Talk:Sinitta

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

Future release info[edit]

I removed the section on an upcoming future in accordance with the policy Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In order to include it, the info needs a better source than one self-published podcast. RJASE1 Talk 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

She was born in 1968, this must be changed, in her regard. We have her documentation as proof, cloud you please change the date, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corcionefelipe (talk • contribs) 07:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recall she was 17 when she did So Macho, so that would make her 46 or so now. Born 1968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.101.45 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure she was born in 1966, and that someone is lying about her age! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.138.231.154 (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She does have an "official" or "stage" age, as do many celebs - it cropped up on some TV show some time, afraid I don't have more detail than that - it was a while ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.147.221 (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way on God's green Earth that her date of birth on here is correct; when So Macho was out, she was clearly in her twenties - somehow time seems to have stopped for the woman and she's now younger than me, rather than older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.222.100 (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Sinitta's MySpace page, she is 40 years old at the moment, (September 30th, 2008). I don't know whether this page is really by Sinitta, but I think it probably is, so she must have been born in 1968. Even then, she would still have been a teenager (19 years old) when So Macho came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajs41 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is a fairly reliable source IMDb - [1] - which quotes 19 October 1966, which seems realistic. I have edited the article accordingly. No doubt someone will change it back though ! Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well someone just made this edit, changing the year to 1956 and claiming that copies of her birth certificate can be obtained. I have no idea if that year is right, but have changed it back to 1966 as the references are suggesting that is more accurate. Perhaps someone could get hold of a copy of her birth certificate or some other reliable document that clears this up once and for all. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the confusion lies with Sinitta herself as in recent weeks she has said she is 45 years old, 42 and now 40. At this rate next week she will 23. If she is "40" then she was in Hot Gossip at age 15 and engaged to David Essex before she was 18. I spoke to David Essex recently and he confirmed he is late 40s {{{David Essex "recently" is late 40s?? Early 60s you mean.}}}. An intervew in Smash Hits magazine in 1883 confirmed by her said she was the same age as Bananarama - they are both 48 or 49 so I guess someone (Sinitta?) is lying but she is clearly and laughably NOT 40 years old as of 2009 (89.240.204.45 (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm posting a discussion I've just had with a user regarding Sinitta's year of birth in the hope it can generate further discussion. An interesting issue was raised.

Hi there. i know for a fact she was born in 1968.... can we just keep it like that as i wish not to exlplain why i know it? but i can tell you that the reason i keep change it is because Sinitta herself asks me to do so... thanks x —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:] ([[User talk:#|talk]] • contribs) 12:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could find a reliable source for the change. I find it difficult to believe that if Sinitta was born in 1968 there would be no reference of it anywhere? TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what about her passport????

Hmmm, not sure. That is reliable in the real world. But in a wiki sense? Don't know that one. I'm going to post this discussion on the article's talk page and see if we get any further comment on this. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One thought, you could try the US equivalent of this? TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one thought...I am a reliable sourse. maybe that should be enough. anyway...i find it hilariously silly that we are having this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.190.157 (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but alas, we have to go along with what it says in the information we've got. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I can tell you few things. Sinitta was born in 1968. fact. i've seen birth certificate, i know herand her mother. i've seen her passport. in 1984 she was lieing about her age so she could try with eurovision (fact) and get some other piece and bits in show-business. also Sinitta mas made a ward of court about it all...and this is the part where i cant getinto details. If we are trying to make wikipedia a place where wecan have reliable informations i would take myself as areliable sourse. why on heart would i waste my time if it wasnt different? why you shoud be a bettere judge on this ehrn you havent got any proof while i have? Sinitta (and her twin sister, Greta) were born in October 1968. Fact. we can change what we want in here...butwe cant't change real life facts. Fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.190.157 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you keep saying "Fact" doesn't actually make it a, er, fact. But your spelling is atrocious. Fact. --Shylock's Boy (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

