Talk:Scott Baio

Birth year

Past discussion: Talk:Scott_Baio/Archive_1#Birth_year

Some early press might help clear it up. He's quoted as saying he was 13 when shooting Bugsy, but as far as I can tell, it was a relatively quickly made film.

I think 1960 is questionable enough that it requires better sources to stand alone. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• [1]
• [2]

Hmmm. --Ronz (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The 1961 birth date has a Time cite, and thank you for that. We still need a cite for "1960" though, or it can't really stay, per BLP.--2604:2000:1382:E2B2:0:DA07:D6E:614D (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've found two quotes from him where he explicitly denies 1961. From his own mouth, it seems like it was an IMDb error that stuck around a while, which would explain the stray mentions of it in Time and such. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hm, looking around it would appear he did chop a year off his age when he was young. Maybe he wised up with age? :p Nohomersryan (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

His personal website used to say it was '61 (link above).

I think that's good enough to have both. --Ronz (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The New York Birth Index also supports 1960. Muzilon (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

This issue is nonsense because Baio put the dispute to rest, in his own voice, on his official Twitter: ("My birthday is September 22, 1960). Are there any reliable sources unequivocally in Baio's own voice saying that his birth year is 1961? No. If you think I'm wrong, please provide the proof. Even the New York Birth Index confirms it's 1960, as do similar websites which get DOBs from official sources. Right now, the only evidence holding the 1961 argument together is an incorrect IMDb mention years ago (now corrected) that some publications copied and printed, including the current, lone reliable source supporting 1961, Time magazine, in which Mark Halperin injected 1961 after taking it from the other website. Everyone here knows now that he was born in 1960 so why pretend it's not so and continue fighting for the sole purpose of playing devil's advocate? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If Baio has given a correction to his previously statements that he was born in '61, then that might settle this. We don't reject reliable sources because of WP:OR or personal opinions. --Hipal (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You said, "We don't reject reliable sources because of WP:OR or personal opinions." Correct, yet that's precisely what you did. I removed no sources at all. I added sources, which you removed because they counter your point of view. Now, stop avoiding the issue with generalities, contradictions and gaslighting, and provide the proof I asked for. You appear to be the only editor since this issue was first discussed trying to take total control of how this is handled. Are you also Ronz? Do not remove reliable sources from the article. A famous entertainer's statement on his official social media account, in this case Twitter, is indeed a reliable source. In this instance, as reliable as you can get to settle this issue. There was absolutely no legitimate consensus to equate the evidence for 1961 to that of 1960. It is abundantly clear, especially from Baio's own statement, that he was born in 1960. Now, either provide the proof that Baio himself stated he was born in 1961 or admit that you don't have any. Finally, do not remove reliable sources again, including the Newsweek one you tried hiding from readers. A celebrity making a statement on an official social media account or official website is a reliable source with regard to personal data such as date of birth. Do you realize how foolish you sound saying that Baio is not a reliable source for his own date of birth ("He's not reliable for his own birth year")? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're not going to bother to read the past, linked, discussion, then I don't see how we can move forward. --Hipal (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've requested the article be protected once more over this. --Hipal (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I had already read everything. Your characterization of the discussions and evidence is inaccurate and self-serving. You have yet to provide the proof requested and instead continue your intransigence and gaslighting. Stop removing reliable sources in order to hide evidence from readers. Your inappropriate and aggressive editing is very disruptive to this project. What does it say? >>> 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As you've read everything, you know this dispute goes back far before I ever edited this article, and has been discussed by many other editors. You have no consensus for your changes, and such consensus is required. --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"Your changes"? My "changes" are merely to add reliable sources, which you keep removing, so knock off the nonsense gaslighting. No consensus required for reliable sources. Now, back to the real issue, which you keep pretending doesn't exist. Where's the proof I requested that Baio in his own voice has ever said his birth year is 1961? Stop being a disruptive, instransigent presence on this project and show it if it exists. If it doesn't, be an adult and just admit it. Baio already resolved this absurd dispute: 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Not that it matters, since Baio verified his DOB on his Twitter, but in the Career section in this article its says, "When he was 16, Baio was cast as The Fonz's cousin Chachi Arcola on Happy Days," which is a fact that's been published many times. Baio's first episode was the season 5 premiere called "Hollywood: Part 1" ("First appearance of Fonzie's cousin, Chachi Arcola"), which aired on September 13, 1977, nine days before his birthday. Do the math. That would've made him 16 when he was cast, turning 17 the week after that episode aired. If his birth year was 1961, he would've only been 15. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Since you wouldn't, or couldn't, provide the proof I was asking for to support your position, I did it for you because I only want accurate, solid content in the article. Having a reliable source in Baio's own voice saying he was born in 1961 was vital to this dispute. All the other evidence was very weak. Although this AP source is great, it's also very old (20 years), which indicates that for some unknown reason Baio portrayed himself as being a year younger at that time. Subsequently, he stopped doing that and apparently wanted to make that clear with the relatively recent post on his Twitter account that he was born in 1960. He also did that in 2017 when he acknowledged turning 57. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yet another unequivocal statement from Baio on his official Twitter account that his DOB is September 22, 1960. "I was born Sept 22 19-SIXTY (NOT 1961) the media has always had it wrong." 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't know if this was already mentioned.

