Talk:Jeffree Star

Template:Maintained Template:Multidel

Edit request on 4 May 2012

Jeffree is a trans woman. The pronoun used to address her should be feminine (her/she) Lyric95 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Lyric95 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Wikipedia does follow an individual's stated gender pronoun preference (see Identity), but only if referenced and verifiable by a Reliable Source (RS) which quotes the individual. Social media outlets MySpace, Twitter, or YouTube are not sufficient. The references I checked said 'crossdresser', etc., but no sourced gender pronoun preference. Dru of Id (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The consensus among Jeffree's Facebook fans is that he should be referred to as "he", but they also use words normally used for females, like "beautiful" and "bitch" (usually meant affectionately). He might call himself "one of the girls", but I suspect that his gender identity is actually male. He has said that he's more interested in breaking the barrier between man and woman than being one or the other. Mcavic (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Information from 2011 onward?

Currently, the article says nothing of Star's career after 2010 and his Beauty Killer album. Since he has released several singles, a music video, signed to a major label, and has plans of releasing a new extended play soon, shouldn't this information be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethjohnson95 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Omit November 15, 1985 birth date

I think we should omit the November 15, 1985 birth date at this point. The first posting of the birth date was this on May 29, 2012 by Shivertimbers433, and the next edit was on June 2, 2012 by Jsteininger[1] who changed the year from 1985 to 1987. The first posting of the birth date doesn't appear to be supported by a reliable source and, as OlYeller noted,[2] there is no indication that the website linked is showing "the" Jeff Steininger of this article, just "a" Jeff Steininger. Shivertimbers433 then added a second reference,[3] which does't appear to support the listed born date. Two other editors looking at the reference thought that it supported the November 15, 1985 birth date, so I might be missing something. Jsteininger then added a link to Jeffree Star's twitter account that has Jeffree Star confirming November 15 as his birthday,[4] but that doesn't help. There's no dispute over the November 15 date, (but we don't have a Wikipedia reliable source for that either). The dispute is whether he was born in 1985 or 1987. This article says he was 22 years old on the date November 21, 2008. If he was born November 15, 1985, he would be 23? Of course, the article could have been written before November 15, 2008 and only published on November 21, 2008. He was 20 on the date May 22, 2007.[5] Two days later, was 21 on the date May 24, 2007.[6] Another article says he was 21 on the date November 2, 2007. He 23 on the date December 8, 2010.[7] He was 23 on the date December 9, 2010.[8] Not sure if this helps but another article says "Jeffree Star started off as a make-up artist at the age of 15." At around age 18, Star put a couple of videos online for fun.[9] I don't think we can confirm his birtdate from any of the above sources. Some of the info for case numbers 20235CM, CY298836, CM46498PEA, and 46563KH at https://ocapps.occourts.org/CourtIndex/ is available. His birth date is 11/15/1985 per the court records, but WP:BLPPRIMARY say public records for date of birth are not viable as sources for articles. Since we have no Wikipedia reliable sources for the November 15th date or either 1985 or 1987 year, the issue is over contentious material, and a survey of the reliable sources above put his age as varying, seems best to omit date of birth from the article, including metadata and categories, at this point in time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the November 15 and remove the year. and maybe include a notation that a reliable source has to be presented. Insomesia (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

COI

The article has been edited heavily by the subject of the article. He has added claims such as that videos of his have "gone viral" when there's no indication that this is the case. The editor has been asked several times to communicate with others but refuses and continues to edit the page regularly.

Recently, Insomesia has attempted to remove the COI template without explanation and has refused, after several attempts, to use the talk page. Here's the place where Insomesia can explain why the article is OK and indicate if they've even read through it for issues instead of edit warring. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, here, here, and here are the COIN discussions regarding this situation that Insomesia has been alerted to but ignored.

