Talk:Coco Austin

Her figure

Is there any reason why she has such a noticeable figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnOicheGhealai (talk • contribs) 12:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather obvious that her figure is the main point of her activities and consequent notability. She has got... has got... er, she is... um. Her figure is... noticeable. Centrepull (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I wondered that - has she had buttock implants? This photo [1] uploaded onto Perez Hilton yesterday (headed "Bootylicious Is An Understatement") suggests perhaps she has, as I can't belive that derriere is for real. 81.159.88.200 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

based on this new evidence (http://famousplastic.com/category/nicole-coco-austin/) i think it's safe to assume that she was indeed surgically "enhanced". --Oren neu dag (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone thinks she has them given the lack of evidence, as her legs are proportionate. 82.32.11.95 (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Serbian ancestry

"She has Serbian ancestry through maternal grandparents [born in Serbia]." So she is of Serbian ancestry through her mother, no matter if she (her mother) was born in Serbia or not. Right? Why going back to her grandparents?--87.184.133.123 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Because that's what the cited source gave. We don't extrapolate; we just give the facts as stated by reliable-source citations. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

This edit says "On November 28, 2015, the couple announced their child Chanel Nicole Marrow had been born, without specifying the exact date." The source is this instagram post which reads "Thanks so much for all the warm wishes today.I'm doing great! I had the best delivery! I pushed Chanel out in 3 tries! This was taken not 5 minutes after delivery,called skin to skin contact..better for a more bonding experience PS.I just started a Instagram for Chanel"

The post does not specify the exact date, whether it's a boy or a girl, height, weight, whether or not dad was there, natural childbirth or Cesarean, Chanel's middle name and several thousand other things.

Did they announce any of these things? From that source we cannot tell. We know they didn't specify those things in that post. Is it remarkable that an instagram post didn't provide every possible detail of a life event? No.

I am willing to be that the statement that they did not announce the specific day is categorically wrong. Would you like to find it, or shall I? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, we're also citing an Us Weekly article which essentially regurgitates the instagram post, adds some mindless gushing and -- surprise! -- doesn't mention the supposed lack of a specific birth date. How could a celebrity rag fail to note this important aspect of the story? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, due respect, your change creates an erroneously misleading impression and there is no talk-page consensus for it. You are edit-warring. After you've been reverted the first time, the status quo remains until there is a consensus for the change. As you yourself note, the Instagram post did not specify a date. That is correct. The height, weight, form of delivery, etc., are WP:INDISCRIMINATE minutiae. The fact we don't give the gender indicates the Instagram post didn't say the gender. The Instagram post does have a date, so it's necessary to draw a distinction between that date and the birth date. You're right about the middle name — the parents didn't give it, and unless the parents or their reps give it publicly, we can't use it. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I asked for a source for unsourced information. The claim is not in the source. Per WP:V: "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

I removed the unsourced claim. You restored it. The burden to provide a source is yours: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material..."

Yes, BRD. That's a great general idea. It is, however, not a policy or guideline and you are not following it: "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle: If your reversion is reverted, then there may be a good reason for it. Go to the talk page to learn why you were reverted." The good reason here is our policy.

You are stating the parents did not announce the birth date. You do not have a source for that. It is a guess -- and an absurd one at that. The unsourced statement gives the impression that the parents are attempting to hide the date of birth. Thank about that for a second: With an approximate birth date, parents' names and the hospital anyone can find the date of birth. Again, I am willing to bet they did announce the birth date. The statement you are defending is original research and is likely wrong. I'll give you a bit of time to find a source. Failing that, I will either remove the unsourced information (per our policies, WP:V and WP:BLP) or provide a source showing that it is clearly, unequivocally wrong. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

No, not that the parents never specified: What is stated is that the parents' announcement — and the announcement, their only announcement, is cited right there — did not specify a birth date. And that announcement objectively, unquestionably, does not give a birth date.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating that their only announcement did not specify a birth date? Again, I am challenging the claim. It is your burden to provide a reliable source which directly supports the claim that they did not announce the birth date or that their only announcement did not specify a birth date. This is original research and is very likely wrong. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Look at that. It was the WORST coverup in history.[2] - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

They made a birth announcement. We cite it. Announcing something means the news is out there. Once it's out there, it's been announced. You can't "announce" the same thing twice. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

RE: "Not 10 minutes out the womb and I'm posing." The photo may have been shot 10 minutes out of the womb, but that doesn't mean it was posted the same day. Lyndsy Fonseca posted her wedding picture on an Oct. 5, but she was married on Oct. 2. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

A few problems:

• You restored unsourced material in violation of WP:V.
• Adding a cite needed template to the article is not a revert. Your 3RR warning is wrong.
• You removed a maintenance template without addressing the issue.
• I do not need to prove the photo was posted the same day. You need to prove it wasn't. You are the person making the claim. The WP:BURDEN is yours.
• Austin states in the pre-existing source she created the other account before the announcement you claim is the only announcement. That account gives the birth date, kid's name, parents' names, etc. (Note the source you removed is not the photo linked above.)

