Talk:Omid Scobie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

WP:NAUTHOR #3 pass, co-author of a book with a Wikipedia article: Finding Freedom –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP padding[edit]

There'san article for his book, so we don't need information about second editions here. There's nothing in the source that says he lives in North London (it's talking about the interviewers home). The name of his dog is in no way noteworthy for this article. None of this should be restored.Unbh (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text removed said "As of 2021, Scobie was living in east London with French bulldog Yoshi." The source (footnote 3, Tatler interview) said: "He lives in a ‘not groovy’ part of east London...." So the text is definitely sourced. When Unbh started deleting text from this article there was one (not "lots") unsourced statement - birthplace of Wales which is hardly controversial and is now sourced. There was also one error - north instead of east London - which could have been easily corrected by anyone who spotted it. In fact I corrected it before restoring the text for the firt time but evidently Unbh did not notice. Please do not remove text from this article. It is a short article with everything sourced and uncontroversial. There is a small degree of overlap with the Finding Freedom article which is reasonable when two or more articles discuss the same event - in this case the publication of a book. Something is not irrelevant to an article just because it appears elsewhere. If large chunks of the Finding Freedom article had been copied into this article it might be questionable, but that is not the case. Southdevonian (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to repeat information specifically about a book here when it has it's own article. It's total bloat. The information about the dog is inane trivia.Unbh (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite okay to have some overlap in articles about author and works, especially about publication history. After all, not everyone will read both articles (witness the pageviews of the two articles). Southdevonian (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether everyone reads both articles is irrelevant. This article is about the author, not the book and there's no need to go into detail about different editions here.Unbh (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some overlap is inevitable with articles about, for examples, writers and their work, films and actors/directors, sporting events and sporting figures, political events, etc. etc. It is not a question of "don't mention the book"! There are no rules saying that a piece of information must be restricted to one single article. Southdevonian (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
overlap is inevitable, but it's enough to discuss that he authored the book. We don't need info about different editions in a BLP unless it somehow pertain to the bio of the author, and this doesn't.Unbh (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of the new edition: it shows he is still concentrating on the same subject. Southdevonian (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a source that explicitly discusses how he's still concentrating on this subject– which this source doesn't- →this sort of statement is complete OR.Unbh (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article subject is notable, sigh, albeit seems to simply be a friend of the Duchess of Sussex. There are two books and fairly wide media coverage. That said, it's pish, mainly puff and PR and might not be free of WP:COI, if I can put it that way. I've put it onto the list of articles nominated for improvement; please scroll to article at bottom and put a comment there to say if you agree/disagree. All the best Emmentalist (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And then there is your spelling ... 92.21.247.115 (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His orientation[edit]

What is it and can it be added? 2A00:23C6:BA13:4801:7150:A2B7:139B:6B2F (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With eyebrows like that, .... David10244 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good As You 2A00:23C8:9F93:FB01:3DE7:F356:B801:C84 (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it relevant? Should we also include his religion? 2A02:C7C:398B:7300:35BF:8759:2C18:AB47 (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When was Omid Scobie born?[edit]

Two recent articles (in the Evening Standard and the Times, references 2 and 3) about Scobie give his age as 42. Technically, that could mean a birthdate of end of 1980 or January-November 1981. But his birth was registered in the July-September quarter of 1981 (GRO Index) so it is definitely 1981 not 1980. Not sure why anyone wants to remove his age from the article. In the past he has knocked a few years off his age. This is discussed in the Times article. But now everyone, including Scobie himself, admits he is 42. Southdevonian (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But his birth was registered in the July-September quarter of 1981 (GRO Index) so it is definitely 1981 not 1980. → This is original research based on primary sources. If you want to write that Scobie was born in 1981, you need to find a reliable non-primary source that explicitly states that Scobie was born in 1981. The burden is on you, not on other editors. Khiikiat (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UK company House publicly accessible records for Scobie are verified by government as July 1981. At one time the full date of birth was also shown for company directors but has latterly seen the day removed to help prevent identity fraud. It would be reckless to provide a false date of birth to a government agency. Unreliable sources have suggested the birthday as 4 July! Certainly there is historical evidence that an interviewer for an article, was misled and was informed the subject was 6 years younger (1987). Some years later an apology (of sorts) for providing the information was offered by the informant. Jaymailsays (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaymailsays: Documents submitted to Companies House are primary sources. Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY. Khiikiat (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It is a primary verified source. So is a birth certificate. Jaymailsays (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaymailsays, yes, and WP:BLPPRIMARY says you cannot use those public records: do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. It also cautions editors that where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The date (day) of birth is not provided within the primary source, nor does his personal address. The advice on this occasion does not apply to the subject. Jaymailsays (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaymailsays, It applies to the use of public records such as those available through Companies House and the GRO. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this source (which is currently citation 1 in the article} his birthday of 4 July is given. As noted above, The Times and The Evening Standard gives his age as 42. I think that's a WP:CALC exception to WP:SYNTH to reference a birth date of 4 July 1981. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion. I have put July 1981 back. Southdevonian (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2023[edit]

Date of birth according to Companies House is July 1981, allowing the page to more accurately display his age.

Source: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/RfxxBcbdESL6RpA8-RlfGqsFO8aN3k0Lw-AEakBJrVs/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3KG5KZLMV%2F20231130%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20231130T171853Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEJf%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJHMEUCIG%2Ftee6CwFJneUqCGMTeLHLDosKh6%2BgR0TR8R6Wt0T30AiEA%2BAgjfEzZ%2B1APHTbgckizEXQKQzGC1pdhodBd4RNI1FoqxAUI8P%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAEGgw0NDkyMjkwMzI4MjIiDJoS5QmZD%2FwV14wSuyqYBaqc%2FBrlj3XbJirEpxLWjTMi%2FxQ14S3ufKyJcW%2BCvR%2Fvd%2F5caNcuHaT%2FOBKszqYahGsDIRTVNCoA1nBQ%2FFMBmqL7Bjs88tpIo5fYf1Kc1agIBK7M9Rja%2FCo4rwOgzCLYdxk0E8566rZs4zhTsXqmb6H96Wlnd4QaXMlj1KmfZwCRMro%2BCTmr2Yu1jzSIQKpOo%2FYs%2BnVD5ew2gyy3cleYcoZ70i5OWF6FNWQNjhx8A5fTnn8rpmo0jxzlzle%2Bn5sYjw%2BkAhRZzNK4aGjQGEQRNDBtt6rS1FvQZ3GtmNoSQwpdsZB5dnru1%2F2R%2BUj4JYUeIF5B0RYq73Wx4vW9F6wdrQVf%2FLLjqgWnxJd2BSsyWbjhYFJSHHErIM5U3Fz%2FagabWISwnqXJQr7hhEtbF5RCVX9NE7gWsFFHdoZFV6QwhAA%2BNhRmlWZHCXOavzvezoxO9cVGSwqx16LTZgn%2BRtIBMUP9ze9YABEX9VT6v78%2B8wdJnh921P7PgWFM6wUAsLE99WybJrmCw%2BhAiHrxQoXXyCBOxK9ZW7E%2FpXVh9DsfM2iL7lZo9Mw7dh7GMyGnGqeQzNE14ZwkrPVN0O2K36wbqzXHZsPGW2jLBTW%2FOZCvlnvfvVxbB%2F7Bi26xuNbUP0ghXQqezp9dYJDMjpez1oU4fQyzwdS8apuevQM5H%2BK0u5lPFGmHhjK%2BEn22XoE8KWK%2FeDwoSTy9UNqSH8K195TNlEjjGPFLnlzBxxLs46bUwpOAHT0HR65R6WGGURxCEeoMZoeLKYddZdCNrziDfaz2K22WLffWp%2FviayJ2WDt%2F6qN1HPf%2BoqufaX0lUsWIuF0Sf749KkuvwarxhOi18xF6nhU0t8BYxN4OcY%2BVanoo%2FXV%2F3FVU86ePFDcwoMyiqwY6sQFycseBbWXXrxcUuRwlEjREfGydPMK0k%2FH2E0NsCdIAHa5JaQ4vTFc1ITN2qpw6fEQ9B0gYWJDxYtXNropFAQUqP7qwSpWyAxyKvsVd1O1tCzn6R%2Bzau%2Bjo%2FQ1V4ZU%2BnmyrVXmuKPYxDas2d0b%2BU6qxdOhLLrcQlckNE2mDARyjCdPYTdmiUSoufshPbJZW3FKbskNeXnwcD30oA0SMs8jYQnTggTKmQN%2Bhva44zjupPNE%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22companies_house_document.pdf%22&X-Amz-Signature=42b572e55f9d7f139cc3689eea9a749b837a50ac3cf3abc8f32cb9b358793301 Dickytricky (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: I'm getting an "access denied" on the link. Are you sure this is the right page? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is it with the long url? Here is a link to Scobie at Companies House https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/AvrHztBDNsjVxdXcZkYzNf-MDBM/appointments Southdevonian (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that is a primary source and so disallowed per WP:BLPPRIMARY. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Archie of Sussex Skin Colour Row[edit]

Perhaps consolidate all the information into its own article? It seems notable enough TheEdiotj (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The whole of the career section is three paragraphs only, and we don't even know how many copies the book is going to sell. Trivial coverage here and there does not necessarily grant a subject notability. Keivan.fTalk 11:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Prince Archie of Sussex Skin Colour Row
Any contributions to this are highly appreciated TheEdiotj (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Dutch version of Endgame reads “But in those private letters an identity was revealed and confirmed – Charles”.
2601:646:200:43F0:B503:1BFB:4E74:B8BB (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough for separate controversy section[edit]

Scobie's work is in a sense generally controversial, since it details discord within the Royal family and different members of the Royal family have their supporters and detractors. But the only particular controversy at the moment is how the names got into the Dutch edition, which is not enough for a new section and is adequately covered in the career section. It may merit its own section of "Dutch edition" in the future as more information becomes available. Southdevonian (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His work (books) is controversial because much of it is not steeped in FACT. This is well documented. However, his Wikipedia article still needs to be fair. Srbernadette (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter - in or out?[edit]

I am happy to see the Twitter/tabloid trivia go. I only put in a rather more accurate version to replace the biased one, but agree the article does not need any mention of it. Apart from anything else, Twitter tends to age quickly. Southdevonian (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Southdevonian, without a selection of quality reliable secondary sources covering it, it does not have enough weight for inclusion. I don't think that source was any different to the original Daily Beast one as it wasn't written by Yahoo, all they did was deliver exactly the same Beast content. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said I was happy to see it go, I meant I was happy to see it disappear from the article. The Daily Beast/Yahoo effort appears to be a bit more accurate than the Daily Mail/Australian news site story but the whole thing is a non-story. Southdevonian (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omid_Scobie&oldid=1215898680"