Talk:Mark Rober/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mark Rober profile picture.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be added or removed:

• REMOVE REQUEST: "Rober has offered financial compensation to those who could successfully recover the package if the package was taken from their porch."
• REMOVE REQUEST: "He removed those two clips from the video."

Explanation of issue: Unsubstantiated and unsourced claims - I can not find evidence of these statements. Jay Bestille (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Reply 25-DEC-2018

  Source reference verified  

• The CNN source which reported on the payment and removal of clips is within the article and the URL for the claim is active.
• The claim regarding the apology and "admitting the clips were misleading" was omitted, as the source does not show or characterize Rober as making either of these statements in their Twitter post, which CNN described as an act of contrition rather than an apology.

Regards,  Spintendo  23:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Age/birthday

His birthday is March 11, 1980 (making him 39). Jturtle24 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Can't be added unless there's a reliable source confirming. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2019 (religion)

Rober is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I would add this line under personal life. Here is a link to the "Mormon Wiki" that verifies that. --Iggykoopa123 (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC) Iggykoopa123 (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

​Wikis are user-generated content and are therefore not reliable sources. We would need a citation to a published newspaper or a statement from Rober himself. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

​ Noted. I will amend that with a reliable sources. Iggykoopa123 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Iggykoopa123, are you able to find a better source than that? LDS Living doesn't list a source for him being a member of the LDS Church other than Meridian Magazine (I guess they mean this article, which doesn't actually state his religion). Possibly an interview where he's mentioned this? --Prosperosity (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2020 (sub count)

Please change his number of subscribers from 10.5 million to 10.8 million subscribers, source is his Youtube profile. Also, add to associated acts the channel "How Ridiculous" because they published a video in which they collaborated with each other on March 2, 2020 and "How Ridiculous" is also a multi million subscriber channel. Source is either of their Youtube profiles. 68.119.60.56 (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Apple work

At around 10:00 in this video by Mark Rober https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMKXbLBgkEc (CAR vs. WORLD’S STRONGEST TRAMPOLINE- 150ft (45m) drop) Mark Rober states that "Up to about 6 months ago," he worked at Apple. The video is posted in March of 2020 so he must've left Apple in 2019 and not early 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.104.76.107 (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Qualifies as WP:OR, so no. Primefac (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

New Image

I donated a newer image for this article. As I am obviously connected to the article, I did not want to add it myself. If someone can please update it I would appreciate it. --Countingmagic (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure! --Prosperosity (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021 (birth date)

Suggest to update Mark Rober's birth date. Article currently shows year of birth as 1980 or 1981. The wikitubia Fandom site shows his DOB as March 11,1980.

https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Mark_Rober#:~:text=Mark%20Braxton%20Rober%20(born%3A%20March,yourself%20gadgets%2C%20and%20creative%20ideas.

"Mark Braxton Rober (born: March 11, 1980 [age 41]), Is an American engineer, former NASA employee, Inventor, and YouTuber best known for his popular science-related videos, useful do-it-yourself gadgets, and creative ideas"

DavidKing90 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)David King DavidKing90 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Wikitubia is not a reliable source. Ionmars10 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2021 (birth date)

Someone change the infobox to show mark's birthday as March 11 1980. This is his actual birthday. Source: https://twitter.com/MarkRober/status/1370415489910931459 . Mark retweeted a tweet from CreatorStack that congratulated him and wished him a happy birthday. 220.245.101.5 (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Twitter is generally not considered a reliable source, plus the birthday wish could have been early or belated. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with the second half of the above statement. However, Twitter posts from the subject are generally considered reliable for non-controversial information such as a DOB. For example, if he had said (specifically) "thanks for the birthday wishes!" or something indicating that it was specifically that date, we could probably take it. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021 (birth date)

Mark Rober was born on March 11, 1980. Sunlite23 (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 15 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021 (channel name)

Please change Rober's channel name to Mark Rober. The link does not need to be changed. Fluffycat2.0 (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021 (awards)

Section "Awards":

In 2021, Rober was awarded an Honorary Fellowship by the Institution of Engineering and Technology in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the engineering profession. This Honour was granted during the Institution’s 150th anniversary year. Earlier in 2021, as part of the Institution’s celebrations, Rober was awarded a one-off prize as STEM Personality of the Year, following nominations from across the globe. Christopher Knibb (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Hextor26 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Mention TeamSeas?