anyway... I can give you proof about this. such as birth certificate copies etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.190.157 (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've changed it again, but I'm not going to edit war over this. I'm actually inclined to believe you, although we only have your word that thase things are fact. One thing you could do is to find out from Sinitta what the US or Washington State equivalent of the General Register Office is called, and we'll add that as a reference for her birth year. I have seen this done with other articles (like this one for example), and it might stop others from changing the date in the future. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
) just asked her. x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.190.157 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've been Googling this morning and discovered that some sources say 1966 while others (generally ones that Wikipedia can't use) say 1968. As I said yesterday, I'm inclined to believe this is genuine, particularly as the person has been insistant over a long period that it is correct. Why would they do that if it wasn't? So, I'm going to change it to 1968 and add a note. We'll still need a reference and I can't guarantee that someone won't revert it. Cheers. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a video on YouTube from 1985 where Sinitta is clearly older than 16 or 17. I think 1966 is in the right date. I've changed it before but there're obviously Sinitta fanatics out there who keep putting it back to 1968, so I can't be bothered to change it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.152.5 (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are again with this debate. :)

I've reverted this edit for now because it contains no references to back it up, but note that the user said in the user summary "Told interviewer for Penthouse March 1989 that she was born in 1966 after News of the World ran a story saying she was born in 1963. Also she wouldn't have been allowed to work as a dancer on tv at 14"

So, how to proceed with this. The sort of things we need here are the date when the article titles, the dates when they appeared, what page of the publications they appeared on, authors, etc. Alternatively, if there's a reference somewhere on the web, that would be ok. I've always found Google News to be pretty good for tracking down bits of msicellaneous information, so that might be a good place to start. I'll keep looking for something, but if anyone can help in the meantime then please feel free to add any useful information.

I'd also urge anyone to read the above discussion in which somebody who knows her argues at length that 1968 is correct. I'm inclined to believe this as being right, and altered the article accordingly at the time, but I feel we need to get a definite once and for all answer on this issue so that we can display the correct information (whatever that happens to be). Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One way to get a definitive answer is from Washington State's equivalent of this. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what it's called. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be the Washington State Department of Health, so given the above discussion I had with another user I'm going to add this as a reference. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Washington State Records might be better. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely accepted that her mother Miquel Brown gave birth to Sinitta when she was a teenager (see main article ref 16). Miquel Brown was born in 1945 according to IMDB and other sources, therefore Sinitta cannot possibly have been born in 1968. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bordertykes (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This point may have been done to death as has been pointed out but as far as I can see no one insisting that Sinitta is younger has addressed my point regarding her mother's date of birth in relation to when she gave birth as a teenager to Sinitta which from various sources (including IMDB) would appear to confirm that Sinitta cannot possibly have been born in 1968. I'd be interested in sources that could confirm otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bordertykes (talk • contribs) 16:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinitta shown her passport during Loose Wonen on the 19/10/2009 episode with Carole confirming it says 1968. Can we close this case now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.195.91 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can people please STOP citing IMDb as a source. It is a work in progress site and gets its info from anywhere and everywhere and is no more reliable a source in itself than Wikipedia. Crisso (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DOB is now back at 1966 after being 1968 for some time. Is there any way we can resolve this once and for all? How sure are we that it has to be 1966 or 1968 and not, say, 1967? How sure are we about it being 19th October? Do we really have RS for both dates? If so, maybe it would be better to acknowledge both in the article. I am not sure how that would affect the categories and infobox though. Also, we have been reverting various implausible changes to the DOB for ages now. Do we know what is driving this inanity? Is it some cliquey in-joke we are not in on? If it was just casual vandalism then it would not have gone on for so long. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think there probably is some in-joke going on. I've wondered whether it's because she has been evasive about her age in the past. Whatever the case you'd think people would get bored with changing it, but alas, it continues unabated. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As they say, "Little things please little minds"... --DanielRigal (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm writing on behalf of Sinitta herself who has asked me to have a look and please change the year of birth on 1968. as you can see from her official facebook too (http://www.facebook.com/SinittaOfficial) is is born in 1968. She has shown her passport intv which it says 1968...and she is asking WHAT SHE NEEDS TO DO TO KEEP THE YEAR OF HER BIRTH AS THE REAL ONE. will her passport's pic be ok? or will you guys still doubt about it? Thnaks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discoigor (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First up, we have no way of knowing whether you really do represent her so we can't let that sway us. I would also advise against posting complete pictures of her (or anybody's!) passport in a public place as that could be used for identity theft. Secondly, I would advise you, and her, to relax. This isn't the worst thing in the world. It should be possible to get to the bottom of it one way or another.
Does she have an official webpage that is not Facebook? The trouble with Facebook is that it is hard to tell real official pages from ones that just call themselves official.
Also, do you know if there is any information about how the other date came into circulation? It is not like Wikipedia made it up. If it can be traced back to one source that got it wrong then that will help us have more confidence as to the correct date. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identity theft? I don't think so... anyone pretending to be Sinitta would get found out pretty quickly... especially if she wasn't with/talking about Simon Cowell! --Shylock's Boy (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi there. we are relaxed about. but when you do work with your imagine and people misprint your age due to only check on Wikipedia can be annoying, especially if you are a woman in showbiz. I think it is understandable. she has a twitter oage @sinittaofficial that often goes on the papers for something she has said. if you also go on her website (Sinitta.com) there are links to that twitter page and the facebook page. I think all the confusion with her has has to do with the fact that when she was very young and at the beginning of her career she would lie about her age to make herself younger.... user: discoigor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discoigor (talk • contribs) 20:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Surely you mean she would lie to make herself older...--87.74.76.61 (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I met her she told me she was born in 1966 (and I have her saying that on tape) but the mystery continues. Just did a search for Sinitta Malone, Sinitta Renet and Sinitta Brown in Washington: (http://www.staterecords.org/?xpath=index&sj=[CUSTOM_TEXT]&ct=[CUSTOM_STATE_TEXT]&nav=1&c=[C])