I looked it up in Ancestry.com

DATABASE: New York, New York, U.S., Birth Index, 1910-1965

Name Scott Baio

Birth Date 22 Sep 1960

Birth Place Bronx, New York City, New York, USA

Certificate Number 40494 107.184.67.210 (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

He's not reliable for his own birth year

We've already established that he's given both 60 and 61 as his year of birth, so we have to use independent sources at this point. We have two reliable sources for the two years, so we've been including both. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Who's the "we" and "we've" you keep injecting? The few editors who've discussed this in the past? You claim that "He's" given 61 as his year of birth?? Really? Please provide reliable sources that show Baio, in his own voice, says his birth year was 1961. I'll bet zero exist. We know that he clearly addressed this matter on his official Twitter account when he said, "My birthday is September 22, 1960." One other point. You said there are "two reliable sources" for 1960. Actually, there are dozens of strong, reliable sources for 1960. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

See the previous discussion. --Hipal (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You see the previous discussion and provide the proof requested. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that in a previous discussion (Talk:Scott_Baio/Archive_1#Could_someone_flesh_out_Early_life_with_this_from_1977_interview, Baio is quoted as giving 1962 as well. I've not been able to find a copy of the reference to verify it. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yet again, no proof. Just talk. Show me, in Baio's own voice, him ever saying he was born in 1961 or any year other than 1960. This is proof in Baio's own voice that he was born in 1960: 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

His own website said 1961 [3][4], until 2010 when it was changed to 1960 [5]. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That was not in Baio's voice and it's the same source in duplicate. It was merely someone managing that website that posted the information. And, as you pointed out, it was later change e.g. corrected, which further supports 1960. But everyone, including you, already knew it was 1960 once Baio posted his full date of birth, himself, on his official Twitter account. Instead of trying so hard to "win," just admit that you know and believe he was born in 1960. The tone of all your comments indicate you don't even believe your own words. Please, just stop this foolishness. You knew as soon as you saw Baio's Twitter post >>> <<< that he was born in 1960. Just acknowledge it and move on. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We agree he's given multiple years, so he's unreliable. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

How to properly present and verify his date of birth

Relevant policies are WP:BLP (especially WP:DOB, and note the 2021 RFC), WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV.

My take is that we list '60 and '61. The one ref for '62 is worth considering. I'm not finding any reliable sources for '59, nor any other years.

How much, if any, weight does Baio's recent tweets deserve, given that he's stated at least three different years, and the majority of his life he's said '61? My interpretation of policy and the general consensus is to leave them out completely, unless there's an independent, reliable source that discusses the different years. As I already pointed out, a correction from Baio would be worth considering. I expect we'll be headed to BLPN at some point, but I'd like to be at a point where all proposals are supported by policy. --Hipal (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you're trying to pull, but this is now the third thread you've started on the current talk page about this this very topic/dispute; first as Ronz and then in the others as Hipal. Just yesterday, you refused to participate in a discussion on the second thread because you claimed you didn't want the discussion split, and so referred back to the first one. With the creation of this third thread, any reasonable person might conclude that you're purposely trying to confuse editors and steer them away from all the prior evidence and discussion, or lack thereof on your part. In any case, anyone can see from the above threads that your frequent pattern is to either ignore what's being said to you or, alternately, speak in very vague terms, and instead refer or link to an endless number of policy, guideline, essay, and other pages, even if they do not apply; and, most importantly, refuse to cooperatively participate to solve problems. It's as if your goal is to wear other editors down with your ongoing intransigence and gaslighting in the hopes that they will eventually get so frustrated with you that they'll simply give up and you'll "win". You have filed your noticeboard complaint about what's going on this article and, sadly, have refused to listen to the excellent feedback they have given you, preferring instead to fight on to the bitter end. > https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1077758860#Ip_disrupting_Scott_Baio 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm summarizing my perspective, and the policies that apply. --Hipal (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If you felt your perspective needed to be repeated, you should've done it in the already-existing thread(s). For the record, your long list of links are not all policies, nor do you provide any context whatsoever in terms of how each of them applies to this very focused dispute. While you included WP:V, an extremely important link you failed to specifically mention is its subsection WP:ABOUTSELF (or WP:TWITTER), which directly applies to this tweet and this tweet from Baio. You claim in this thread that "a correction from Baio would be worth considering", yet you have continually refused to accept his two very clear and definitive tweets about his own year of birth. One could conclude by all your actions that you actually have no interest in this dispute ever being settled because a stance like yours would guarantee it. Perhaps you should ask yourself one question: Who knows Scott Baio's date of birth more: a secondary source such as a newspaper, magazine or book; or Scott Baio? I'll post any future comments in the previously-existing threads on this topic, not here. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping to find common ground with you and whoever else will participate. I'll continue here. --Hipal (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The lede ideally should not have any references, as it summarizes the article body. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus per MOS:LEADCITE. --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You allude to MOS:LEADCITE and decide that the interpretation and overall summary of it that you'll present to other editors is essentially that the lead shouldn't have any references? Well, "ideally". It is distractions, absurd comments, and misrepresentations like this that only serve to support the concern that your presence may be a disruption not only to this article, but more importantly to our collective goal of improving this project. Now, let's take a glance at the Manual of Style section you presented and see what it really says, particularly with regard to this dispute. It says, Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. The guideline also tells us that there is not...an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. We'll assume that you're not disputing the glaring fact that the debate over the subject's birth year began over eight years ago. The birth date or year is not even mentioned in the body. Finally, it should also be noted that your edit history shows that you added a ref to the lead as early as 2018, when you took control of this message board, and also did so as recently as a few days ago. You also restored the infamous Time magazine source in 2018 that had been removed. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The birth date should be in the body of the article, properly referenced. --Hipal (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