I understand wanting to remove COI tags from articles that don't need it but doing so without doing any actual research is just a waste of other's time. Insomesia, had you simply checked COIN like I suggested or even stated that you see no issue with the article, this could have been avoided. Instead, it looks like you've been blindly edit warring because you're afraid of a "mark of shame". OlYeller21^Talktome 05:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at COIN, here. The tag clearly states that the article is being edited by someone with a conflict of interests and it "may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies". Unless someone can verify that it doesn't, the tag holds up. No one has. Furthermore, I'm not going to do it if it means to keep the articles good state will require checking the plethora of edits that the subject of the article makes to the article on a regular basis. I have no desire to be the enabling watchdog not do I have any desire to edit war with an editor who wishes to remove the template because they emotionally feel that it's a mark of shame. OlYeller21^Talktome 05:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• The tag is vague and unhelpful to pointing out what specific clean-up issues are being flagged. That's why you were asked several times to be specific if you weren't willing to address the problems more constructively. We should not have to guess what's on your mind. One of those discussions, by the way, pointed out that another user had a fan site about the subject, another discussion pointed out that still another user was claiming to represent him ... and another discussion was about removing date of birth which was poorly sourced and contentious. Now that several people have hacked through this can the tags be removed or do you have some other clean up issue? Insomesia (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, the subject has filled this article with YouTube links, "sourced" content to his own blog, scattered namedropping and peacock words throughout, etc. Until some further de-crappifying is done, and we establish that the subject will not come along and revert our cleanup, seems to me the tag needs to stay on. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with OrangeMike. If you read the tag, it indicates that problems may exist and until we can not only be sure that the article conforms to all WP policies and guidelines, but that the subject of the article won't continue to cause issues in the article, the tag should stay. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You can make the same inane supposition about almost every article - they all could have problems, they all may have someone with a COI show up at some point. Shall we let fear of possibilities govern policies now? Insomesia (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me add, I have seen no evidence that the subject has been unreasonable about collaboration. He may simply not understand how biographies are crafted on wikipedia-en. It wouldn't be the first time a BLP subject has in good faith attempted to edit "their" article against policy and guideline. It is our job to assist them edit within policy -- not to make them feel unwelcome.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I do my best to work with people who are attempting edit an article with which they have a connection. Here, here, and here are where I tried to communicate with the editor. Hillcrest98 tried to communicate with the editor here. Uzma Gamal tried to communicate with them here. Shivertimbers433 attempted to here (although it was more of a warning than an attempt at communication). That's just on his talk page which he's never edited let alone responded on. Devin may have scared them off and in this edit summary, Steininger claims to have recieved hatemail from Devin. The editor has never used a talk page and seems to only communicate with others through edit summaries. Personally, I think others have been more than accommodating but I'd be willing to look past all transgressions if he'd just communicate with someone. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I almost forgot, Jeffreesworld claimed to represent Steininger was indefinitely blocked for edit warring and blanking sourced content. Soon after the block, Jsteininger appeared, editing the same articles. It's clear that that one claims to be Steininger while the other claims to represent him. Just thought I'd mention that so people can get an idea as to how long the subject of the article and a representative of the article have been attempting to control the content of the article. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Allegedly. You have zero evidence whatsoever that the subject has any knowledge or connection to this article at all. Unless one of these users demonstrates indisputable ties then we can only assume it's someone infatuated with the subject which would seem to fit into the subject's career spanning nearly a decade of social network activities with super fans supporting him. We cannot assume these accounts are in any way tied to the subject. Insomesia (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Zero evidence? You do realize that they claim to be the subject of this article and a representative of that same person, right? I assumed good faith and used WP:DUCK to take them at their word. Do you have any evidence that they are not who they claim to be? In case you're just not trusting me or haven't seen the diffs, here is where Jsteininger claims to be the subject of the article (he's done it multiple times). Here's where Jeffreesworld claims to represent the subject of the article.

Why would we assume they're lying? Even if they're overzealous super fans, are we really going to spend time splitting hairs here and move between the designation of COI and POV issues when ultimately, the article obviously needs attention either way? Who are we protecting? An editor that has absolutely no interest interacting with other editors who are trying to assist them?