• Searched Sinitta Malone and found 0 records in WA • Searched Sinitta Malone and found 0 records in Nationwide • Searched S* Malone and found 66 records in WA

• Searched Sinitta Renet and found 0 records in WA • Searched Sinitta Renet and found 0 records in Nationwide • Searched S* Renet and found 0 records in WA • Searched Renet and found 0 records in WA • Searched S* Renet and found 6 records in Nationwide

• Searched Sinitta Brown and found 0 records in Nationwide So what was her birth name? (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is convinced they've found out she was born in 1963 but without actually saying how this was discovered or naming any sources. The closest thing I've found to an official source are Sinitta's two entries [2], [3] on the Director Check website - both of which give her birth month/year as 10/1968. Crisso (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is no legal requirement for directors to put their real ages on these forms. There is a legal requirement to provide a home address to Companies House but most don't seem to do that either. Indeed on the directors' section of 192.com, which uses Companies House as a basis there is no date of birth for Sinitta. However, it does give a date of birth for her mum 8 February 1945. --Shylock's Boy (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I put on the main page, it must be 1963 because she was dating Simon Cowell's brother in 1982. He was born in March 1961 so would have been 21 - would he have gone out with a 13-year-old? She then dumped him for Simon (two years older) so unless Simon Cowell is into underage girls (which he isn't) then she must have been 18 which is much more likely and thus she was born on 19 October 1963 when her mother was 18. --87.74.76.67 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The age of legal consent in the UK is 16, and I believe that was the case in 1982, so she could have been born as late as 1966. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True (about the age of consent, I mean) but bear in mind that Sinitta was born towards the end of the year so would have been 15 for most of 1982 and I think Mrs Cowell would have warned her 20-something sons if they had both been dating a 15-year-old.--87.74.76.67 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AT LAST – MYSTERY SOLVED

We have her birth certificate thanks to The Sun, which confirms she was born in Seattle, King County, Washington in 1963. It also puts to bed the myth that her mother was 14 when Sinitta was born. Miquel Brown was a legal and respectable 18-year-old. --The Totter 00:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

at the height of her fame she claimed her birthdate was 19/10/66 https://www.flickr.com/photos/51106326@N00/31336430733/in/album-72157678725073506/

Pregnancy?[edit]

Any source to confirm the pregnancy?