So, after these many years of your involvement in this dispute, you suddenly decide, while in the midst of your days-long noticeboard pleas, that Baio's birth date should be in the body of the article? This aligns with your other sudden determinations over the past 24 hours; that the neutrality of the entire article should be in dispute, that there are too many refs in the lead, and then that there shouldn't be any refs in the lead at all. It's not about the editing choices, but rather your constant inconsistencies and contradictions in what you say and do. But what's far more concerning is the fact that you've once again completely ignored almost every word an editor has said to you in response to your comments. You mischaracterized an important guideline, I countered it with evidence, and you pretend it doesn't exist. Your ongoing poking, prodding, and other disruptive actions, as well as your refusal to cooperatively participate in any meaningful discussion with editors is very problematic. Anyone can read this message board to verify what I'm saying. Your maneuvers go on and on, non-stop, including on the the noticeboard. One must wonder if you're here to help or incite. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hipal, please stop your disruptive editing. You mischaracterized MOS:LEADCITE (above), I responded and corrected with quoted evidence, you ignored everything I said, and then, finally, you had the nerve to make an edit with this edit summary. You not only pretended what you did never happened, but falsely implied that there was some sort of consensus or agreement. Then, on top of that, you do this, and justify it again by throwing out some non-linked policies with no context and and yet another essay. You reverted your "test" (which should not be done in an article), but these edits again show why you make it very difficult for other editors to work with you. You do not care what anyone tells you, and rarely even acknowledge what is being said to you. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what, if any, indication should be used when multiple possible birth dates are presented (eg some articles mention "sources differ"). I'll look further, but this might be best to bring to BLPN. --Hipal (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yet more evidence of my earlier concern: that you appear to have absolutely no interest in simply settling this matter by accepting what Baio has consistently and repeatedly stated himself on his official accounts over the past 10+ years, as he did here and here, confirming that he was born in 1960 Also, he includes it here on his official website, which he is actively involved in operating to this day. Even the New York Birth Index, which uses data from official government records, verifies it. Although we cannot use the NYBI as a source here, it's yet more solid evidence of the birth year. I am asking you again to please provide all links you have that show Baio, in his own voice, stating he was born in any year other than 1960. Just give us a simple list, so all editors can see it. You have continually insisted that Baio himself has said he was born in 1959, 1961, and 1962, but have provided no proof. So, please, show us that Baio actually stated another birth year. That way, we can review what was stated, the credibility of the sources, and the dates they were published. If you can provide anything that was put out after 2010, that would be very valuable since his tweet saying "I was born Sept 22 19-SIXTY (NOT 1961)" was in 2010. Please do not ignore this request once again; either provide the proof or simply acknowledge that you cannot find any. If that's the case, we could/should list his birth year as 1960, as he has definitively stated publicly, and then perhaps add a sentence that simply explains that prior to year XXXX, secondary sources differed on his birth year. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

A reminder to other editors that you are welcome to participate in the two previously-existing threads that Hipal/Ron started, rather than continuing the confusion caused by this third discussion he started on the same topic: "Birth year" (thread 1) and "He's not reliable for his own birth year" (thread 2). 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've made a version that I believe meets the relevant policies and general consensus for similar situations: [6]. --Hipal (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? After everything that editors have been telling you, are you seriously proposing a layout that removes every source from Baio's official accounts, including his two tweets definitively stating that 1960 is his birth year? You do not listen to or even acknowledge anything that anyone says to you. A reasonable person can only wonder if you are actually trolling all of us. Finally, and for the second time, stop doing live test edits in the article. Do it somewhere else. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It's the beginning of a proposal to change the article in an effort to resolve this eleven-year-old dispute. What is your preferred version other than the current version? --Hipal (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we examine all refs for DOB info?