Teamseas has been just as popular as Teamtrees for a few weeks now but it still isn't mentioned in this article. I wanted to fix this but the page is protected and I can't edit it. TheKidWhoEdits (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that discuss the matter, then write up a proposed change and it can likely be done. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Mark Rober article should mention TeamSeas.

• What I think should be changed: Mention TeamSeas in the article similarly to how it is mentioned in MrBeast's article using the same sources because it currently is not.
• Why it should be changed: Rober was one of the founding members of TeamSeas along with MrBeast just like for TeamTrees.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

TheKidWhoEdits (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

References

For the record, this request was  Done. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit

Hey fello Wikipedians!

I was researching more info on Mark. I have found he was born March 11, 1980. His middle name is Braxton. He was born near Valencia CA.

I will post the images on his high school photo and proof his middle name is Braxton!

Cheers,

rubikmid93 [file:///home/chronos/u-14592c37e1084a403885b85f77fee4b50651fb7b/MyFiles/Downloads/jpg2pdf.pdf Proof of Middle Name] [file:///home/chronos/u-14592c37e1084a403885b85f77fee4b50651fb7b/MyFiles/Downloads/AncestryLibrary.com.pdf Yearbook pic] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubikmid93 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rubikmid93: Please respect the privacy of living persons. —Dexxor (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dexxor: Regardless of whether or not this invades Mark Rober's privacy, the links to Rubikmid93's proof above don't work because they use the file URI scheme. 207.81.187.41 (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rubikmid93: Also, original research is against Wikipedia policy, per WP:OR. JTZegers (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This is an unreliable website for research in general. (Personal attack removed)

I rest my case. No, this ain't court. I am aware. But, I am trying to prove a point. Technology is limited the amount of human learning done. It might be beneficial since it is fast and accurate, but the website itself isn't original. You guys are competing against Google. As my 5th grade English teacher once said, "Wikipedia is not to be used in your essay. It is very unreliable and inaccurate." Rubikmid93 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Full name not reliable source?

Hello, I made an edit to this page fleshing it out, by adding Mark's full name and actual birthday. However, it was reverted because of bad sourcing. I redid it with a different source (trying not to edit war because I've already been blocked once for disruptive editing and violation of restrictions), but I was wondering what made the original sources unreliable, and if I should have requested this edit. You can also use my talk page if you have any more suggestions. It appears that I'm not the first one to run into this problem, since another user was reverted for that plus privacy concerns, and yet another user was reverted because the source was Wikitubia. Thanks.--JTZegers (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: The new edit was also reverted. It was noted as "good-faith" which means that it had the ribs, but was lacking the meat. This means I'm getting somewhere, but I still don't understand what to do to have the full name and birthday in the article. I'll keep fleshing out the rest of the page until I or someone else finds another good source for this. JTZegers (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

No. It means I didn't consider it vandalism. Please read the edit comment on the revert. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@CNMall41:I've read it, and it said that I need a better source that isn't a bio or a networth site. I did find one discussing one of his patents, however. It's this: https://patents.justia.com/inventor/mark-braxton-rober. Should I incorporate that into the article? JTZegers (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"I would think there would be a better source from the US being that is where he is based. The source you used also appears to be more of bio or listacle than something in-depth (simiarly to networth sites)" is what was written. It doesn't say you need a better source. It says I think there would be better sources from the U.S. (particularly news sites that have talked about him countless times and only using the middle initial B). It also says why the source you used isn't reliable, not what would be required to include it. Unless there is a secondary reliable source that supports it, I am unsure it could be added without violating BLP guidelines. WP:ONUS would be on you to demonstrate inclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@CNMall41:Okay, I've made another change, and got a reliable source to support the one that may be unreliable. JTZegers (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Two of the three sourced don't even mention the middle name. Why were they added? The other is the link to a patent which I would object to using in a BLP for personal information. I would say you should look closer at WP:ONUS. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@CNMall41:, here’s my explanation. The patent source I thought was a reliable source that included the middle name, and one of the other two included the birthday, and they were both news websites. I understand how these can be unreliable just because it doesn’t include the middle name (because they outweigh the one that does). If that’s how it’s gonna be, I’m going to do a little more research into sources good for BLP articles (specifically this one) and see what to do instead of having the same edit reverted over a bad source. JTZegers (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