I find it hard to believe she is pregnant as she appeared ice skating in the recent Dancing on Ice final. ITV would not allow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.251.121 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discography[edit]

I have created a separate Sinitta discography article for singles and albums as there was a lengthy section listing the albums and their tracks here which was making the article quite long. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of program[edit]

The spelling of program is incorrect in this article. Sinitta is American.

There is no absolute rule that says that spellings have to match the person's nationality. Our rules on this are to be consistent within each article and not keep changing spellings without good reason. Given that we are talking about somebody who lives in the UK, is primarily famous in the UK and works on UK TV programmes I don't see a problem with using UK spelling. For all we know, she may even have "gone native" and adopted UK spelling herself. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date of birth fiasco[edit]

As per the Amanda Lear article I have made certain changes regarding the date of birth. I personally believe the user who argued to be 1968 as they put forward a convincing case, but all references appear to point to 1966. Lear's article adds a note to the references section stating that her date of birth is an alleged one, never officially confirmed, and since the same appears to be the case with Sinitta then I have done likewise here. And I've changed it to 1966 because that's the date that is stated elsewhere. I hope this may finally clear the matter up until (or rather if) an official source can be found. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an official source for her mother's date of birth - the records for her own company Attinis Ltd, where she gives 8 February 1945. I am pretty sure that she was 18 not 14 when she had Sinitta and Greta and the twins were born in 1963. When I met her in 1989 she told me she was born in 1966 but I think she was dissembling. Any later date means that she was dating Simon Cowell when he was 23 and she was 14. --Shylock's Boy (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)--87.74.77.237 (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding date of birth. There is no official proof eitherway of her date of birth. In this case it is better to go by her official website (ie. her first hand testimony) rather than use pure speculation to change her main date of birth as 1966. The birth date controversey is duly noted and both sides of the argument represented and put forward in the article. But for pretty much all celebrities on Wikipedia, the official date of birth they state is almost always used as the one for their articles and so (however arguable) she should recieve the same treatment - until PROOF of another earlier date can be put forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.186.212 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it better to go by her official website? That way lies madness.--Shylock's Boy (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is simply no other source to say otherwise, so perhaps she should be allowed the courtesy of having the date of birth her official site lists - as is the same with every other celeb on Wiki - rather than start some back and forth over her birthdate. As long as the text of the article contains reference to the ambiguitys over the date then that should be sufficient. Until of course someone could come up with proof (ie a birth certificate or record) to dispute the information she herself provides. People can't. Changing it on the basis that it would mean "simon cowell liked underage girls" is of no relevance to this whatsoever, thats not proof.