It might be helpful to examine all references for dob information. My impression is that few said '60 before the reality shows, and very slowly '61 became more common after. If there's anything about the discrepancy in a reliable source, it would be helpful to include. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

(refactor) I'm unclear how common '60 vs '61 is at this point. I've found no independent, reliable sources discussing the two possible years. --Hipal (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

As a side note biography.com used to list '61: [7] --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

As we seem to still have a dispute, I'll give them a look over. --Hipal (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's an archive for the Confessions... ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20090106004523/http://www.vh1.com/shows/dyn/confessions_of_a_teen_idol/series_about.jhtml --Hipal (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

And for the ShowBizNews ref: [8] --Hipal (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The author for the wsj article is Mike Vilensky. --Hipal (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The author for the BuzzFeed ref is Matt Stopera. This is a very poor ref because it's simply a list. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2015/03/11/scott-baio-supports-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-for-president/ could be used as a replacement. --Hipal (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are two refs for his campaigning for and attending the funeral of Reagan. The Hollywood.com ref should be fine. The quote from a different reference may be undue per WP:QUOTE. --Hipal (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The second yahoo.com ref is dated July 19, 2016, authored by Hunter Walker. --Hipal (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The news.com.au ref is dated August 27, 2017. --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Mercury News ref was authored by Martha Ross. --Hipal (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The 2018 Newsweek ref should be titled "Who Is Renee Sloan? Scott Baio's Wife Diagnosed With Microvascular Brain Disease" --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason to continue here. If there's an independent reference that addresses the discrepancies directly, it might be useful to look closer. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the reference changes mentioned above. I didn't remove the quote. --Hipal (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive behavior. As was previously stated, no changes can be made until a clear consensus is reached. You are not the judge and jury here. Revert yourself. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

These are routine improvements, with not a single response to this discussion. --Hipal (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

(My response above was to the comment Stop your disruptive behavior. As was previously stated, no changes can be made until a clear consensus is reached. You are not the judge and jury here. Revert yourself. which was deleted against WP:TALK. [[9]] --Hipal (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC))

If there's no policy-based objection, I'll be restoring all these routine improvements. --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"wrong location/forgot to remove after originally posted, duplicate below where it was intended." Stoarm (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is where it was meant to go. Stoarm (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Inadvertent. Stoarm (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Baio's date of birth: admin noticeboard discussion

Editors may view the entire discussion, which has been closed. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That's no reason to revert or continue edit-warring. --Hipal (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Pre-Bugsy work

I've been running across mentions of pre-Bugsy acting. It might be worth searching for early biographies written around his success in Bugsy and Happy Days. --Hipal (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

So it doesn't get overlooked: "An Intimate Interview with Scott Baio". 16. Vol. 19, no. 2. 16 Magazines, Inc. August 1977. --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

https://jenniferschrinel.medium.com/so-who-is-scott-baio-and-why-do-people-not-take-the-time-out-before-they-jude-4a25a1414812 I've been unable to identify the specific month this was published. --Hipal (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

References in dispute

Current references in dispute: ...1960 or 1961

References

Per V, OR, and POV; we don't add references to demonstrate weight or viewpoints not actually in the references.

Per NOT, POV, and OR; we don't use non-independent sources to highlight the viewpoints in them without independent sources demonstrating that those viewpoints are noteworthy and of encyclopedic value. Such independent sources have not been found.

To address these problems, I continue to propose that we remove all but the Newsweek and AP references. --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

A date of birth isn't a viewpoint; it's a simple biographical statement of fact. Why shouldn't we use the first or second refs per WP:ABOUTSELF to source 1960 and then include {{efn|Some publications state that Baio was born in 1961.}} (citing the sources that support 1961 in the note, of course)? Schazjmd (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

What do the ABOUTSELF refs provide that the BLP-quality ones do not?

As mentioned above, he's given '61 most of his life, and even '62. He's not reliable for this information. --Hipal (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I've gone through the previous discussions, including in the archive, and don't find any sources mentioned of him specifically stating he was born in 1961. Publications saying he was born in 1961 could have been given the information by his manager or publicity team or copied it from each other, but we can't know where they got it and that does not make him personally an unreliable source for his date of birth. (Frankly, I suspect that his manager wanted to keep him in the "teen idol" age range as long as possible, so made him younger; there are even a few articles years ago that suggest he was born in '62.) But I don't think there's any good reason not to use his self-reported birthdate, sourced to him, then address the differing reported years in a footnote or even in the body. (There was even a charity party for his 50th in 2010[10] — not an RS, but suggestive that 1960 is correct.) We can even attribute it: Baio states he was born September 22, 1960, although for much of his career, it was reported that he was born in 1961 or 1962. Schazjmd (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The AP reference has him saying he was 40 when if he was born in 60, he was 41. Many references are like that, quoting him stating his age incorrectly. It's a common situation in the entertainment industry. I believe there's strong consensus to treat the person as unreliable in such situations, but that's something we could take to BLPN.

So, why give weight to these ABOUTSELF sources when we have better ones that quote him stating ages or birth years that are conflicting?

WP:DOB has been changed in the past year to reflect the results of this RfC which directly addresses conflicting sources. I'd like to go to BLPN to build upon that, but let's get rid of the cherry-picking and WP:OVERKILL problems first. --Hipal (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I was looking for an independent source that discusses the discrepancies in the reporting of Baio's age or evidence that we might claim a clear and consistent date of birth has been widely reported(quote from the RfC). I didn't find either, which puts us in a situation where it's unclear what to do beyond list '60 and '61, possibly '62 as well.