What you are doing is called confirmation bias. You want to add something to Wikipedia and are looking for ways to justify it but using WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and unreliable sources to violation WP:BLP guidelines. This is the complete opposite of what we should be doing. Instead, we look at the sources and, weighing the information against BLP guidelines, add what the sources say. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2022

The below should go in the personal section.

"Mark Rober is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." 2605:A601:A906:7400:65BA:B44F:30A3:2BAE (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Primefac (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Language not correct

Per WP policy the American version of English needs to be used. Under awards, honor is used as the British version. This needs to be changed throughout the article. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:882F:209F:2C4D:523A (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Mark rober- How old?

Mark b. Rober was born in 1980. he is 42 years old. his birthday is march 11. 66.187.104.152 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, by all means provide it. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Everything I can find marks him as 43 with a date of birth of March 11, 1980. Just a google search for his birthday has all results, except WP, show the same birthday and age. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:882F:209F:2C4D:523A (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Podcast

According to his own admission he is no longer married. https://armchairexpertpod.com/pods/mark-rober BConsEPL (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure a podcast is enough to support this as it is treated more like a self-published source. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I found a few references about it although they would be primary sources. I think for the sake of BLP to just remove the name for now and then it can be updated with dates and any titles deemed appropriate once there is a secondary source. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I can’t find anything recent saying they are divorced. Everything I’m reading says they are still married after 10 years with the most recent update in February 2023. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:882F:209F:2C4D:523A (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Being raised LDS

I know it has been discussed/requested before regarding adding Rober's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) church, however, there have been concerns over adding this due to a lack of reliable sources, so I wanted to discuss here before adding. LDS Living has stated in an article that Rober is LDS, however, @Prosperosity raised concerns regarding reliability and previously requested a more reliable source. An August 2022 Fast Company (which seems to be generally considered reliable from what I can find at the Reliable sources Noticeboard) article stated that "He grew up in a Mormon household, which led him to Brigham Young University, where he met his wife, but he never mentions his faith in his videos." Considering the two sources (at least one of which is considered reliable) and the fact he attended BYU (which is 98% LDS), I feel it should be added to the article that he was raised LDS. Wikipedialuva (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @CNMall41! I noticed in this edit that you, in part, removed the statement from the article's "Early life" section that he was raised "in a Mormon household". In the edit summary, it was noted that the edit was "Removing religion from early life. Can likely be placed in personal section if someone sees fit." The source states that: "He grew up in a Mormon household, which led him to Brigham Young University, where he met his wife, but he never mentions his faith in his videos." I added his LDS faith to the "Early life" section for two reasons. One, being raised Mormon is a unique experience that can influence a person's views and life events, and two, I cannot find a WP:RS indicating that he is still LDS today. I believe that him being raised LDS is an aspect of his life that deserves to be included in the article, but I am open to ideas and suggestions on how to best accomplish this. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff as I did quite a few edits and would have had to search for this. I think you say it best that there are no references saying he is LDS (I assumed there would be which is why I said include it in the persona life section). So, saying he was raised LDS would make it sound like that is his religion, despite the fact he isn't (also assuming since you state there are no sources). I would have to look at the source further but maybe something like his parents were members of LDS? I am not sure the relevance of it for an encyclopedia anyway. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 I'm glad my diff was helpful! There are some sources that indicate that he is currently LDS, including several from LDS Living, such as this one. However, in previous discussions about this topic, @Prosperosity voiced they did not know if LDS Living met full WP:RS standards. In all likelihood, I think the weight of evidence leans towards the conclusion that Rober is LDS today, but it is debatable whether that evidence meets the strict WP:RS standards Wikipedia requires for that to be explicitly stated within the article body (WP:RSP has not taken a position on LDS Living either way). Regardless of whether he is currently LDS, I believe mentioning the fact that he grew up in a Mormon household also provides some context to other areas of his life, such as where he attended college (BYU, an LDS institution). Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like projecting to me. We don't lead people to a conclusion on Wikipedia. Do we have a reference that says he went to BYU because he is LDS or it that we we are surmising? Being "led to BYU" doesn't mean that he went there because of it. I was led to several Catholic universities but didn't attend them because I was catholic. Since this is a BLP, I would err on the side of caution and simply leave it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Projecting what? First, I am not trying to lead people to any conclusion other than what I wrote. My edit was stating a fact, from a reliable source- that he was raised in a Mormon household, and that a RS felt that it was important enough to mention in an article about him. I specifically did not add that he was an active LDS member.