81.105.194.49 (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC) We now have her birth certificate. Yet some twits are still attempting to change it. --The Totter 22:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, guess I would be one of the 'twits' to whom you refer. Let's have a look at one of these sources you are using to back up that DOB:
The 52-year-old music mogul used to date the singer and X Factor mentor and reportedly found it hilarious that she has been found out. It was recently claimed that her birth certificate shows she is actually 48 rather than the 43 she has been telling people. A source said to UK newspaper Daily Mirror: "Simon was chuckling to himself all day after discovering Sinitta's real age had been busted. [4] [Bolding mine] -- Hillbillyholiday talk 18:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see The Sun source, but I gather that it shows the birth certificate. Still not good enough. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 19:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Simon Cowell found hilarious or not is irrelevant to her real age. You obviously have no idea about newspapers. How on earth can her birth certificate not be good enough? It's an official document. Or are you suggesting it's a forgery?--The Totter 23:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Another day another PA :)
It's certainly not unknown for tabloids to print forged photographs or documents on the front page. [5] -- Hillbillyholiday talk 23:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what a PA is – pain in the arse? No, it's not. But a) it wasn't on the front page, it was well inside the book, b) why would they – in this case? and c) Apart from Sinhen14 who is most likely the person above who kept saying they knew for a fact that she was born in 1968 (fact!) no one (also apart from you) has questioned it. Has Sinitta officially claimed the birth certificate printed in the paper and online is a forgery? Has she issued libel proceedings? Has her PR denied its veracity? With all Simon Cowell's money they could easily have persuaded The Sun to drop the story. To compare the Daily Mirror story to Sinitta is frankly ridiculous. Do you have any examples of tabloids forging celebrity birth certificates?--The Totter 23:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting they forged the certificate (although I wouldn't put it past them), I'm not even suggesting that it is a fake, just that the sources you've provided aren't up to scratch. Here's some reasons why The Sun just ain't good enough. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 00:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last entry on that blog was more than a year ago. The Sun has a new editor and, thanks to the Leveson enquiry, a new ethos. Since Sinitta hasn't sued/denied the birth certificate, it is a valid source – irrespective its publication in a tabloid (which you obviously have a downer on). And it's only you who claims it's not good enough so unless there is a storm of protest about its veracity/validity, please leave it.--The Totter 00:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Hillbillyholiday Funny you haven't included The Guardian in your target list. You know the paper that told lies about The Sun's coverage of Millie Dowler hacking and didn't recant; or reported that The Sun lied about Gordon Brown's son's medical records and then didn't apologise when again The Guardian was found to be wrong.--The Totter 00:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
You need to understand that it's not my personal opinion here. Like all news organizations, The Guardian regularly makes mistakes, but it isn't a tabloid and is therefore considered a respectable source by Wikipedia's guidelines. Not mine. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er yes The Guardian is a tabloid. Have a look at it in the shops. It certainly is not a broadsheet.--The Totter 01:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegraph Totter (talk • contribs)
Let's not quibble over semantics. Where did you get the birth certificate from? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW today's Daily Mail says in passing that she is 49 (= born 1963). Everything points to this being her correct birth year. Ludicrous that the article now has no birthdate at all. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2421705/Sinitta-opens-Simon-Cowells-shock-baby-announcement.html 86.173.157.63 (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent newspaper interviews all give her age as 49, and Google now uses the 1963 birthdate. She seems to be phasing in the truth. Sah10406 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember when So Macho came out and Sinitta is definitely a few years older than me (born 1967). Unless you believe she was dating Simon Cowell at 13 and working on TV at 14 then it's time to accept the highly plausible 19th Oct 1963 date. TheMathemagician (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

! ANGERS ME[edit]

IS THIS WHAT WE DO ON HERE NOW? COPY THE SECTIONS OF OFFICIAL WEBSITES VERBATIM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.28.195 (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Shout. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He or she has a point, though. --Shylock's Boy (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YES IT IS . IT ANNOYS ME TOO MATE! 86.177.26.176 (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected[edit]

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I didn't get chance to revert the DOB information. The article is now fully protected with a DOB that isn't cited, and that can only be traced to non-RS sources. It needs changing. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 00:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to take a side in this dispute, maybe the other side is wrong, maybe not. But I always try to err on the side of caution if there may be BLP issues, so just to be safe I rolled it back to before the edit war. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding so quickly, but I fail to see your logic here. I would err on the side of caution by not leaving tabloid sourced details in there, wouldn't that be safer? I'm sure there are rules vis-a-vis tabloids in BLPs and The Sun is particularly 'tabloidy'. Worse still, as it stands there is no link to where the DOB info even comes from. John and I recently worked on removing the rubbish sources from this article and it's disappointing to see it locked down with new guff added. Bah! What am I thinking? Life's too short to be arguing over Sinitta's age.. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen your reply at RFPP Thanks once again. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe I have removed all of the DOB info, though it took me a few tries to find it all. Also, I removed a comment that was inserted into the middle of your comment here. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been much discussion on Sinitta's date of birth here and in the press. 1963, 1966 and 1968 have all been mooted. Sinitta and her representatives claim 1968. Last week, The Sun published online and in print a copy of Sinitta's birth certificate, which showed it to be 1963. That date tallies with her appearances on television when if the 1968 date was correct, she would have been 13 or 14 but was actually 18 or 19. The 1963 date would tally with comments in Tom Bower's biography of Simon Cowell. Although the book is said to be unauthorised, Cowell has admitted spending much time helping Bower. Since publication of the document, Sinitta has not denied the veracity of the certificate. She has not issued or even threatened to issue a libel writ (for The Sun suggesting she is a liar). I believe the case has been proved for the date being kept at 1963.--The Totter 00:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Have you not seen Wikipedia? Thousands of articles are sourced by tabloids. Just because you have appointed yourself as some tabloid crusher doesn't mean that they are wrong and you are right. If you're that "unbothered", why are you arguing over Sinitta's age?

