Jump to content

Talk:Norman Reedus

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

Untitled

[edit]

24.10.7.2 (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm

[edit]

Preeeettty sure he wasn't born "Mormon Manga Reedus". Though I've been wrong before. (Under his photo in the sidebar.) 149.125.191.13 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Which is it?

[edit]

The sidebar says he was born in Hollywood, FL and the main article says he was born in Orlando, FL. The two cities are over a hundred miles apart. Which is it?

Looks like an IP changed it to Orlando in this edit. I've restored it with a source. (P.S. - don't forget to sign your posts!) Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Correct first and middle name?

[edit]

I think this needs to be revisited because there is a more credible source that states his birth name is "Norman Mark Reedus." The three cited links for "Mark Norman Reedus" give contradictory information on his birth year (one says 1968, the other 1967 - both incorrect) AND on his full name (one says Norman Mark, the other Mark Norman, and the third doesn't mention his full name). These links should NOT be used as credible sources. Instead, Norman's OFFICIAL website links to his IMDb profile as an "official social network." That profile says his birth name is "Norman Mark Reedus." So, unless Norman actually talks about this in a video/audio interview, this is the most official and accurate source there is. Starr1595 (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can possibly see using Reedus' official website per WP:BLPSELFPUB as a possible source for such a change, but not an IMDb page because such pages are typically user-generated and are not considered to be reliable sources for BLP articles per WP:BLPSPS. Out of the three sources cited for his name, the genealogy.com page is in my opinion the least reliable of the three and probably fails WP:BLPSOURCES. Genealogy.com also seems to be user-generated content (at least partially) which makes me wonder about its reliability as a source, especially since the site makes no claim of accuracy or editorial control. In the Entertainment Weekly article, Reedus says he was born in 1969, but otherwise nothing is said about his "real" name. That leaves the NYT page. It's not unforseeable that the information about Reedus name is incorrect, but it is after all the New York Times so arguing it's not reliable is going to be hard. Perhaps there are other more recent independent reliable sources that can be used to verify his birth name? Otherwise, I think we should go with what the NYT page says and drop the Genealogy.com page. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the NYT page has his name listed has "Norman Mark Reedus." So, I'm not sure why it's used as a source for his name being "Mark Norman Reedus." However, it also says that his birth year is 1968, which is incorrect. So that's why I felt it couldn't be used as a reliable source for either "Norman Mark Reedus" or "Mark Norman Reedus."
About IMDB: while it's true that IMDb is typically user-generated, IMDbPro allows industry people to "claim" their IMDb profiles and add/manage its contents. Although it does NOT stop others from editing the IMDb profile too, it does give more credibility to the profile when the person is a member of IMBbPro. Norman Reedus is a member of IMDbPro.
In addition, why would his official website link to his IMDb profile if it has incorrect information and not correct it? IMDB has included the full name of "Norman Mark Reedus" for MANY years now. Internet Archive snapshot of his IMDb profile from Nov 2010, showing the same information "Born: Norman Mark Reedus"
Since his official website links to it and he's a member of IMDbPro, that's why I believe his IMDb profile is the most official and accurate source there is for verifying his name at this point in time.
Also, I'm not sure if this could be used as a credible source since images can be manipulated, but someone posted a twitter direct message snapshot with Norman where he says that his first name is Norman. Starr1595 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Please indent your talk page posts and use the template Template:Reflist-talk when citing references in talk page posts if you are going to use the <ref>....</ref> markup. However, you can also add links to talk page posts by using the simpler [url.com URLNAME] mark up per H:L#External links. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Official pages of Reedus would be considered primary sources. Such pages can be used in support of cite certain information, but they are restrictions on how they can be used. That's why it is preferable to try and find reliable secondary or third-party sources which are independent of the subject. If it can be shown that Reedus' IMDbPro page is edited by he or his staff and Reedus has sole control over the content, then I guess that it could be considered an official page and used as long as it satisfies WP:BLPSELFPUB. One thing about "age" though is that sometimes what the person says and what is actually the case turn out to be different. I'm not saying that this is the case with Reedus, but some actors have embellished their age a bit and claimed to be younger than they really are. This is why it would be better to find an independent reliable source that supports what is written on any of Reedus' official pages. As I said above, I think it's OK to drop the genealogy.com source as unreliable and use the NYT source for Norman Mark Reedus, but not so sure about the DOB. Perhaps other editors will be able to offer suggestions. I'll add a link to Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series) asking for input since more editors are probably watching that page than are watching this one. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like his IMDb profile is kind of a catch-22 for what type of source it can be considered. I don't think anyone can argue that it's not one of his "official social networks" when his official website calls it that and he does have shared control over it. However, the fact that he doesn't have sole control puts it into an arbitrary classification.
I found another profile that might be considered a reliable secondary source. It's from the official Wizard World website. They host many conventions that he often appears at. It includes his full name, birthday and a very detailed bio.
Right now, I'm thinking the best course of action is to use the NYT page and the Wizard World page as sources for stating his name is "Norman Mark Reedus." Then use the Entertainment Weekly article and the the Wizard World page as sources for his age. I strongly suspect that the 1968 DOB is a typo or mistake that wasn't corrected. All other sources state his DOB as 1969 (with the exception of the Genealogy.com site, which definitely needs to be completely removed as a source since it lacks reliable sources and can't be considered a reliable source by itself). Starr1595 (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you and I are the only ones discussing this and since we both agree that the genealogy.com page is not a reliable source, I think we can be bold and remove it and use the NYT source to cite his name. Since the NYT page appears to have the incorrect DOB, I think the location of the footnote marker should be moved to right behind his name per WP:INTEGRITY. You can go ahead and make this change if you want. If you do, then I would link to this discussion in the edit sum just to let others know why you made the change. There's still a chance someone will revert the change, but maybe they will choose to discuss their reasons here first. Just for reference, you can wikilink article talk pages in edit sums.
The DOB is a bit trickier. The EW source is actually an interview with Reedus, and it is Reedus who says he was born in 1969. In my opinion, that makes it a primary source which means we have to be careful how it's used. In addition, all we know from that source is that Reedus says he was born in 1969 so I'm not really sure it's all that helpful, unless we change the text to "(born 1969)". Moreover, he wasn't answering a direct question, but more like making a comment about a bit of interesting trivia. The WW source is a possibility. It might be OK, but we don't really know really where they've gotten their info from. It's possible they just are mirroring what they've seen online or in some kind of official PR bio sheet. I think it's OK, but others might question it. The only real Wikipedia way to check is to ask about it at WP:RSN and see what others have to say. Typically, if a source passes RSN then it can be considered to be pretty reliable. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the changes you've mentioned. Although, before making these changes, there is one other thing I've noticed. Removing the Genealogy.com site will remove the only citation about his sister Leslie. All of the other sources don't mention her and can't be used for that part. I've done some addition source finding and the only reliable source that mentions her birthday also includes private information that absolutely should NOT be publicly linked to. However, I did find some additional (potentially) reliable sources. A secondary sourced article on his family ancestry. It includes his full name, birthday and his sister's name. It includes sources, but 2/3 of the links are broken. I was able to find the working links: Another personal genealogy. Although, this one is much better researched, formatted and documented. It includes both of their full names (but not birthdays). And an interview where he talks about his grandfather and mentions having a younger sister (but not her name). What are your thoughts on the usefulness of these sources in relation to his name, birthday and sister? Starr1595 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the current mention of his sister "His sister, Leslie, was born two years later" is unnecessary and almost trivial. By "trivial", I mean in a Wikipedia sense. Typically, the names of family members (other than parents) are only mentioned when they have received some sort of significant coverage in independent reliable sources or are notable in and of themselves for reasons other than being related to a famous person. Notability is not inherited, so simply being related to Reedus would not be enough to write an article about his sister. Although notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article, WP:V does. In other words, it needs to be shown that Reedus' sister has received significant coverage in reliable sources to merit any thing other than a cursory mention at best. Anything more specific such as her DOB, career, etc. is not significant to increasing the reader's understanding of Reedus. A simple sentence such as "He has a younger sister" or "He is the eldest of two children born to ..." , etc. would be OK because that can be sourced. It may even be OK to mention that he has a younger sister named "Leslie" if some mention of her by name can be found in an independent reliable source, but that's about it.