Second, I did not claim that he attended BYU because he was a member of the LDS church; however, I said that his growing up in a Mormon household could give context to his attending BYU. This claim is backed up by the article, which we both agree is a reliable source. The source states: “He grew up in a Mormon household, which led him to Brigham Young University, where he met his wife, but he never mentions his faith in his videos.” The source explicitly states that his growing up in a Mormon household “led” him to attend BYU. On a side note, I also attended a Catholic college and am not Catholic; my college’s student body was about 50% Catholic. I feel that attending BYU as a non-LDS student is not comparable to a non-Catholic student attending a Catholic college because BYU’s student body is 98% LDS [1], and requires that students follow an honor code that requires them, regardless of faith, to “live a chaste and virtuous life” and “abstain from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, vaping, and substance abuse” [2].

Third, Rober is likely LDS. LDS Living has no fewer than three times referred to him as a “Latter-day Saint”. [3] [4] [5] While @Prosperosity has previously requested additional sources other than LDS Living, many articles on Wikipedia currently cite LDS Living as a RS.

Whether he is or ever was an member of the LDS church is not overly relevant to the statement I added, which a reliable source felt was important enough to include- that he was raised in a Mormon household, and that it gives context to other events in his life (leading to his attending BYU). Wikipedialuva (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

My questions in no way were meant to be contentious. I understand your point, but I don't feel it should be included for reasons I stated above. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCAT - ”Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.” While this specifically regards Categories, I believe the reasoning is also pertinent to the body of the article as well. If Rober wants to tell everyone he is LDS/not LDS/whatever, let him do it publicly - he has a wide YouTube following, ample exposure to various other well-known entertainment personalities and yet, the casual viewer doesn’t know for certain. His works are pertinent to science, not religion, and perhaps he would feel that his credibility would be undermined or cancelled by statements of faith. Or maybe he’s just private. For whatever reason, he doesn’t go out of his way to discuss it, so I believe we should just leave it be. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

POV pushing on NEXT for AUTISM

My citing of the backlash to Mark Rober's partnership with NEXT for AUTISM was deleted for "POV pushing due to unreliable sources". I defend the presence of these sources:

• The first source is an opinion article by a disabilities scholar, if not a formal publication.
• The second article is not from a major publication, but it does include NEXT for AUTISM's formal response to the allegations, evidence that the controversy was significant enough to warrant their comment.

The text itself is brief and neutrally mentions the existence of controversy. I would like to have it reinstated, though I'd accept a removal of the first source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Rober&diff=prev&oldid=1131871370&diffmode=source MaferPues (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The first source says nothing about criticism. The other two are unreliable. I did some research online and it looks like an active campaign against NEXT for AUTISM. See WP:RGW. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Full Name and Birth Date

Hello,

I recently added Rober's full name and birth date. However, they were both removed. I believe they should have stayed.

Firstly, the source I added for Rober's full name was removed for being from IMDb. However, it was actually from IMDbPro, instead of the normal IMDb. IMDbPro allows crew members to create their own resumes and use that to find work. This means that Rober himself would have put that name onto the page, meaning it passes WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPSPS, as it is "written or published by the subject of the article", and "published by [...] sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". Due to this, I believe his full name should be allowed to stay on the page.

Next, his date of birth. The sources I used for that were the Wired article which was already on the page, and a tweet from Rober's official Twitter account. The Wired article is fine as it is a reliable source, and was already on the page. The Twitter source was removed because "Twitter is not usable". However, I believe that it is usable. It passes WP:DOB, as it is "published by [...] sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public."