--The Totter 01:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oh believe me, I have some idea of just how many articles are sourced to the gutter press, that's precisely why I started this Sisyphean task. I've removed hundreds of citations so far and have plans to accelerate the purge. You are of course welcome to assist.
For the record, i wouldn't be averse to using tabloid sources in our articles, provided they were preceded by something like:
"..according to notorious rumour-mongers and bullshit-artists The Mail, ..etc etc"
Although such a move would probably require a Request for Comment -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hillbillyholiday "gutter press", "notorious rumour-mongers and bullshit-artists" - it is reassuring to see that as a reference writer/editor you are able to keep a fair, open-minded and even-handed approach to your work. May I remind you that both The Times and The Guardian are tabloids? (Although The Guardian insists on calling itself Berliner.) May I also remind you of the absolute nonsense rationale behind the idea that tabloids = bad, non-tabloids = good? The Mail runs a story (bad), the Telegraph picks it up and runs it uncredited (good). Do you think that's in any way sensible? --The Totter 11:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If The Sun published a birth certificate then they obviously sourcedd it from somewhere, so surely it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that someone at Wikipedia could get hold of a copy too, and end this pointless argument that's gone on for far too long now. Interestingly, I've been having a conversation over the last couple of days about whether or not we can cite such documents as a reliable source. My issue concerned a marriage certificate/license, but I gyuess it's the same principle. According to this (scroll down to "Citing a marriage certificate") it's fine, so maybe we can do the same thing here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but Hillbillyholiday thinks The Sun forged it.--The Totter 01:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they did, no doubt she'd have something to say about it. But anyone with access to Washington's state records should be able to verify whether or not it's correct. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said. No one on her behalf has claimed that the birth certificate is anything other than genuine.--The Totter 01:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegraph Totter (talk • contribs)
Official documents such as birth certificates, court documents, and driver's licenses cannot be used to support disputed material in a BLP. WP:BLPPRIMARY is very clear in this regard: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. 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." (emphasis original)--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I would have thought that unlike newspapers they would be a definitive answer to any birth-related questions. -----

Images of primary documents can be easily doctored. In addition, Wikipedia reports on material vetted by sources with a reputation for fact-checking as opposed to relying on primary sources. You can read more about Wikipedia's sourcing requirements at WP:RS and WP:BLPSOURCES.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Sinitta gives an interview to a tabloid in which she admits that she is 50 this month and that's not good enough? --The Totter 02:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Which interview would that be? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/x_factor/5181060/Sinitta-We-dont-all-sleep-with-Simon-Cowell.html where it says: Sinitta also confesses to shaving a few years off her age.

She has said she was 14 when she first met Simon in the 1980s, but it is more likely to be 19.

She said: “Some of my documents say I’ll be 50 later this month. I’m an entertainer and we often lie about our age.

“I admit I lie about my age and always have done.

“Even when I was younger I said I was older so it’s only fair to go the other way now.

“I made a film earlier this year called Iced about crackheads and I played a character from age 12 to 53 so I’ve decided I’m ageless.

