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)

Reversion of explanation of Sexual Assault Claim

I have reverted the deletion of a minor edit by dmies that removed the reason Baio claimed Eggert's claims against him had been undermined by her own prior words. It provides a useful explanation of a well established element of the page and is notable. I'd request it not be deleted again without consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgmitchell45 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

ronz has now followed me to this article, as well as a prior article I edited, and undone my edits. This is not normal protocol for editing disputes Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol. I would appreciate other editors weighing on on this before I decide whether escalation is justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgmitchell45 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Michaelgmitchell45, although I would leave out the word "adamantly." The additional information Michael included is cited in the article, and does help to clarify the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orville1974 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid Michaelgmitchell45 accusation that I'm following him is wrong. Please withdraw the accusation. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Years active; birth date.

An anonymous editor is making the same change repeatedly without explanation.

They are changing Baio's "Years active" to end in 2017 rather than 2015. The last professional date I see is 2015.

They are also are removing one of the disputed birth years, as discussed previously.

As I am at 3RR, I will not be reverting further tonight. If the same changes are made again without discussion, I will revert again tomorrow night, with a WP:3RR warning for them.

Other editors, of course, are free to revert them in the meantime and/or comment on the issues. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how anything beyond 2015 is verified, and proper verification is required per BLP. --Ronz (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2019 (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)

Conspiracy theorist

Called Obama a Muslim and said that the death of Heather Heyer and the Sandy Hook shooting were hoaxes, I don't see why we can't call him a conspiracy theorist.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That's OR from what I see so far. What specifically do the sources say on the matter? Do any reliable sources specifically call him that, or use "conspiracy theory" or something similar? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing all the refs, I don't think the category is appropriate. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not OR, If you believe in that and promote it you're a conspiracy theorist.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please retract or refactor your comment.

If you can indicate a high-quality source as required by WP:BLP, then we can make some progress together. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for refactoring your comment [3]. I'd hoped you might remove more. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: I am responding to the request for a third opinion regarding this issue. Since there is no verified material in the prose of the article that explicitly labels him as a conspiracy theorist, I think it is inappropriate to add the category. As a reminder, any material about living people must include reliable sources or it will be removed. This especially applies to contentious labels, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels for more information. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Found two sources that called him a conspiracy theorist. https://patch.com/connecticut/newtown/soto-family-speaks-out-after-scott-baio-tweets-conspiracy-theory-photo https://apnews.com/e5729f9afc8649db9411bf43e55ba303 Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Patch.com is a poor source in general, this specific article looks like tabloid journalism, and it doesn't actually verify the information. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The APNews article doesn't verify the information.

I'll be removing the category if no verification is forthcoming. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's another source. https://popculture.com/celebrity/news/scott-baio-sandy-hook-conspiracy-twitter/ Jaydoggmarco (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A poorer source that once again doesn't verify the information. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the category. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Senate bid tweet

In November 2020 Baio floated the idea of moving to Utah in order to run against Mitt Romney in 2024 for the United States Senate. Baio floated the idea in response Romney's criticism of Trump.

References

From my perspective, that's a case of WP:NOTNEWS. If there's substantially more to it than a tweet and an article about how some people are upset at Romney, then we might want to revisit it. --Hipal (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This is absolutely not the case of WP:NOTNEWS. It is not as if the subject of this biography routinely announces that he will run or the US Senate. He tweeted the idea that he will run, and it was picked up by a major newspaper in the state. That makes it notable. We don't need WP:109PAPERS to report it to be notable. We just need one WP:RS that is independent of the subject to make it notable. While it's not notable in the article 2024 United States Senate election in Utah (once that article forms), it is certainly notable within the biography of the subject when the subject says that he'll run for the US Senate and a WP:RS reports on it. Banana Republic (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So it's just the one article then, and that article is focused on Romney, not Baio. So NOTNEWS, SOAP, and UNDUE. --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it's a lot more than one single article that quoted Baio

• KUTV
• Fox 13
• Wonder Walls
• MSN (for national coverage)

All those articles (including the original one in the Salt Lake City Tribune) are about Scott Baio, not about Mitt Romney (just look at the titles). Banana Republic (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional refs.

The first is Salt Lake tv news channel, operated by Sinclair. Given this is a political matter, I don't think it should be given any weight, rather it should make us consider whether this is SOAP, propaganda, and NOTNEWS.

The second is a local Fox news bit. Same as above.

The third and fourth are the same article, with MSN simply republishing it. The author is a contributor to WonderWall. We shouldn't be using a contributor's article to an entertainment publisher for political information.

This isn't encyclopedic content at all in my opinion. ArbEnf applies on multiple levels here. If Baio follow up with anything substantial beyond words, we should reconsider including content on the matter. --Hipal (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

01:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)2601:205:C003:6300:FC00:EE3E:E793:99F6 (talk)

Political views are out of scope

The section under political views contains topics that are beyond the scope of Baio's political views, and should be broken out into a separate section labeled "controversies". For instance:

"In an interview with Ashley Webster, Baio described President Barack Obama as being "either dumb, a Muslim, or a Muslim sympathizer, and I don't think he's dumb".[25]"

This is not a political view per-se, but a personal opinion as to the intelligence of a political figure. The controversy is the pejorative used against a President.