Due to all of this, I believe that my additions should stay.

Thoughts? Strugglehouse (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Specific tweets from verified users (i.e. the subject of the article) can be used for otherwise unknowable information. IMDb is currently considered a non-RS, and there does not appear to be any firm consensus on whether Pro is an exception, so if you wish to carve out that exception you will need to start a centralised discussion on the matter. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I would echo what Primefac says about IMDb. However, even if it were considered reliable, WP:NCBIO would apply. We need to stick with what the majority of the references call him which is simply by his first and last name. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 I don't think WP:NCBIO would be relevant here. That guideline related to the actual article title. I am not suggesting we rename the article to his full name, I am suggesting we add it to the page. Strugglehouse (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. If it is not a title change, then NCBIO would not apply. However, I do not see reliable sources showing this as his middle name. I see some unreliable sources and mirror sites that take it from those unreliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Yes, we would need to check the general consensus on using IMDbPro, as apposed to regular IMDb. As I said before, IMDbPro allows people to create there own resumes, therefore making this a self-posted primary source of his name, so I think it should be okay.

What do you think about adding his birthday in the way I said in my original message? Strugglehouse (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the Twitter post is clear enough to indicate his DOB. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac Okay, thanks. I haven't made many discussions before, so I'm not fully sure how it works, but the general consensus for the date of birth inclusion seems to be to include it. Is this enough to add it if I link to this discussion and the relevant Wikipedia guidelines? Strugglehouse (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Since you, me, and CNMall41 are the main three participants in this discussion, I'd like to get CNMall41's thoughts on the matter before it gets enacted; while it's not strictly necessary I always like to extend the courtesy to all discussion participants. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac Alright, thanks. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

We can deduce things from a Twitter post, yes. It still isn't something widely published in reliable sources so there is always a potential WP:BLPPRIVACY issue. Because of the comment he made on Twitter, can we reasonably infer that he has no objection to his date of birth being posted publicly on Wikipedia? Even the article in Wired only says his age. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we can include "sources linked to the subject". It doesn't have to be widely published if it's a self-published. Rober has not complained about the inclusion of his birthdate, nor is he borderline notable. He posted his birthday publicly on Twitter. He isn't trying to hide it. Yes, the Wired article only says his age, but, using this age and the date the article was posted, this alone allows us to work out his birth year down to either 1980 or 1981. Using this, and the tweet of his, we can work out that his birthday is March 11, 1980. Strugglehouse (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we can use sources linked to the subject. We have one source, of him Tweeting, which is NOT publicly posting his date of birth. It's not like he posted it on his Twitter profile, he's simply replying to someone's Tweet in a general conversation. As far as "widely published," I am referring to BLPPRIVACY where it says we generally include "full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources." His date of birth is neither widely published nor is Twitter a reliable source. I would always err on the side of privacy when it comes to BLP. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Of course privacy is important, but these sources pass all the privacy checks. As I have already said, it passes WP:BLPPRIVACY as it is self-published. It does not need to widely published if it is self-published. The sources need to be widely published OR self-published, not both. He is certainly not trying to hide it by posting it on a public social media profile. Tweets can appear on anyone's timeline, whether they are actual tweets or replies, and whether they follow someone or not. This means anyone on Twitter can see this full conversation, where Rober states his age and birthday. In this full thread, he himself is stating his full date of birth, publicly. This also passes WP:TWITTER, as it's not an exceptional claim or unduly self-serving. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If privacy is important, why the push? It is of utmost importance and unless we have something more than a deduction from a Tweet, we need to err on the side of caution. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Full Name and Birth Date (2)

Hello,

I posted about this before, but the conversation died down, so I have reopened this a new talk page post.

I have added Rober's full name and birth date a few times now, but they keep getting reverted by the same user. I believe they should remain.

Firstly, Rober's full name. The sources I added were a patent owned by Rober, this source from Inspirationfeed, and this source from Nairobi Wire. I am not sure if the patent passes WP:BLPPRIVACY, as I would assume this information has to be published publicly online. I also do not know if the other sources are reliable. I don't mind if Rober's middle name is not included because of these sources.

