Talk:Natasha Bassett
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Natasha Bassett article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
.jpg){kind=small}
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Request for comment:Information vs WP:NOTGOSSIP. Does WP:NOTGOSSIP override?
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Is the existence of a "budding romance" between
"Is a significant event in a public figure's career, 'information worthy' of Wiki or does WP:NOTGOSSIP override?" I would appreciate comment on my logic for adding recently reported information about Natasha Bassett(see below). For a public figure, in this case an actor in the performing arts, the reporting of this particular type of information/events regardless of the manner in which it was reported will necessarily be significant in their careers. The fact here being that this information/event was reported. Not the fact that it is trending news(I totally agree that trending news is WP:NOTGOSSIP) but how such a report may propell/influence an actor's career is significant and historically will remain significant information ito the actor's career. To me this is therefore a significant piece of information/event that does not necessarily need the "test of time" or a marriage certificate. Note that my edit (as phrased below) is attempting to add information about a report. I try to seperate the sensational from the information and focus on the date of and origin of the report, that will doubtlessly be significant ito her career. I would sincerely appreciate comments about the validity of my addition to this page. Thank you.( I find it interesting that WP:NOTGOSSIP would hamper significant information events/encounters that are so significant in history... Would a reported meeting and romance between Pierre and Marie Salomea Skłodowska Curie be a WP:NOTGOSSIP or would it only be 'information worthy' of Wiki when we can put a marriage certificate to it?)
In February 2022, James Vituscka, News Director of the online tabloid magazine, Hollywood Life, reported Natasha to be in a budding romance with Elon Musk.[1]elon-musk-girlfriend-natasha-bassett-relationship-details Pierre Hugot (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Elon Musk & Girlfriend Natasha BassettHave 'Unbelievable Chemistry': InsideTheir Sexy New Romance". Hollywood Life. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
- Gossip: You are referring to this edit. A tabloid reporting a "budding romance" is exactly the type of trivia that WP:NOTGOSSIP says not to include. Have you read it? Do we really need a formal RFC?? Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)]
- WP:NOTGOSSIP applies. If it were "a significant event in a public figure's career", there would be multiple reliable sources covering it. Dating someone, even a really rich someone, is hardly a significant event, nor is there any indication that it has had any impact on Bassett's career. That it may influence her career in the future is unknown and not encyclopedic. Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)]
- @]
- Exclude as gossip and recentism -- at least give it a waiting period to see if it is debunked or confirmed and to find out if it lasts more than a couple weeks and see what weight of coverage it might get. Just because it's in today's feed does not mean it should go in the article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude for now as gossip. At a minimum, wait for better coverage etc etc. Bonewah (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- So far, gossip. it's recentism and doesn't have enough coverage yet. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)]
- Exclude The claim seems to be so far mostly found in tabloids. It's also obvious from the articles that there is very little information available and the only piece of evidence for the "budding romance" is that the two were seen getting off a private plane together. 1. Two people flying in the same plane together is not a notable event and 2. inferring two people are in a relationship because they were briefly seen together is the very definition of gossip. PraiseVivec (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Exclude per WP:NOTNEWS. If they're engaged, then sure, but for now, their relationship is only a "budding romance", which is not noteworthy for inclusion. Some1 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)]
Age
I've been hearing conflicting sources on her age is it 24 or 27? CountingStars500 (talk) 6:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- She's probably 29, actually, but that's how it is when there's disagreeing data. For lesser known people there's hardly ever a good source for date - either some lame ones agree on it, or not, and that's the situation here. Mithoron (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, 29 - one of the sources in article said she was 24 a bit over 5 years ago. Probable birthdate is October 12, 1992 - only actual date I encountered - other then that were only years - and were incorrect! Mithoron (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- She herself posted a photo of her driving licence on her Instagram several years ago where her DOB is clearly visible: it's 10/16/1992. --Xing Talk 07:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Likely faked. No way of knowing if that is a legit DL or she's trying to appear younger with a doctored up fake. It would be beyond stupid for her to post her actual DL# and real DOB. Toddst1 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Toddst1: "No way of knowing if that is a legit DL or she's trying to appear younger with a doctored up fake" I suppose if she claimed to be born in 1992 that's not the way to appear "younger", since that would mean she's not 24 or 27 but in fact 29. Anyway, maybe you're right. Xing Talk 05:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Likely faked. No way of knowing if that is a legit DL or she's trying to appear younger with a doctored up fake. It would be beyond stupid for her to post her actual DL# and real DOB. Toddst1 (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- She herself posted a photo of her driving licence on her Instagram several years ago where her DOB is clearly visible: it's 10/16/1992. --Xing Talk 07:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Not neutral POV problem.
This user "Natashaisanobody" has continuously been randomly adding unsourced and not neutral POV edits. Even after being reverted twice AND two warnings.