, when two equally reliable sources differ on a claim, we include both. Otherwise, including one or the other is POV. I would note that the London Evening Standard is a notable newspaper, while I-D.vice.com is a non-notable (i.e., no Wikipedia article) website. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, it is common to include critical reaction to performances; all featured articles of actors do this. I included the only negative review of his performance listed on Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics list. Secondly, i-D is a well-known magazine but I have no problem with the two adjoining neighbourhoods both being mentioned.Popeye191 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, and I appreciate the collegiality. My feeling is that context matters, and what other articles do in their own context doesn't necessarily matter here since the articles you speak of involve actors with more than just two films. There's no deadline, so I would advocate waiting for more than two movies before we start posting reviews because — and I'm sure it wasn't intended — the effect is that it reads promotionally. I may well be wrong; let's let other editors comment here and see what they say.

And thank you for understanding about the POV-choice issue. It happens not infrequently with birth dates or, in the case of Demi Moore, her birth name. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there anyone to add a photo to the info box?!and complete all the parts😠😕😑 Hellohell95 (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The better biographical aricle

I need to know, this article needs a full better relationship with Taylor Swift in 2017 and some better sources, like Famous Birthdays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayleaf987 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bayleaf987: Wikipedia is not a gossip column, and Famous Birthdays is not a reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

why was the reference to USA today from the article? No explanation was given for the valid entry.Terry Macro (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

BLP vios

I've restored the WP:RS-cited version of Joe Alwyn's birth date and other personal-life claims, which had been updated with WP:BLP violations. First, there is no cite for his middle name, so there's no way of knowing if the 1991 Joe Alwyn at findmypast is the correct Joe Alwyn. Second, even at findmypast there was no birth date given but just a year, 1991. Third, there was nothing cited that gave the name of Alwyn's mother — and the two Independent articles about Elizabeth Meakins never even mentions Alwyn, so where did the supposed connection come from? We cannot make claims about a person's birth date, middle name or parent's name without strict RS citing and no WP:SYNTH. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Again: Daily Mail, The Sun and HollywoodLife.com are non-RS WP:TABLOIDs, and Tribute.ca is a ticketing site like Fandango and not an RS biographical reference. An editor objects to the Sony Pictures verified tweet, so I've left that out. WP:BLP claims must have RS citing, and not tabloid sites.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, thanks for your invitation on my talk to join you in discussing this here. However, I disagree with your conclusions. You said there was no cite for his middle name? Incorrect. The Hollywoodlife source gave it. If you want to dispute that cite, that's a separate discussion. But you can't say there was "no cite" at all.

I also don't agree with your blanket exclusion regarding tabloids, specifically the Daily Mail and The Sun. I am also unaware of any WP prohibition regarding either. If you're aware, please provide them. Moreover, I also found his full name in the Mirror as well; and I don't object to that either. It would be like someone objecting to the New York Post. It's certainly a tabloid and sensational, but I don't know of any challenge to calling it a RS.

Moreover, a quick Google search found his full name in multiple places; and even if most are non-RS, it was also found on Glamour Magazine's UK site. Glamour is hardly a tabloid and is absolutely a RS. So I'll restore it using that. I also found it on Heat Magazine and on the Italian MTV. You'll also notice they all give the same birthdate: month, date and year. In fact, I also saw it on French, Thai, German, Portuguese, Indonesian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Spanish-language news sites. And more. So again, I'll use it. Especially given that no other RS contradicts it.

What's also interesting, is that neither source currently being used (before I remove them) actually says what is claimed they say. The Hollywood Reporter source used for "1991" gives no DOB information whatsoever. Never even mentions 1991. Just age at the time of publication. The Evening Standard article used to source "1990" is the same. No year or any DOB or even mention of "1990", just age at publication, which tells us nothing about DOB. So I'm removing both. It seems clear we just go with the only RS we have. When we have more or better RS, which is likely sooner rather than later, we add them then. X4n6 (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

We can certainly agree on Glamour magazine. The Heat cite cannot be used since it's citing the non-RS tabloid The Sun, but it doesn't matter since we have the RS magazine. I don't mean to sound rude, but I'm surprised an editor who has been on Wikipedia as long as you have been hasn't been aware we can't use non-RS tabloids that base their stories on unattributed, shadowy, anonymous "sources", since such unconfirmed claims are simply rumors. Wikipedia policies/guidelines specifically address this — see, for instance, WP:QUESTIONABLE, which states: "Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. [footnote to:] An example is the Daily Mail, which is broadly considered a questionable and prohibited source, per this RfC." The Sun, The Mirror and other such outlets are, if anything, even more notorious than the Daily Mail. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, and it's not a semantic difference, but when a site is disallowed, then a citation from it should not be there, so a non-RS cite is, indeed, no cite. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

To start with, I'm pleased that we've agreed on at least one RS, so this issue is resolved. Now everything else is effectively moot. However, to respond to your comment, I don't find that it's a question of what I'm aware of. It's a question of your interpretation, which I disagree with. In my view, your interpretation is far less supported than you seem to believe. We have guidance on what constitutes a reliable source at WP:SOURCE, which is a policy - not WP:QUESTIONABLE, which is not policy, but just a guideline.

While I now see that the Daily Mail is essentially banned here, there is certainly no consensus that supports that conclusion for the The Sun, nor anything I've found for extrapolating much beyond it on similar publications. For example, after lengthy debate, it was determined resolved that the Mirror meets RS. Nor did I find anything whatsoever about Heat Magazine at the RS Noticeboard. Nor anything, for that matter, questioning MTV as a RS. The point being that I think we need to be very cautious about using such broadstrokes when excising content on the grounds of tabloidism. That's a slippery slope and my inclusionist tendencies are that if a source hasn't been expressly identified as a banned publication, then we review based on content; not on blanket, absolutist or draconian dogma. Also, as a practical point, simply because something is disallowed, does not negate its existence. So a disallowed cite is just that - and inherently different from a cite which does not exist. It is impossible to remove something which does not exist. X4n6 (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, my interpretation really isn't at issue with "do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires." That accurately describes tabloids like The Sun and The Daily Mirror. I take that quote from the guideline, which simply paraphrases the policy to which you point: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts.... Such sources include websites and publications ... that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." Again, that accurately describes tabloids like The Sun and The Daily Mirror. I'm really not sure why anyone would defend shoddy sources: If sourcing from unimpeachably reliable sources exist, we use that. If a tabloid is the only place making that claim, and no unimpeachably reliable source is doing so, there may be a reason no responsible publication is making that claim.

I never said anything about the reliability of Heat. I said only that the source of the claim was not heat itself but Heatciting the tabloid The Sun.

I never said anything about the reliability of Italian MTV. I said only that what it supported was simply a year, 1991, while the other site, Glamour, supported what we actually had, which is a full date.

Also, and I recognize that now we're in the realm of philosophical discussion rather than immediate practicalities, a non-RS that is removed indeed means something was never cited, just as an annulled marriage means a marriage never existed. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm aware of RS. Just as I'm aware that we have no consensus that it has been applied to The Sun. If you're aware of something different, kindly link to it. That's the way to resolve this. You said: "If a tabloid is the only place making that claim, and no unimpeachably reliable source is doing so, there may be a reason no responsible publication is making that claim." Sure, but that wasn't the case here. Several sources said the same thing. So I've restored the Heat source, because you misread it. Only the quote was from The Sun. The Italian MTV source simply confirmed the year; and is reliable, so there was no reason to remove it, but fine. Regarding your ongoing interest in semantics and existentialism, you have misinterpreted an annulment. An annulment is a legal procedure, so even it exists as a public record, even as a marriage is legally voided. Something can cease to exist. But, unless/until time travel becomes possible, it cannot "unexist." X4n6 (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If you're aware of WP:RS, then I presume you're aware of WP:OVERCITING. Glamour is an RS that gives the birth date. No other cite is needed. Once your overciting was removed the first time, per WP:BRD, you were supposed to come to the talk page and attempt to gain consensus with our editors. By restoring it without discussion, you are edit-warring.

And Wikipedia does not have to list every single one of thousands of non-RS sources. The Sun is a "questionable source" with "a poor reputation for checking the facts" and relies "heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." It is non-RS. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Surely you're aware that WP:OVERCITING is an essay, right? Just as WP:QUESTIONABLE and even WP:RS are both guidelines. So why do you insist on citing essays and guidelines as if they have the force of policy? Sorry, but your opinion of The Sun is just that: your opinion. Who says The Sun is a "questionable source" with "a poor reputation for checking the facts" and relies "heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." You? With respect, I hope you understand that does not have the force of policy. But since you clearly feel so strongly, may I suggest you take it to the RS Noticeboard - gain WP:CONSENSUS - and get it banned. That's the only function of the noticeboard. But unless/until that happens, I don't agree that you can or should unilaterally make that call. If we could, I'd claim it against the New York Post and a few others. But I can't - and you can't. X4n6 (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)