"On December 15, 2016, Baio accused Nancy Mack, wife of Chad Smith, drummer for Red Hot Chili Peppers, of physically assaulting him at their children's elementary school function. Baio claims Mack began berating and cursing him over his support of Trump and at one point attacked him, grabbing him under his arms and then shaking and pushing him. Mack said she was merely trying to show Baio how Trump hugs women and denies any intentional physical aggression.[26]"

This is not discussing Baio's politics, but an assault that occurred because of the woman's politics. Her assault does not reflect directly on his political views, but hers, and should be under a Controversies sub-section.

"On August 26, 2017, Baio re-tweeted a Sandy Hook "truther" meme, insinuating that the recent death of Heather Heyer and the Sandy Hook shooting were linked hoaxes.[27][28]"

Tweeting a meme does not necessary discern ones political views.

These additions seem to be to link a given party to a specific set of beliefs, and that is pigeonholing and "othering" a group over the particular actions of an individual.

Therefore, these instances and examples should be separated into a section on "controversies" as is common with public figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:C003:6300:FC00:EE3E:E793:99F6 (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

At a glance, it seems fine. What do the references actually say? --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that you did not read the references, and just glanced at the post?2601:205:C003:6300:FC00:EE3E:E793:99F6 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If one refuses to look at the content, and admits to such, there can be no discussion based on content. I pointed out that the content in that section should be moved to "controversies" as is usually for public figures.

So, why should it not be moved as such?2601:205:C003:6300:FC00:EE3E:E793:99F6 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm assuming past editors have worked in good faith to make the article what it is, and have met the requirements of the relevant content policies. If you want to change what consensus there is, you'll have to demonstrate policy-based reason to do so.

I gave the logical reasons. "Good faith" does not mean that errors are not made. What "Policy based" reasons are you saying is required? I gave the reasons why the "Political beliefs" section contains material that is out of scope, and I have not seen any arguments as to why that material is considered in-scope.2601:205:C003:6300:6401:C85A:E85A:886 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversy sections should be avoided per policy. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Per what policy?2601:205:C003:6300:6401:C85A:E85A:886 (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Logical reasons? Howso? If those "logical reasons" are not based in policy, they don't matter.

If you're not extremely familiar with policy, you face a block or ban quite easily when working on an article like this that falls under multiple sanctions.

Take some time to learn your way around Wikipedia, and strongly consider getting yourself an account.

As far as the section is concerned, see WP:CRITS and WP:STRUCTURE. Review WP:BLP and WP:POV please. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

So, looking at the section you linked, it seems that a breakout section is warranted rather than integrated per

"Philosophy, religion, or politics

For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – ::::: it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue ::::: the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets." Like I stated above, this biography is written as to conflate the general outlook of a political ideology with that of a person. 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)  Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like your own OR still. What do the references actually say? --Hipal (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, are you saying you did not read the references? Are you arguing that because a reference is construing a single persons ideology as representative of that of an entire party?2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on Policy under WP:CRITS these items past stating Baio's political affiliation is out of scope, and should be addressed in a "Criticism of..." sub article. 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're not going to answer questions focusing on policy, and insist on breaking policy, then you're not going to make any progress here. --Hipal (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You are refusing to discuss the policy I am referencing, or answer any of my questions in good faith. I have pointed out where the policy supports my arguments several times, but you are causing issues and being unproductive. Is that your goal? 2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I am requesting a resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Scott_Baio 2601:205:C003:6300:D820:FACB:5F9C:4338 (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not refusing anything, but if you cannot base your requests on what is in references, we will get nowhere. --Hipal (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You are refusing to be productive. You keep stating "what is in the references" without clarifying if you mean the references you gave me regarding Criticism WP:CRITS or of the references used in the topic of discussion. If it is the later they are moot as they do not address the point I am making. You are being unhelpful, opaque, pedantic and threatening, and thus I requested a resolution on the notice board.2601:205:C003:6300:D820:FACB:5F9C:4338 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

We disagree, and I'm not wasting my time where basic content and behavioral policy is not being followed. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Years Active.

Shouldn't this be changed as he's now acting again. 109.150.194.28 (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Please indicate a reference? --Hipal (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000281/ 109.150.194.28 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. We shouldn't use IMDB directly, but it gives us the credits to use to search for proper refs. --Hipal (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem, isn't IMDb a reliable source? Thanks anyway. 86.188.32.235 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

IMDB is not reliable, per WP:IMDB. I don't see either recent acting job listed at IMDB, Quigley and Courting Mom and Dad, as having articles or mention anywhere in Wikipedia, so we'll have to find references of our own. --Hipal (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)