Talk:Roy Price

Why does his mother's name link to him? 2604:3D09:AE84:4300:64B1:14B1:4FDC:A26A (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I changed it to Frank_Price#Personal, her husband, a more appropriate link than one of her sons, and arguably more notable. -- GreenC 00:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Roy Price Biography, published in Emerald City Journal (December 2017) a local paper in Seattle. The journal is probably not reliable due to user generated content. And the text is unsigned which is suspicous and it reads in places like it was written by a PR firm or a sock or meat puppet of Price himself. Nevertheless, it contains factual information about his career history that might be verifiable in other reliable sources. It's the most complete bio at this point. -- GreenC 22:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Source: he was 51 years old as-of January 4, 2019. That means there is a 99.2% chance he was born in 1967 ie. to be born in 1968 he'd need to be born Jan. 1-3, a 3 day period, which is 3/365 or 0.008 or 100 minus 0.008 is 99.2% (check my math).
• His birth record says he was born in 1967. BLP doesn't allow this in mainspace on its own, but it can be used on talk page discussions as additional evidence in making editorial decisions. No policy says to blindly ignore information when making a judgment call.
• Why do we even have Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources in the first place? Protection of privacy. Clearly, many reliable secondary sources are reporting his approximate age, even if obliquely, concerns of invasion of privacy are muted. The source is not being "misused", and is being used with "extreme caution" due to supporting evidence from other secondary sources.
• It's WP:COMMONSENSE he was born in 1967. Common sense operates a higher level than policy. BLP concerns are muted due to other reports of his approximate age.
• It's also COMMONSENSE he is an American. He grew up in America, went to American schools, comes from an American family, looks and talks like an American, speaks of the world in an American context, no evidence to the contrary. Which is why COMMONSENSE prevailed when his nationality was added here: Special:Diff/1190054138/1190073540.

Nevertheless, the same editor who removed the year of birth, also added the nationality, despite zero support from sources. Because it's common sense. I would encourage common sense to further prevail, WP:COMMONSENSE really does sit higher than policy. Wikipedia is not a board game with rules, or a law book. This is a common sense situation and sometimes you need to, and can, use it. -- GreenC 07:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

1, your math is wrong. If we make that assumption, it would be a 4-day period.

2, it's common sense that the birth date parenthetical should not have some inexplicable calculations.

3, is there a reason to think that The Hollywood Reporter updates the ages of its articles' subjects to the issue's publication date, as opposed to whenever an interview was done or the article was written? If not, then the premise that the age is as of January 4 does not hold. I don't think it's WP:CALC because it relies on speculation rather than only calculation. 2601:643:897F:9C0:FD7B:CBF5:8D84:E0EA (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. This is why I requested "check my math".

2. It's not inexplicable. This is why we have {{birth based on age as of date}}.

3. I agree the age of date could be date of writing, and not date of publication. However, it's standard practice to use date of publication. Every instance of {{birth based on age as of date}} is based on date of publication. This template is exact to the day, showing the persons age rolling over on an precise day.

I don't like having the odds displayed. At the same time, using {{birth based on age as of date}} misses the point that it's extremely likely he was born in 1967. That, plus a birth record showing a 1967 birth date. So what I will do is change it to 1967 because these two sources combined allow one to reach this conclusion with certainty, I can't think of any other explanation. A birth record primary source, and a secondary source with a greater than 99% accuracy. -- GreenC 15:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply