Talk:Ken Wahl

message: This article contained an alleged real name for Wahl and an alleged birthdate without any sourcing for this at all. Under the core Wikipedia policy for biographies of living people, that is incredibly irresponsible. Here's what Entertainment Weekly, a major Time Inc. publication, with actual, professional reporters and feature writers, was able to find about those two things, so I wonder what Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist uncovered those particular claims:
Wikipedia disallows the often-unreliable wikia IMDb to be used as a footnote reference, and the website NNDB is simply an aggregate that doesn't do original reporting and does not say where it gets the birthdate it lists, which is almost certainly from IMDb. These are not reliable sources under Wikipedia definition. I had initially just commented out the birthdate claim. It's clear that under WP:BLP it has to be removed, as does the supposed birth name. Read the policy for biographies of living people before editing a Wikipedia biographical article, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Incredibly irresponsible

message: ...cited in this article originally ran four pages online. For some reason, only the first page now seems to appear online. The quotes in the story appear in the print version of the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it available on an archiving service? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The archive only has the first page, for some reason. The only place I see that transcribes the rest of the print article is some random site: http://mypaper.pchome.com.tw/alyxandra/post/1240042641. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The ''Entertainment Weekly'' article...

message: As the article notes, CBS, which had Wahl under contract, confirmed the birthdate given here. The network that employed him is a reliable source reported in a reliable WP:SECONDARY source.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate

message: Tenebrae has taken issue with a series of good recent edits I made. I have given way on the issue of Wahl's date of birth because Tenebrae made a reasonable argument. As to all of the other edits I made, I stand by them. Tenebrae believes that Wahl's personal website should be used as a source on his life history. Given Wahl's self-acknowledged dishonesty about his background (see https://www.scribd.com/document/146230663/Ken-Wahl-interview), which is cited in the article), I disagree. Tenebrae has also falsely and baselessly accused me of having a conflict of interest. His/her posture appears to be that he/she is entitled to revert edits without stating a valid reason (or, in some cases, any reason at all) and that I am somehow not allowed to reinstate them. That is unfortunate. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Berrely has now gotten in on the act, accusing me of unexplained content removal. To the contrary, I provided summaries for the vast majority of my edits to this page and I stand by those edits. If you have a specific concern, I will try to address it. But I'd appreciate it if we could disagree honestly. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have started a discussion per the WP:BRD cycle and a consensus has not been reached, you should not be continuing to make your edits. — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • Talk∕Contribs 18:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If no reason has been given for reverting some of my edits aside from a totally baseless allegation that I have a conflict of interest, shouldn't those edits be reinstated? 74.67.45.185 (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I did indeed mention in my edit summary, there is no basis for claiming the subject's official website is unusable. Wikipedia RS policy is very well-established that official sites, whether for business or people, may be used for non-qualitative claims. That is exactly what we're doing with Ken Wahl's official website. We're not treating it as gospel, but as simply one more source. Where it conflicts with other sources, we note it. That's the responsible thing to do — rather than wholesale removal of cited content and its citations, and edit-warring, as you have done.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Tenebrae, you needlessly reverted several edits that had nothing to do with your objection. You also accused me of having a conflict of interest. The responsible thing for you to do would be to focus on the area of disagreement, rather than undoing every single edit I made and making baseless accusations. That was counterproductive. In any event, I disagree with you about Wahl's date of birth and related info. I think there is so much confusion about his origins in the available sources that the encyclopedia would be improved by simply making reference to that confusion and moving on, rather than getting into the weeds about the various and sundry versions of his life history.  However, if the article continues to include those details, it also has to mention that he has lied--not just been "elusive"--about his life history. At least then readers can make an informed decision about the reliability of information contained on his official website, which I don't see as a reliable source. I have made a variety of constructive and needed edits while leaving the details about his background largely intact. I hope you will refrain from mass-reverting those edits. I am trying to work with you here, but it takes two to tango. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

text: No, I DID respect the fact that two registered editors disagreed with me, I left Wahl's website in the article as a cited source, I attempted to dialogue with you here, and I moved on to make other edits. You are misrepresenting my actions, again. Apparently, you think you're observing WP:BRD by objecting to one edit and reverting not just that edit, but 10 others. You're blowing the situation way out of proportion, and it seems to me that you are the one with an agenda. This is absurd, and it's unfortunate that an administrator went along with it. Not going to waste more time going back and forth with you. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: BRD protocol says you are to reach consensus with other editors before making any of the contested edits. You did not reach consensus, and instead simply did what you wanted. In all seriousness, it simply may be that you're unsure of the definition of "consensus," and so you might want to look it up in a dictionary. Not being snarky but sincere. -Tenebrae (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Tendentious editing

message: Could someone please close the  template at the end of the second paragraph of the "Early life and career" section?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request