The genealogy.com source is unreliable (in my opinion) so it shouldn't be used as source for anything. The Contact Music source does not mention Reedus' sister by name so perhaps it can be used for "younger sister" but nothing more. I really doubt LamarKin.com satisfies WP:RS. It looks like a user-generated personal database/website which means it should not be used per WP:BLPSPS and WP:UGC. Even on the page you've linked to, two different spellings for Reedus ("Reedus" and "Redus") are being used which might cause editors to be question its reliability/accuracy. The EthniCeleb website is just mirroring what Reedus said in a separate interview. The site does not seem to generate its own content, but rather relies on its users to submit a celeb. The site's "Nature of Service" says "The information on Ethnicelebs is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although we may vet information to ensure its accuracy, we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate." so there does not seem to be any form of serious editorial control in place. Moreover, interviews are primary sources and may not necessarily reflect what independent reliable sources says. Interviewees tend to make everything they talk about, including their personal lives, seem significant. There's lots of information about Reedus which is true, but not all of it needs to be added to his Wikipedia article. It may seem cold, but what is true is not as important as what can be verified when it comes to Wikipedia, especially when it comes to BLP articles. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I will change that portion to include just a cursory mention of his sister and also make the previously discussed changes. Thank you so much for your input and help. Please let me know if I've done anything incorrectly in the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starr1595 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. After all, you did pretty much all of the digging and finding of links. I just added some comments. Also, don't worry about messing up. Wikipedia is not perfect and we all make mistakes, so be bold. As long as your edits are a good faith attempt to improve, then nobody should give you any grief over them. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Emily Kinney

[edit]

There's been some recent edits made about a relationship Reedus may or may not be having with his former co-star Emily Kinney. This information really should only be added if it can shown that this has received independent reliable sources per WP:BLPREMOVE. Even if it's true, the information should stay out until it at least can be verified and a consensus can be established as to how important it is to the reader's understanding of Reedus per WP:BLPGOSSIP. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Norman Reedus. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 01:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Norman Reedus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I cleaned up the filmography to make it a bit more organized as well as added movies that were missing previously to the list. I did not include The Boondock Saints II, as confirmation of a filming date or release date has yet to be made public. DreamerOfDreams 02:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 02:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Norman Reedus. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norman_Reedus&oldid=1205029679"