There's also an alternative presentation we could use: One footnote with a brief explanation as in Taylor Lorenz (one of the subjects of the RfC) and Lee Grant--Hipal (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: What would you prefer as an alternative? One independent reference for each year, plus the 2014 Twitter ref that seems to meet BLPSPS? Maybe presented as a single note rather than three separate citations? --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hipal, thanks for the link to that RfC, I missed that conversation when it happened. I'm not persuaded that a direct statement from Baio now is unreliable just because he was presented as younger through most of his career, but I recognize that you're not persuaded that he is, so a detailed note with refs such as in Lorenz and Grant seems to make the most sense. Schazjmd (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thank you for your input. Your first two posts in this thread present a great, logical summary, especially your opening sentence, which says, "I've gone through the previous discussions, including in the archive, and don't find any sources mentioned of him specifically stating he was born in 1961." Exactly. I asked Hipal/Ronz repeatedly to provide reliable sources that show Baio himself stating he was born in any year other than 1960. Each time, as you can see, he ignored the request and diverted the discussion. Baio himself has been abundantly clear, consistent and insistent over the past 10+ years that he was born in 1960. Baio's tweets comply perfectly with WP:ABOUTSELF (WP:TWITTER) and are vital to settle this dispute. Even the New York Birth Index, which I realize can't be used as a source, confirms 1960 as the birth year; the NYBI doesn't get birth dates wrong; they are taken straight from official government records. Not a single editor over the past month or so has agreed with Hipal/Ronz over the birth year, and the majority since this dispute began have said 1960. Administrator Uncle G provided excellent feedback and analysis about the situation in this noticeboard complaint that Hipal/Ronz filed a few weeks ago. Please read what Uncle G said. In any case, I believe the birth year should be shown in the lead as it is with Irene Cara, using just one birth year (1960) and then clarifying with a detailed note. Keep in mind that Baio's own statements (as opposed to sources merely framing what he allegedly said) have been firm and consistent, unlike Cara. The 50th and 60th birthday celebrations in 2010 and 2020 provide additional, overwhelming evidence that he was born in 1960. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for indicating a proposal. Could you indicate what references you want to use and what the "detailed note" that goes with them would say?

Please WP:FOC. Your statements about other editors are disruptive. Please stop.

Ignoring policy is not an option. WP:DOB says, If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, the consensus is to include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth

Ignoring references is not an option. For example: After hours of searching for and requesting any reliable sources for a DOB of 1961 __in Baio's own voice__, I finally found a solid one.[11] --Hipal (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd, I look forward to hearing your thoughts. As you can see from all the threads discussing this issue, it is probably necessary to now open an RFC, as an administrator suggested. It's likely the only way to get through the roadblocks that continue to be put up. This dispute requires analysis and input from numerous editors to open the road to a resolution. Would you be willing to start and facilitate the RFC? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd, please also note that when the other editor referred to WP:DOB just above (without linking it), he failed to include an extremely important part of that policy, which says: A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.1 Besides Baio having a 50th birthday celebration in 2010, and 60th in 2020, which received media coverage, we have, most importantly, his multiple tweets unequivocally stating his full birth date. Cherry-picking information from (unlinked) policies, guidelines, and other useful pages creates an impediment to problem-solving. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No proposal from the ip then? --Hipal (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone against removing all but three refs, as in: ...September 22, 1960 or 1961

(I'm not concerned at this moment which location in the article this is done, or if we group these refs into a single note) --Hipal (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

References

@Schazjmd, please indicate if you would be willing to start an RFC? If not, another unbiased editor can be found. We cannot make any changes to the disputed content until we receive input from numerous editors over an appropriate period of time and reach a clear consensus. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reduced the references to just three. --Hipal (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I see five concerns:

1. There appear to be reliable sources where Baio states he was born in '62. They are not included in the article currently.
2. The use of Baio's twitter feed as a ref for his year of birth is redundant, and Baio may be considered unreliable.
3. There may be a case for presenting only '60. There are no independent, reliable sources addressing the discrepancies with his year of birth, so editors need to take care to avoid SYN/OR.
4. There may be a case for making a note explaining the discrepancies of Baio's birth year. Again, there are no independent, reliable sources addressing the issue, and SYN/OR problems could result.
5. The positioning of the references should be in the article body rather than the lede per MOS:LEADCITE.

I suggest we whittle this down through discussion here and through BLPN, then try an RfC if we still need it. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive behavior. As was previously stated, no changes can be made until a clear consensus is reached. You are not the judge and jury here. Revert yourself. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to find common ground. I think we have it, given the lack of alternate proposals and policy-based objections. --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Going over the items listed above: --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

1 - 1962: per [12] "An Intimate Interview with Scott Baio". 16. Vol. 19, no. 2. 16 Magazines, Inc. August 1977. I was born on September 22, 1962... The ref was rejected then, so it may be best to do so again. The information on his pre-Bugsy work might be worth a mention though. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

2 - Baio's twitter ref: Probably best to remove as redundant. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

3 - Only list 1960: This seems worth pursuing, though probably with a note (#4 below). --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

4 - Provide a note explaining the year of birth discrepancies: This seems worth pursuing, no matter if we list '60 and '61, or just '60 (#3 above). --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

