Talk:Reuben Kaye

kaye's birthday

hey @Scope creep - wanted to have a quick discussion here about the reliability of this tweet as a source for reuben's birthday. it fulfills all of the requirements of Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF.

1. the material is not self-serving or exceptional: it is merely a birthday
2. it is posted by the subject of this biographical article, about himself
3. birthdays are an important piece of information which is always included in biography pages when it can be found
4. there is no reasonable reason to lie/joke about a birthday
5. the large majority of the sources on this page are not self-published

I understand it's not an ideal source, but it certainly meets all the guidelines to be included. additionally there are other tweets by kaye about his birthday spanning across several years, here, here, here, and here. Do you have any further points as to why this source should not be used, or is it alright if I add it back in again? Thanks :) Hillsyism (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hillsyism: Are you paid to write the article? Its controversial because folk lie about the date of birth and their age all the time, particularly women and particularly on social media for various reasons, so its not a good reference by any stretch of the imagination. There is strong consensus in WP:NPP that it is a junk and should be removed at every turn. In any situation where an article gets to WP:GA, if its on there, if there social media refs, it gets removed, right away. So its not a good ref. I've never understand the WP:ABOUTSELF paragraph, it is essentially a sop to newbies to get them and enable them to write bio fan articles, like this. But for the most part, most folk don't use it in a real biographical article and would never consider using in the general case. I wouldn't if I was writing this. I guess it depends on how well you support Wikipedia and its standards. If you put it back, it is policy after all and I come around I will remove again. Your only allowed one social media type of the article. You will need to remove the Youtube reference. scope_creep^Talk 17:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not paid to write this article.

I think it's odd to assume that people lie about their birthdays "all the time", and the women point is extra odd because Kaye is not a woman. I would again like to point out that he has said it on multiple occasions across multiple years, which indicates he would have to have a fake birthdate memorized for years, which doesn't seem very logical/likely to me.

I also don't think it's quite fair for you to remove part of an article that follows Wikipedia's guidelines just because you don't agree with the guidelines themselves. I'll still of course hold off on re-adding it back until we reach a consensus, find a different/more reliable source, or until other people weigh in.

Would you be able to point me towards a consensus that self-claimed birthdates are junk? Also, would you be able to direct me towards the guidelines about only having one social media reference on a page? That YouTube source isn't self-published, it's by Channel 4. Thanks again, I hope we can work this one out! Hillsyism (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for answering the paid question. I don't want to spend to much time on this. I know he is not a women. Consensus, I couldn't show where it is in the policies. I was told a while ago about 5 years ago, or longer thinking about it. There has been reports in the past which you can search I guess, which details exactly how people approach social media. People exist and communicate with other folk in ways that involves a whole series of small falsehoods, uttered every day, essentially white lies. It is both a coping mechanism and a survival mechanism. On social media, these falsehood are exagerated out all proportion to their existance without any kind of comeback or consequences. Very rarely does anything happen if you tell some gigantic whopper. Because it tends to be anonymous, people think they can say anything. Why would think that folk don't lie about their age when it brings unearned influence and praise, amongst the many other falsehoods promulgated by social media, when they lie about everything else. That whole social media experience is driven by that.

I would sugget you put the Youtube video in an external link. Its by Channel 4 Entertainment. Your allowed to ignore the guidelines if you think it is better for Wikipedia in the long run. This is the WP:IAR rule. In saying "they don't lie all the time" is reasonable thing to say I suppose, because some probably don't You really can't say from sure. From my viewpoint, you have the general case. I'm reviewing a lot of articles this week as part of the WP:NPP sprint. I can't take an specific article and say right, that social media reference is good. I deal in the general case and you can't say, most of the time time, the majority of the time, the vast majority. In the general case it going to be worse or much worse in terms of quality than say, for example any high-quality newspaper source, or something from a book on Gbooks or an archive a good magazine site, like the New Yorker. It just is. When you look at pre-2007 biographical articles, they are higher quality articles, partly they are free of social media. From my viewpoint, there is more reasons for removing, which I've not mentioned. scope_creep^Talk 18:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your argument that there is a reasonable case that Kaye has lied for years on end about his birthday being on a specific date. I wholeheartedly agree that social media is filled with white lies, for both safety and attention, - but I truly believe it does not make rational sense to assume that a person is lying about their birthday being on a specific date for at least six years.

I would really like to understand your point of view, but so far you have given me only your own opinion on the guidelines, and your own recounting of a past consensus which I am struggling to find and which does not reflect the guidelines, without linking actual discussions/guidelines that I can learn from. I totally understand that precaution would need to be taken if this was a situation where conflicting information was being given from multiple parties, only in one instance, or other dubious circumstances, but none of that is the case.

I'll work on finding an alternative published source for the C4 YouTube video, so thank you for bringing that to my attention!

Additionally, I've just found this source (the site is used on another biography page as source of birthday), and I'd like to hear your thoughts on using it instead if possible! Hillsyism (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)