Talk:Blu del Barrio

Birth Name

While it's possible to locate their birth name, they were not notable (beyond their local area at least) under it, and so references to public material with useful info about their life may still be OK even if it includes their birth name, but as User:Ezlev points out, it shouldn't really be included in the article as per MOS:DEADNAME and privacy concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.174.199 (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have even added that local news source to be honest, as not only were they not notable at that time but the story isn't even clearly linked to this actor. Funcrunch (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It's possible to pretty confidently tell those stories are about this actor if you look at the sources in combination, part of the use though is it gives solid confirmation of birthplace & date and some insight into early light. It's true they weren't notable at the time of the story, but I'm not sure that is entirely relevant? (Most important people were not important through their early life) 176.251.174.199 (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

If a current story linked to the earlier one as a source for their background, then that might merit the inclusion of the earlier source. But absent that this would probably be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and not appropriate to include. Funcrunch (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I can see where your coming from, I won't revert your changes yet but I think it's worth looking further at how we can handle this. Two additional fairly standalone sources I've found which may be generally worth including are their talent agency page (https://www.revolutiontalent.co.uk/talent/blu-del-barrio) and their spotlight page linked via the talent agency page (https://www.spotlight.com/interactive/cv/1/F263565.html) - If proof is needed that this is their talent agency and not a false site, their official instagram cites this website via a contact email, which also corresponds to that on the spotlight page. It may be worth adding the latter as it gives a small number of stage credits of theirs) This actually ties together the sources tighter, one of the 3 official images of them is the identical to that on the LAMDA pages. I would bring up WP:SYNTHNOT/WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH as a counter. "Synth is not a rigid rule", if it we're Wikipedia would be empty really. Especially in light of the new sources and the photographs in them being identical to some older ones, this solidly proves they are the same person. This is the same sort of linking one would normally be using a name for. We could then say in the article their deadname due to it being identified from LAMDA pages, and that would then resolve all other possible SYNTH issues, however out of respect as popular and policy convention we shouldn't really deadname them. That shouldn't preclude using those sources though.

Ultimately, I think the new potential source verifies the old sources. The synthesis is only really of the fact it is indeed them, and with those photos it becomes as irrefutable as two sources referring to someone of the same name. (Better than that actually, to be honest). The synthesis is not of the conclusions within the source but simply of the identity of the subject, and is no more extreme (albeit due to unique circumstances, slightly atypical) than that normally done on wikipedia.

Summary: Yes it is a little bit of synthesis, but I disagree it is to the degree to violate WP:SYNTH. I also think we have to acknowledge the unusual circumstances (name not being the consistent identifier for them), and I think calling this a SYNTH issue is overzealous enforcement. I would welcome additional viewpoints on this though. 176.251.174.199 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this further, I am quite confident this isn't a WP:SYNTH issue though I welcome further discussion on it. I will wait a few days, but then plan to revert due to the loss of lots of information on them (and the absence of any particularly constructive edits subsequent to this), then add in the talent agency sources and check if any improvements can be done. If anyone disputes this, I would love to hear thoughts as to why exactly. 176.251.174.199 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Birth month?

The article states both September and October. Which is it? Lard Almighty (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Updated to remove birth month, as the interview source posted doesn't state when it was recorded, only when it was posted to YouTube. Funcrunch (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo?

Are there any photos which are freely available of Blu and as such permissible for use on wikimedia and wikipedia? I'm no expert at finding the licensing on photos etc. but it would be a nice addition to the page? 176.251.174.199 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns

The article currently states that Barrio 'goes by' they/them pronouns. I think the sentence should probably be "Their pronouns are they/them." Moreover, they don't 'identify' as non-binary. They are non-binary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:F032:CB00:5D7:F21B:A1B6:13BE (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Birth Name

A number of the sources refer to Blu by a name that I guess is assumed to be their birth name. (I won't mention that name here out of respect for Blu.) I don't think we should be including such sources, not least because we have no way to verify that this is indeed referring to the same person and so these sources cannot pass WP:V. Kidburla (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Oversight requested for previous egregious original research

Oversight has been requested to permanently remove/hide the frankly disgusting original research (and possible dead naming) of the subject of this BLP. This is an encyclopaedia; not some trashy blog or a bunch of pals chatting on Facebook or down the pub. Have some respect for the subject, the project and yourselves. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 22:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Explain, please? Blu changed their name, but they didn't just spring into existence the moment they did so. They had a prior existence, which had accomplishments. They seem to be reasonably well referenced. It certainly doesn't appear to be "disgusting", OR, or, indeed, dead-naming? Genuinely confused by your comments. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Provide evidence that any of those removed statements and the associated references were about Blu del Barrio. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Answer my questions? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Blu changed their name: yes; from what? they didn't just spring into existence: obviously. which had accomplishments: such as? They seem to be reasonably well referenced: not one removed reference mentions Blu del Barrio by name or clear reference. Your turn. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Er, you seem to be under the impression I'm here to fight with you. I'm not. I saw removal of a reference and non-contentious material, which is why I reverted - I didn't see del Barrio deadnamed in the text that was removed, which has been there for at least some months. I see now deadnaming in the sources is the issue. Would have been easier to just say that, to be honest, rather than the rather hyperbolic comment above. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm entirely interested in the quality of the content and its adherence to policies and am not remotely interested in fighting. You're aware by reverting my removal of what you only now realise is inappropriate makes you responsible for adding that content per WP:BLP? You really should have checked the content you chose to add before doing so; it is not my responsibility to explain; the burden of proof lies with the editor making additions (also per WP:BLP). I am glad you have come to understand your error. Aside: I see you're working on improvements; I am currently doing the same; my draft is derived from a version before your changes, so I'll be sure to manually merge your changes (I have not yet reviewed) if appropriate. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

TBF to Bastun, your edit summary of "removed clear original research which is utterly unacceptable in a BLP" didn't really explain what you were doing. It was not "original research"; it was information sourced to reliable sources. If you meant that the sources themselves were a BLP violation, you should have said that. In any event, using a source that reveals a subject's deadname to support other information (e.g. where they went to school) is not necessarily a BLP violation. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Again I must ask (without publishing any more of the problem of course) for evidence that those sources are about Blu del Barrio; without that evidence, it is original research. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

If the issue was that you don't believe that the sources refer to de Barrio then you should have specified that rather than using the term original research, especially given the fact that you were removing references. It helps us all to build an encyclopedia when we provided detailed, factual edit summaries. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the shit may have just hit the fan. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm the same editor who added those references originally if memory serves right (176.251.174.199) and I'm going to ask you why you think that the matter was "Outrageous Original Research" and "deadnaming"? Granted, I'm slow to spotting this, but I think it's worth responding to.

The article did not deadname them. The sources did, by virtue of being written before their name change. If you read MOS:DEADNAME it quite clearly states "it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations", notably it doesn't mention a prohibition on sources, and in fact "even if it does not match what is most common in sources" makes implicitly clear that a source referring to an individual with pronouns they don't use or a deadname is not grounds for it's prohibition.

You could contend that it might be a WP:BLPPRIVACY issue, potentially. I'm not qualified to state as such, although something you should be aware of, if you are raising such concerns in the future you shouldn't tell us you are requesting oversight, you should just do it.

As for it being OR, that is discussed above in the first "Birth Name" section on this page, a summary of my position from when I added it is that yes, there is slight synthesis but I don't believe it's enough to violate Wikipedia rules nor more than is usual. There is a clear link between two good sources one that uses their current and one that uses their deadname, specifically having an identical photo of clearly the same person (as well as I believe possibly some acting credits, it's been a while). Then by extension, the other sources which predate their name change are verifiably the same person once that above link is accepted.

It does seem that more sources have become available in the three years that have passed and I'm not sure I would re-add those sources today, as while I stand by my original addition of sources as acceptable, the new ones are preferable and are less close to toeing the lines on what we should permit, and allow for more-or-less the same extent of information, even if a few specific facts are lost.

It just felt like it was important to respond to the claims here and continue discussion in the unlikely event it's brought up elsewhere to try and establish some consensus and precedent. I don't think the method you applied here Fred, is productive. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:EDBC:883B:AB3F:AEE4 (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead too short

I nearly lost my shit when my browser decided to play silly buggers and trashed an hour of work (I keep a backup copy in a text file while I work in case of these things but still...) so am a nervous wreck and really quite tired and am going to play Dishonored for a while before baking some biscuits... This isn't a WP:FORUM; get to the point. I have left the lead woefully short for now; if no one else wants to have a go at it, I will later or tomorrow. There's plenty to pull from for at least a couple more sentences. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 19:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice expansion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

✌ Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth source?

The official StarTrek Twitter account wished Blu del Barrio happy birthday on September 15 this year, and they responded positively. What do we think of this as a source? Perhaps tagged with {{better source needed}} in the hope of getting one? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry; I should clarify; simple math is acceptable within reason (i.e. although original research it's considered fine; WP:COUNTSORT (essay)) so combining knowledge of age from multiple sources, with the month and day from Twitter, gives us (with simple math) the birth date, complete with year. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no problem with that, imo (while using the 'better source needed' tag) - it's not controversial information. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think pretty much everything on a BLP is potentially controversial, but yeah; it falls squarely between not unacceptable and fine for me. If I saw it rather than placed it, I might not tag it. I can't even decide if it's primary or secondary. Note: there's an obvious typo ("24") in the Forbes/Ennis write-up following the Zoom interview (on YouTube), but there are other refs stating "23" so we can use those for the math. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

References

References

Error in Bio

This part is erroneous: "playing the first non-binary role in Star Trek." Barrio is the second person to play a non-binary character in Star Trek.

The first non-binary character was in Star Trek The Next Generation Season 5, Episode 17 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outcast_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)). Melinda Culea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Culea) played the non-binary character Soren.

Since the bio is locked, can someone please correct this please? Thanks. NewEditor101101001 (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia. All statements in all articles must be verifiable in good quality sources; in articles that are biographies of living people, this is absolutely non-negotiable. Any changes may be made if the statements are not what we call original research and are well sourced. You will note that the current statements are derived from the current sources.Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

del Barrio is the first to play a non-binary human on Star Trek. The character Soren was a member of a species that did not have distinct sexes. Different concept. Funcrunch (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Perhaps it would be reasonable, then, to reword the sentence here, as "playing the first non-binary human role in Star Trek." General Ization ^Talk 04:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm OK with that if the cited sources support it. Funcrunch (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)