5 - Placement of references and any note: I don't want this complicating anything. This article is rated Start class, and it's an easy fix when it gets close to WP:GA. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked for current references for '61, and the best I could find is https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrities/scott-baio/ . I did find lots poor or unreliable sources likely based upon old versions of this Wikipedia article, or similarly unreliable or outdated references. --Hipal (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'll be reverting to the compromise to reduce the refs to just three, as there are still no responses. I'd prefer just two. --Hipal (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No reliable sources related to the disputed content will be removed until a proper discussion, such as an RfC, with input from numerous editors takes place, and then an uninvolved editor analyzes the responses and makes a determination. Stoarm (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Policy says otherwise, and not all those references are reliable. Consensus is based upon policy and discussion. If there are no policy-based arguments, then there's no consensus for the material. --Hipal (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm moving ahead with #4 above, a note describing the discrepancies with the references. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

In one ear... Resolution necessitates each party doing a lot of listening and very little talking. When that forumla is reversed, failure is virtually guaranteed. Stoarm (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Please move on or demonstrate the solution you think would work. WP:FOC. Digging up old discussions to make a point is disruptive. Interjecting in discussions with off topic comments is disruptive. Arbitration enforcement applies. --Hipal (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as the #4 note goes, my main concerns are SYN/OR problems making any general statement about sources, eg "Baio's year of birth was widely reported as 1961 through most of his career, but 1960 is now widely reported." vs "Sources differ. 1960 is currently widely reported, but 1961 was common throughout most of his career." --Hipal (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

...and out the other. No changes to the disputed content can be made until a proper discussion, such as an RfC, with input from numerous editors takes place, and then an uninvolved editor analyzes the responses and makes a determination. If one believes they are right, they should not fear and avoid the unbiased scrutiny of others. To stop talking and start listening takes courage. Stoarm (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting this discussion. --Hipal (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"Sources differ. Baio's year of birth was widely reported as 1961 through most of his career, but references currently report 1960". I'd rather leave it to others, but it's a start. --Hipal (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Example of footnote use with just the two refs: [13] "born September 22, 1960 or 1961" --Hipal (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Talking non-stop for nearly four years and ignoring all input from virtually every editor. WP:NOTTHERE. WP:RFC. Stoarm (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring prior warning to use sandbox and not article for test edits, and previewing intent to continue hostile and escalating behavior.123 Stoarm (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This is disruptive. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

So we have a proposal, strongly supported by policy and relevant general consensus [14]. I was unable to get alternative proposals from anyone else after over a month of discussion. I think focus should be on what we can state in a footnote given what references we have available. --Hipal (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

If one believes they are right, they should not fear and avoid the unbiased scrutiny of others. To stop talking and start listening takes courage. Stoarm (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruption. --Hipal (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that Stoarm refactored the 16:36 comment above after it was responded to [15] --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

So no policy-based objections then. --Hipal (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Resolution necessitates each party doing a lot of listening and very little talking. When that forumla is reversed, failure is virtually guaranteed. No changes to the disputed content can be made until a proper discussion, such as an RfC, with input from numerous editors takes place, and then an uninvolved editor analyzes the responses and makes a determination. Stoarm (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Stating the same disruptive thing again and again will get you blocked. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not going to wade through all of this, but I remember this dispute over his birth year has been around awhile. It is clearly 1960. Not that anyone is going to cite my evidence, but he graduated in 1978 from high school [16] and did not skip any grades. Under NY law he would have been 17 when he graduated high school in the normal course of affairs, because he has a September birthday. He wasn't 16 (as he would be if he really was born in '61). My !vote is that the article opening should say 1960 and only 1960 because it is plainly the truth. In the text there can be a reference to the discrepancy in sources because this issue has been around so long people may look it up. Sure news sources are wrong on details like this all the time (see, e.g., in one of my areas of interest: there is no 19th century actress that did not lie about her birth year, society demanded it to prolong their careers) and we do our best with what we have.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's it in a nutshell, what do we include and why. The policy is WP:DOB which states we include both when there are reliable sources for them, and we do not engage in original research to pick what we believe is correct. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Any sources that don't say 1960 are dumb and I hereby proclaim them so.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

DOB says we don't exclude reliable sources, nor do we engage in original research. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Milowent, thank you for your input. I hope you will decide to wade through all of the threads on this issue, including a bit in the archives back to 2018. It won't take very long and will give you a much clearer picture of the obstacles that brought us to this point. I agree with you that it's clearly 1960 based on all the evidence presented, thus the previous recommendation of using the presentation of Irene Cara's DOB in the lead as essentially a template. It aligns beautifully with both your !vote and your suggestion on how to implement it. Stoarm (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Milowent, since WP:DOB has yet again been invoked inaccurately and out-of-context in the lecture you received from the other editor, let's get it on the record that this vital part of that policy was left out: A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.4 We of course have this and this. Stoarm (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe that all editors that have brought it up agree he was born in 1960. That's not in dispute. --Hipal (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know what everyone is fighting over, but if this is not changed to say only 1960 in the opening line I shall go on another wiki hunger strike. I do not get a good feeling from the Irene Cara example because putting a note after the birthday implies there's something of value to say about it, and there's not in the case of Baio, though we can cover it in the text. But it would be better than the way it looks now, I admit.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I definitely don't want you to starve. Either way is fine with me. The infobox needs to match, though. P.S. I love what your wife is making. Stoarm (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It took me awhile, Milowent, but I just got your Irene Cara joke ("I do not get a good feeling..."). Good one. Stoarm (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