Next, his date of birth. The sources I used for that were the Wired article which was already on the page, as well as this tweet and this tweet from Rober's official Twitter account. The reliable Wired article was already on the page, and still is, so no discussion is required for that. The Twitter source was removed before because "Twitter is not usable", and just recently because I need to "have consensus". However, I believe that they are usable, and I am utterly confused as to why I need to seek consensus on the talk page for this. The sources pass WP:DOB, as they "published by [...] sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public," (i.e. Rober is posting these to his public Twitter account) and sources like this are used all over Wikipedia. Why do we need to seek consensus just for Rober?

Due to all of this, I believe that my additions (at least the DOB) should stay.

Thoughts? Strugglehouse (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I have sub-sectioned your header. I said above, the Twitter post is a perfectly acceptable way of verifying a date. The subject himself saying "it's my birthday" doesn't get any more "accurate" than that, and CNMall41's insistence that we need to have third-party sourcing for something that does not need to be is problematic. On the other hand, I see no reason to include his middle name. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac Thank you. I completely agree with you. The Wired article that is on the page actually says his middle initial ("B.") so I think we should just include that until a reliable source can be found for his full name. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac:, The only reason I am persistent is because WP:BLPPRIVACY would outweigh WP:BLPPRIMARY. However, I did find this which would could be considered the current consensus so I will relent based on that. I still feel we need to be sure about someone being willing to have their DOB published on Wikipedia and believe if more people knew it could be done based on a Tweet, they may reconsider. But consensus is consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am however unable to find anything that would support this. You have a patent with a middle name and an article with a middle initial. As "the standard for inclusion of personal information of livings persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified," there is no need to include these. Have these been "widely published" per WP:BLPPRIVACY? No. Maybe an RfC to reach a conclusion similar to this may be in order. But again, the need to adhere to BLP guidelines is stronger than your want to include a subject's middle name or even middle initial. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 His middle initial is widely published. See this Google search, this source, this source, and this source. It was already on this page completely fine, before you removed it. No one else has had a problem with it. Please stop removing correctly sourced information that follows Wikipedia rules. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Asking me to stop adhering to WP:BLPPRIVACY so you can circumvent WP:ONUS is strange to me. Consensus would be required so you will need to obtain such prior to adding it back in. If I can be shown I am wrong (like the DOB issue), I will gladly add it back myself. Until then, ONUS is on you. I do not consider the references you shown to meet "widely published."--CNMall41 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course, if you feel that my conduct you are asking me to stop isn't appropriate, I am always open to sanctions from the appropriate venue.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 I am in no way asking you to stop following WP:BLPPRIVACY. That guideline reads that "Wikipedia includes full names [...] that have been widely published by reliable sources". I agree that the sources for his full middle name probably aren't reliable. But the ones for his middle initial are. I believe they are widely published, because there are so many of them. You removed some for being in violation of WP:OVERLINK. I assume you were referring to WP:OVERCITE? This proves that there are many sources for this, because it's overkill to include them all.

I also don't interpret WP:ONUS as "we need to seek consensus for the addition of any information", I see it as "someone may disagree with the addition of something, and that is when consensus is needed". Since you have disagreed with the addition of Rober's middle initial, then I suppose consensus would need to be found. I am happy to add another talk page entry to find consensus. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You are correct with OVERCITE. My fingers do not always type what my brain is thinking so thanks for the correction. A new thread for consensus would be a good idea. I don't really care if it is added or not as long as it meets guidelines but feel that BLPPRIVACY is the primary criteria so it does not in my opinion. Removing the sources is not proof that it is widely cited as some of those sources wouldn't be reliable for citing that information anyway. They were removed as they were not necessary at this point. If you feel these sources meet the "widely published" definition and there is consensus they are reliable for that purpose, then adding them back will not be an issue. Right now, my main concern is following the process which is necessary, especially for a BLP, so thank you for finally acknowledging that. If this were an article about a company, I would have less gripe. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Okay. Thank you. I will write a new talk page entry to get consensus about this. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

On a separate note, if you are unable to generate consensus from a new thread, a RfC could be a good route. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Okay, thanks. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)