Talk:James Averdieck
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
restoring outdated information
[edit]Hello I am editing my wikipedia page - James Averdieck - to update my personal status. I am no longer married to Annie and want to update to state my fiancé is Charlotte. I have done this twice now and it changes for a few hours then reverts back to the old content. How can you help me make sure my edits change permanently please?
Thank you James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javerdieck 1165 (talk • contribs)
- @Javerdieck 1165: Please review the policy on autobiographical articles; it is strongly advised that you not edit about yourself, instead you may make edit requests on article talk pages for any changes you feel are needed.
- With regard to the specific change, the information about your personal status is not in the source currently provided in the article. Unfortunately, we cannot simply take your word for it that things have changed, as we have no way of knowing you are who you say you are at this time. (I would suggest that you confirm your identity with Wikipedia by emailing the address listed in the paragraph this link takes you to.) Even if we did, we would need a documented source for the information. Is the change in your personal status in a source similar to the source the article had for your prior status? 331dot (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have removed the disputed section because there are no current, independent, reliable sources available for verification. Vexations (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Vexations:, the 2006 Daily Telegraph article abut James Averdieck refers to "James and Annie Averdieck" and the photo of them and two children is captioned "James and Annie Averdieck with their family", and the article itself includes some details about the children. The 2010 Evening Standard article states "James Averdieck, 44, lives with his wife and two children in south-west London." Both The Daily Telegraph and the Evening Standard are reliable sources.
- Rather than the now deleted "He is married to Annie, they have two children, and live in south-west London", how about we replace that with "As of 2010, Averdieck was married to Annie, they had two children, and lived in south-west London." We should also re-add "Children: 2" to the infobox, and for now at least leave out "Spouse(s): Annie". Edwardx (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have removed the disputed section because there are no current, independent, reliable sources available for verification. Vexations (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
We don't have to a trivial factoid that is based on an old source and does not contribute to or establish the importance, significance or encyclopedic relevance of the subject and which in all likelihood is no longer true. While it was once a verifiable fact. It's now disputed, and we have no way to verify the claim other than to take Javerdieck 1165's word for it, which we can't do because he's just "somebody on the internet", just like me. And even if sent us his birth certificate, we'd still not mention his new fiancee because nobody wrote about it in an independent, reliable source. --Vexations (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Vexations I have copied the rest of the discussion here so that others can follow it more easily, and because your argument does not address my points. It is not about the notability of James Averdieck, he is notable; or about whether or not to include mention of a new fiancee, which we cannot due to the absence of any reliable source. The question is only whether or not we should include mention of his marriage and children, and you are not making any policy-based argument against their inclusion. Edwardx (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Edwardx I didn't explicitly refer to WP:BLPREMOVE but my argument is contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed; we have no reliable sources that can be used verify that Averdieck is married. Yes, he was married as of 12:01AM GMT 04 Mar 2006 per The Telegraph. We don't really know for sure if he still is married but someone who claims to be him says he isn't married anymore. To rewrite that section in the form you propose suggests that something is going on that we can't source. It suggests he's no longer married but we can't prove it. If you ask me if I am married and I reply "I was married as of 04 Mar 2006", would you find that a satisfactory answer? Would you think that I am still married? Probably not. But would you know? I bet you'd find that while it might technically be true, I didn't really tell you anything. It's non-knowledge and such stuff does belong in an encyclopedia. Now it's your turn: Why must we include it? (per WP:BURDEN) --Vexations (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Vexations We no doubt have numerous BLPs which state that someone is married, when they have subsequently divorced or even remarried. It is hard work trying to keep the many 1000s of BLPs up-to-date. The fact that he was married as of 2010 is not contentious. Nor is the two children. The citing is solid. The compromise I am suggesting merely tweaks the previous wording to allow for the possibility that they are no longer married. Including my proposed rewrite cannot reasonably be construed as "potentially defamatory material" per WP:BLPREMOVE. And WP:BURDEN states, "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." Which is the case here. Can we now proceed with my proposal please? If not, can I suggest we raise it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? Edwardx (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support Edwardx's proposed wording "As of 2010, Averdieck was married to Annie, they had two children, and lived in south-west London." Its sourced to two RSs and marriages are a standard part of any biography. It is no way a "factoid" and can be supplemented with a divorce and remarriage when reliable sources are available in that respect. The information is not disputed, it is merely historical. Who is disputing that he was married to Annie? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Edwardx I'm not interested in pursuing this further. Let's leave it at this: You have not explained why it must be included, I disagree with your proposal and your interpretation of policy, but I'm not going to escalate by bringing it to the level of a noticeboard. I think it is unwise to include information that is both trivial and changes frequently. For example: I've lived in more than 25 different locations in six countries. To say that Vexations lives and works in Frankfurt am Main, Germany is both unimportant and next to impossible to maintain because it changes all the time. My nationality might be a bit easier, because that doesn't change very often. My date and place of birth are better, because those don't change. So it is preferable to use those as basic biographical facts, and postpone describing a state of affairs that is in flux until such time that it does not change anymore. IOW, wait until I'm dead. But really, we're arguing over bits of information of (very) little consequence. Except for the people involved of course, who probably think we've lost our marbles. Poor James is now blocked because he's "famous" and someone might be trying to impersonate him.[2] He can't even comment here. One last thing; I think it is sexist to refer to men by their full name and women only by their first name. James Averdieck, Annie and Charlotte. Really. In this day and age. Vexations (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- As the amendments that I am proposing are backed by reliable sources and non-contentious, any burden of proof would seem to lie with whoever wishes to remove them. As for any sexism, we do not know Annie or Charlotte's surname, although we can perhaps infer that Annie changed hers to Averdieck on marriage. As you do not wish to engage further, I will now proceed with the proposed changes. Edwardx (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Edwardx I'm not interested in pursuing this further. Let's leave it at this: You have not explained why it must be included, I disagree with your proposal and your interpretation of policy, but I'm not going to escalate by bringing it to the level of a noticeboard. I think it is unwise to include information that is both trivial and changes frequently. For example: I've lived in more than 25 different locations in six countries. To say that Vexations lives and works in Frankfurt am Main, Germany is both unimportant and next to impossible to maintain because it changes all the time. My nationality might be a bit easier, because that doesn't change very often. My date and place of birth are better, because those don't change. So it is preferable to use those as basic biographical facts, and postpone describing a state of affairs that is in flux until such time that it does not change anymore. IOW, wait until I'm dead. But really, we're arguing over bits of information of (very) little consequence. Except for the people involved of course, who probably think we've lost our marbles. Poor James is now blocked because he's "famous" and someone might be trying to impersonate him.[2] He can't even comment here. One last thing; I think it is sexist to refer to men by their full name and women only by their first name. James Averdieck, Annie and Charlotte. Really. In this day and age. Vexations (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Edwardx I didn't explicitly refer to WP:BLPREMOVE but my argument is contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed; we have no reliable sources that can be used verify that Averdieck is married. Yes, he was married as of 12:01AM GMT 04 Mar 2006 per The Telegraph. We don't really know for sure if he still is married but someone who claims to be him says he isn't married anymore. To rewrite that section in the form you propose suggests that something is going on that we can't source. It suggests he's no longer married but we can't prove it. If you ask me if I am married and I reply "I was married as of 04 Mar 2006", would you find that a satisfactory answer? Would you think that I am still married? Probably not. But would you know? I bet you'd find that while it might technically be true, I didn't really tell you anything. It's non-knowledge and such stuff does belong in an encyclopedia. Now it's your turn: Why must we include it? (per WP:BURDEN) --Vexations (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- Vexations I have copied the rest of the discussion here so that others can follow it more easily, and because your argument does not address my points. It is not about the notability of James Averdieck, he is notable; or about whether or not to include mention of a new fiancee, which we cannot due to the absence of any reliable source. The question is only whether or not we should include mention of his marriage and children, and you are not making any policy-based argument against their inclusion. Edwardx (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)