As a bold edit, I've updated the infox and encapsulated all the references and the note as an explanatory note. --Hipal (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Milowent, please give your thoughts on the current version, so that we can determine if we finally have a resolution. Let us know if the note, as opposed to covering it in the text, is acceptable to you. I think the note eliminates unnecessary drama that text might bring to the article. Either way, thank you. Your common sense, civility, and good humor has (hopefully) guided us to a speedy end to this very long-standing dispute. Stoarm (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Glad we're making progress. --Hipal (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Stoarm, i'm mostly pleased you got my Irene Cara joke, but I also think the updates by you and Hipal look great, I hereby declare this a success of the glorious wikipedia project!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022 Birthdatepalooza continuation

I've gone ahead and removed two of the primary sources. I changed the biography.com archive link to the earliest version, where afterwards I noticed it has both dates. This should probably not be treated as reliable then. It would be good to have a very early, reliable source for '60. --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. Trying to sneak in here to unilaterally make these changes 25 days after this matter was settled doesn't work. Stoarm (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but there's no consensus here, nor would local consensus trump policy (WP:CONLOCAL)

There appears no policy supporting the version you prefer. Ignoring policy does not create consensus. --Hipal (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Any further surreptitious changes to sources related to DOB without consensus will be reverted. Stoarm (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring policy is not an option. --Hipal (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• What are we bickering about now? The text and footnote supplies the correct birthday and footnotes the existence of past confusion among sources. Let's work on other things! So I randomly perused NYTimes archives from May 1968 a few days ago (54 years ago) and created one or two articles from obituaries. This guy Leigh White, his death seems a bit weird, I don't know if anything was further ever found about it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the article to meet basic BLP standards by removing poor and unreliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree, Milowent. Stoarm (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

References for birthdate (continued)

The current note ("a") reads, "Baio was born in 1960, though some past sources have said 1961."

Reviewing the references in more detail than the previous discussion, since we are still stuck on them for unclear reasons: --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• 1 (Twitter 2014) - Weak keep per BLPABOUTSELF. May be unreliable given he's stated he was born in '60, '61, and '62. --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• 2 (Twitter 2010) - Remove per BLPABOUTSELF, OVERKILL. Unreliable for the additional (misleading) opinion it provides beyond #1. Redundant with #1 otherwise. Earlier date makes it worth considering over #1. --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  The earlier date does not make up for the SOAP problems. Calling it "misleading" is a rather severe understatement of the problems with it. --Hipal (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• 3 (Scottbaio.com 2017) - Remove per BLPSPS. Used to say "1961". Unclear who is managing/publishing the content. #1 an #2 are superior. --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• 4 (Leszczak 2015) - Weak keep this rather than #5. Author is a former radio personality specializing in music trivia. --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• 5 (Newsweek 2016) - Weak keep. Poor source per WP:RSP. Author is a sports writer. The article itself seems well-written and well-researched. --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• 6 (Biography.com 2017) - Remove. Poor source per WP:RSP. Used to include both '60 and '61. --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• 7 (Associated Press 2001) - Keep. High quality publisher. Brief article that quotes Baio agreeing with them about his age. --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• 8 (Time 2008) - Remove per OVERKILL. The later publication date makes it worth considering. --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  Weak keep. It's probably best to have multiple citations for each date, and the late date from a high-quality reference appears is worth keeping. --Hipal (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Replace. I think the late date just indicates some sloppy fact checking. I've replaced it with the '82 People profile. --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Since we don't have any references that discuss the different dates, there's no need for multiple independent sources, and providing them suggests POV and OR problems. Yes, it would be nice to have some very early and late instances for each date on this talk page to consider. We should probably add the ref for '62 as well, but first we need to get some basic adherence to BLP reference quality policy. --Hipal (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

"since we are still stuck on them". "We"? Clearly, the only editor that's "stuck" is you. Read the room... literally. Stoarm (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring, and threating to edit-war further is most definitely "stuck" [17].

Following policy is a requirement here. Ignoring policy does not make for consensus. See WP:CON and WP:CONLOCAL. --Hipal (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For one of your past blocks, the admin said it was for "Disruptive editing including battleground attitude & ignoring feedback". Multiple editors urged you to find a mentor to help guide you to productively collaborate with others. Hopefully, you'll consider taking them up on that offer so that you can learn valuable skills that will help you to resolve disputes like this one in a positive and efficient manner. Until then, it's important that you listen to what other editors have been saying to you about this Baio dispute over the past several years. Stoarm (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:FOC. This is disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Quoting from User_talk:Milowent#Update:

• They want to remove four refs, including one of the two Baio tweets from his official account, both which are vital to settling the dispute.
• I will support whatever resolution you feel is best, as long as no more than three refs are removed, both Baio tweets stay, and the article text stays as-is.
  