At any rate, I don't see your arguments gaining traction. Perhaps we can move on and improve the article? OlYeller21^Talktome 02:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, zero evidence except that some anonymous person claims to have an association. That amounts to us having zero evidence that they are. Hacking away at the article has already taken place and yet you have failed to demonstrate that this is meant as a badge of shame rather than the cleanup tag that it is. We don't leave it in place, we do whatever clean up and remove it. Since you are showing extraordinary ownership issues and I have been unable to read your mind up to this point, perhaps you can be clear when - assuming deletion is not the goal - will the article be free of these shame badges? Insomesia (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I refuse to participate in the conspiracy theories and it appears that everyone else feels the same way. If you want to actually improve the article, I'll be here for discussion. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can get back to the core of the issue? When will you remove the COI tags? Or are they a semi-permanent fixture? I already been improving the article so there's no reason to infer I haven't. Insomesia (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

We can remove the tag when we agree here that the COI editor's affect on the article has been addressed. You've been improving the article? You made one edit.

As I thought, WP:Ownership. Why should I do anything right now when the three of you are tag-teaming to remove - so far - two-thirds of the article. You seem to be operating from a standard that exists only in your minds. It's really disgusting to watch. Insomesia (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• After reviewing the edits i have removed the COI tags - both of them - as the accused editor's contributions have all been effectively obliterated. What remains are cleanup issues that they had nothing to do with so continuing to imply that the subject is involved in shaping the article is false. Clean up can of course take place but we should not be advertising that the subject is somehow to blame for what is currently there. Insomesia (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  In no way have all of the concerns been addressed. Insomesia, it seems clear now that you're goal here is not to improve the article. You continually edit war to remove the tag but have made one single edit to try and improve the article and frankly, it looks like you just blanked sourced content. I have no faith that your intent is to do what's best for Wikipedia in this case as it seems that your main and only goal is to remove improvement templates. What exactly is your point here? All I've heard you say, ever, is that you don't like the COI tag, all while requiring others to do work that you yourself are not willing to do. If this continues and you continue to ignore the opinions of others and remove the templates before clean up has finished and consensus has been reached that the article is in good shape, I'll be forced to request a topic ban. This has gone on long enough. Help with actually improving the article and the encyclopedia or I'll do what I need to do to keep you from hindering that process. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  False again. I asked you for specific clean-up items and you didn't both with anything until you filed a (what seems to me) trumped up COIN report, now the three of you are simply removing content and refs regardless if they actually improve anything or not. No wonder other editors feel unwelcome here. At least with my voice you can't pretend there is consensus. It's more a case of 3 vs 1 all while maintaining the accused COI-er, whose edits have all been obliterated, is somehow responsible for all other editors' actions on the article. Clearly you are overly passionate, and not in a good way that serves this article. Threatening me with a topic ban seems to fall in line with the heavy-handed tactics I've witnessed so far. Why would I want to work in this toxic atmosphere? I'll wait until your pogrom is done and hope i can keep the article from being deleted, but maybe just stubbing it down to a few sentences is the goal? Insomesia (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead refs

Could someone remove the double reference in the lead? Also, some of those links probably need to go. Ticket sales sites are reliable for selling tickets, not biographical data. Nor should they be considered reliable for actual sales data, as they have their own COI at stake.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of those were there originally to establish notability. I guess that's not surprising with it having been in AfD or DRV 9 times. I think the whole article relies far too heavily on primary sources but the lead does seem to have far more references than it needs and sometimes, the reference doesn't support the claim it's used for. They may still be valuable but we'll have to take the time to check each one. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Clean up

I'm going to take a break for a while but wanted to give others an idea as to what I'm doing. When I started, the most glaring problem I saw was that, while almost every claim in the article had a reference, the references used were often dead, primary sources, poor sources for information, or simply didn't support the claim they were meant to. I've been attempting to go through and clean up all the references in the article so that when they're all cleaned up, one can easily go through and read each claim and either verify it on their own or check the reference to see that it verifies the information it's intended to verify. As I mentioned before, there are still lots of primary sources to verify information and I think finding secondary sources may be an issue as most of Star's sales are driven by him and his MySpace page as opposed to media coverage. If that's the case, we can address each contentious claim that only has a primary reference. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Career section needs cleaning up as well. The article reads as a timeline, not a biography of the salient points of Starr's career. There is much promotional fluff that needs to be removed or toned downed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree; there is a great deal of non-notable detail masquerading as significant achievement. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that as well. I won't been editing the article for another few hours, it at all tonight. Feel free to pare down the career section if you have time. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I took a stab, but it needs a lot more work. Perhaps we need just two graphs.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)