“October 19 is one of the birthdays I’ll be celebrating — being 19 preferably.”--The Totter 01:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Sun is a notoriously poor source. Are you seriously suggesting that we use an interview with The Sun where she specifically states that she continously lies about her age to support the inclusion of a date? If so I would suggest you not edit this article at all because you are completely out of touch with several of Wikipedia's most important policies.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am seriously suggesting we use an interview where the subject says “Some of my documents say I’ll be 50 later this month", especially so when this concurs with the birth certificate that was published on her page. This just shows how pathetic the no tabloid rule is – if The Sun runs a story bad. The same story is picked up by The Times and run without checking or changing it – good. How is that sensible? If no primary sources are to be used, that also rules out the use of anyone's autobiography since that is a primary source. Utter bollocks.--The Totter 00:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I get it, you don't agree with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPPRIMARY, but as already noted you have to abide them unless or until they change. A purported scanned copy of a birth certificate cannot be used as a source in a BLP where the date is disputed. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But her date of birth is NOT disputed. It is 19 October and the only person who did dispute the year 1963 was Sinitta herself and even she admits “Some of my documents say I’ll be 50 later this month" by which I presume she means birth certificate, passport and driving licence – I'm guessing that SinHenAug13 is Sinitta herself or someone close to her. Are you saying the birth cert is forged? And "wikipedia reports on material vetted by sources with a reputation for fact-checking as opposed to relying on primary sources" – so every article that relies on an autobiography should be edited to remove all those refs?--The Totter 01:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Your arguments are illogical. All the evidence you provide actually exemplifies why the disputed date cannot be included under BLP policy. You can say the date is not in dispute, but there are multiple sources that report multiple ages, and the subject herself says she has provided false information and refuses to verify her age. You cannot "presume" or rely on "guessing" as you have noted you are doing. It is synthesis and original research. You are not understanding the very important policies regarding what information is to included (and excluded) in BLPs and the verifiability of material. You keep returning to the scan of a birth certificate, despite being pointed to WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPPRIMARY many times. I have told you repeatedly, you may not agree with the policies regarding BLPs and sourcing, but you need to abide by them or work to see if there is consensus to change them. I have no desire to keep pointing you to the same policies that explain why the unverified and contentious birthdate cannot be included unless it is verified as you seem completely unwilling to listen. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The date is NOT in dispute – this is the bit that YOU do not seem to understand. NO ONE has ever suggested that it is anything other than 19 October. You say a birth certificate cannot be used but fail to respond to my point that to exclude that would also exclude every single autobiography since they surely would also count as primary research. For example, Joan Collins lied about her age for years until a copy of her birth certificate was produced. In each of her autobiographies she does not admit to being born in 1933 so how do we know she was born in 1933? Her birth certificate. In addition, I was under the impression that we had reached consensus on here for the inclusion of Sinitta's year of birth which is 1963.--The Totter 03:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
You repeatedly make the same argument and still fail to grasp that a purported photograph of a primary document cannot be used to support disputed material per Wikipedia policy. This holds especially true when the BLP subject disputes the date. If you continue this slow edit war to repeatedly restore this very contentious information in violations of WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIMARY without gaining consensus (for which there is none) for its inclusion, you will likely find yourself sanctioned for repeated BLP violations. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this relevant? Or has someone else used it already?[6] Unreal7 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Mirror is a not a "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", especially a section that calls itself "For the love of gossip".--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British?[edit]

The lead describes her as American-born and one of the cats is Naturalised citizens of the United Kingdom. Where's the evidence that she has gained British citizenship and/or renounced her US citizenship? Jim Michael (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sinitta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

May I remind everyone that The Sun, the Daily Star and the Daily Mail are considered tabloid journalism and per WP:BLPSOURCES should not be used in a biography of a living person. Additionally, OK! and Hello! don't appear on the BLP noticeboard or the reliable source noticeboard as often as the other three, but that doesn't mean they're acceptable either. Please only use high-quality reliable sources, thanks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sinitta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinitta&oldid=1219884569"