Let's see what we can do with just removing three refs then, keeping the two tweets:
The worst two, not counting the tweets: (Scottbaio.com 2017) and (Biography.com 2017), The next worse isn't as clear, but I'd say (Newsweek 2016). Is it ok to remove those three? --Hipal (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with removing them then. --Hipal (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. This matter was settled two months ago and no one has stated support for your desired (or any) changes to the current version. So, no, it's not ok. Stoarm (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm working from what you agreed to. What's changed? --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I agreed to nothing with you, nor did anyone else. So, nothing's changed. This is what happens when you stalk an editor and a discussion on someone else's talk page and then, a month later, summarize it out of context here by cherry-picking a couple lines while leaving out a key premise to one of them, which includes the vital and conditional word "if". Stoarm (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Milowent: Do you agree to the proposal? --Hipal (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• I think all y'all should be banned from editing this article for 2 years. Do you know how much you could have done otherwise on this project!!??? Do you want "Corrected Scott Baio's Birthdate (allegedly)" on your tombstone? Let someone else wade in here! Today I ran across Arnold Horwitt (which i created), he was cited in over 50 articles about things he had done, yet had no article about himself! Meanwhile Scott Baio did not change his birth year!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC then. --Hipal (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reduced the refs to the best two for each.

I've also changed the wording. "Some" is OR. Replacing it with "most" would fit the facts, but would be OR/SYN as well. From what I've seen of the references that we can use, he himself was indicating a year of birth of '61 until around the time he was working on Scott Baio Is 45...and Single. - Hipal (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

No discussion, much less consensus. Therefore, reverted. Stoarm (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No discussion! There's a talk page full of discussion. Will you address the policy or not? --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

My preferred version ([18][19]) changes the note to: "Baio was born in 1960, though earlier sources state 1961."

References

Some early refs (published in the 70s or 80s) would be helpful. Maybe add the NY Birth Index ref? --Hipal (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "No discussion" after you said, "RfC then" on 6/24/2022. Your changes were unilateral, after an agreement between multiple editors was reached. Again, you unilaterally restored content where there was no consensus (nor discussion, this time). Stoarm (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no agreement, just your assertions. Please drop it. --Hipal (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Editors can read this thread and all prior ones over the years to see exactly what was said and done. So, perhaps you should take your own suggestion. Stoarm (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's close the book on this birthdate dispute once and for all. Go ahead and make the changes you feel are most appropriate and will not diminish the overall credibility of the article. And to answer your question: yes, I think the NY Birth Index ref should be added if you feel it's appropriate to do so. Stoarm (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That will make it simpler for BLPN: asking if a twitter or NY Birth Index ref should be used, and seeing what people think in general. --Hipal (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and trimmed it back to four independent refs.

For BLPN: Would it be appropriate and useful to 1) Use a tweet from Baio as a ref 2) Use NY Birth Index as a ref 3) Replace or remove one of the current four refs?

I'd like to find a good, early biography. I don't think the teen magazines are appropriate, which most likely means finding a newspaper. I've searched through WP:WIKILIB without luck, and don't have easy access to other news archives. --Hipal (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Searching for new refs to use

• Happier Days: Paramount Television's Classic Sitcoms, 1974-1984 by Marley Brant, 2006, p 48: "The charismatic actor Scott Vincent James Baio was born in Brooklyn, New York, on Septempber 22, 1961, to Italian parents Rose and Mario Baio."

  Found this while looking for earlier refs. There's a paragraph on his early life. I'm not seeing any obvious CIRCULAR problems. --Hipal (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• https://people.com/parents/scott-baio-steals-a-smooch/ October 20, 2009: "The actor, 48..."
• https://people.com/archive/scott-baio-the-man-who-cant-commit-vol-68-no-4/ July 23, 2007: "...warns the actor, 45."
• https://people.com/archive/cover-story-teen-heartthrob-scott-baio-vol-18-no-15/ October 11, 1982: "..says Scott Baio, now 21..."

  Found while digging through People's archives. --Hipal (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Other entertainment magazines to search: The Hollywood Reporter, Us Weekly, Variety --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No luck finding anything that's easily and free to search. I'm stumped on how to search for specific publications in archive.org. --Hipal (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The current UPI ref verifies '62. I think it's enough for '62, with or without using 16 or Tiger Beat. --Hipal (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Re "Tiger Beat": There's an interview of his parents. I'm having trouble identifying the exact publication. Maybe "Tiger Beat Star", February, 1978, p38. --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Why is the photo of Baio in the infobox so old and bad? Are there no better ones? Forgive me if this is foolishness, for I am an infant and cannot speak. JGT Webb (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

JGT Webb, I agree that the photo is bad. However, for reasons of compliance with copyright law, any photo must be freely licensed, and this is the only freely licensed photo of Baio now on Wikimedia Commons. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Wedding date

Baio's wedding to Sloan was reported to be in December'07, as the People ref verifies. However, non-disclosures from the television production makes it difficult to determine if their legal marriage date was actually Sep 14, as the Baio's subsequently said. I'm hesitant to use scottbaio.com alone, given the discussions we've already had about it. I'm not finding any refs of similar or better quality than People confirming September. --Hipal (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)