I'll add a note to my talk page that your 3RR warning is in error. If you'd like, I can give you the warnings for adding unsourced information and removing maintenance templates. If you'd like to self-revert and drop it, go ahead. If not, I will warn you for adding unsourced information and revert it myself tomorrow night. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not in violation of WP:V. The announcement objectively does not state a birthdate.

As for what's 3RR, we can let the admins decide.

No, WP:BURDEN does not require one to prove a negative, which is essentially impossible.

The cited Instagram announcement does not give a birth date.

Finally, "waiting for tomorrow night" is gaming the system. That will not fool admins. The proper course would be for you to start an RfC and gain editorial consensus to change the objectively accurate status quo. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That is absurd. All of it.

She had a baby. She announced the birth. But that's not good enough. You want to carefully parse it out, assume meanings from lack of evidence, imagine adding a maintenance tag is reverting you, dream of an admin who will go along with that and find some possible way to keep an absurd, unsourced claim in a BLP.

Great. I propose saying they had a baby and give the date based on any one of multiple sources. I propose leaving out the absurd "Oh, but they never said X!" You disagree. Great. I guess it's time for the reliable sources noticeboard. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on the consensus at the RSNB[3], I propose replacing the current OR bit with "In November 28, 2015, the couple's daughter, Chanel was born." I'm fine with citing the gushy Us Weekly article. If you'd prefer, there are certainly other non-primary sources available. I'll wait briefly for any comments. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Edited to strike out the "28". This was a typo. In editing the existing statement, I intended to give the month and year, as suggested at the RSNB. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus there. You cannot yourself, unilaterally, declare there is a consensus for your own position! We would be taking this to ANI if you attempt a stunt like that, and I'm sure admins will not condone such behavior.

There's no OR. It is an objective fact that anyone can see, based on the announcement's statement, that you yourself quote, that the parents did not give a birth date. Continuing to call it OR when it factually, objectively, is not, is behaving in bad faith and also untruthful.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

And incidentally, per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we generally do not publish minor children's birth dates unless the parents themselves or their representatives have released that information publicly. We try to respect the parents' wishes, as done, for example, at Ginnifer Goodwin and Kristen Bell.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I'm trying to remove original research in a BLP. As I have now noted, "In November 28, 2015," was a typo from editing the current statement. I intended (and I am suggesting) "In November, 2015,". I've started an RfC, below. When that has run its course, I will request admin closure and edit accordingly. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on birth announcement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus of the discussion is to omit the qualification until/unless that is mentioned in secondary sources. --RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the "Personal life" specify that the parents announced the birth "without specifying the exact date" or omit the claim? - 22:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep In their Instagram post, the parents announced the birth and the child's name. They did not announce a birth date. Because some readers and editors assume an Instagram post is always posted on the same day as an event when in fact it could be days later, we need to specify that the parents did not give a birth date. Otherwise, people will assume. As an example, Lyndsy Fonseca posted a wedding announcement witout specify a marriage date. It turns out she'd gotten married three days earlier.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
• Omit - Currently, the section claims, "On November 28, 2015, the couple announced their child Chanel had been born, without specifying the exact date." However, no sources say they did not specify the date, it is merely not in the Instagram post cited. This is WP:OR. Moreover, the Instagram cited specifies that mom had just started an Instagram account for the baby, which unequivocally gives the d.o.b.[4] It unequivocally gives the date.[5] Instead, I favor a neutrally worded statement, "In November, 2015, the couple's daughter, Chanel was born." This seems to be the approach favored at the Reliable sources noticeboard.[6] It gives the encyclopedic information: birth of a daughter, approximate (for privacy) d.o.b. It avoids the unsourced claim that they did not announce the date of birth, a trivial and unsourced claim. We can cite the US Weekly source currently used (omitting the primary source Instagram post) or one of numerous other sources providing the same info.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the line reads, "On November 28, 2015, the couple announced their child Chanel had been born, without specifying the exact date." Anyone (see link above) can see that, as stated, the announcement does not specify an exact date. That is not OR but observable, objective fact about the announcement. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, when secondary sources make a birth-date claim not given by the parents or their representatives, but rather by shadowy, anonymous "sources" of unknown credibility, we don't run it.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• No - Just say that in nov they announced the birth. Why over complicate this?? --Malerooster (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I would say to avoid misleading readers. Even some Wikipedia editors believe that the date of an Instagram post is necessarily the date that an event happened, when it's really not. My feeling is that a few words that clarify something rather than leaving it vague is both good writing and contributes to accuracy. But hey, at least we agree on not stating a specific date! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that there is no need for a specific date, since as you point out it could confuse readers or they could assume that to be the birth date without the "disclaimer". Again, saying something like "In November 2015, the couple announced the birth of their child...." is accurate and really doesn't seem to mislead our readers. --Malerooster (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Omit most Which means we can say they announced that they had a child, but not any details as we generally do not give names of minor children unless they are notable. Collect (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, per RfC, it's acceptable to give a celebrity's child's name if the parents or their representatives have released them to the media. It'd be whitewashing to not name, say, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's children, whose names are constantly in the media. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Omit until secondary sources are available. scope_creep (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Omit the line "without specifying the exact date". Saying that Person X announced Event Y on a particular date is okay (when verifiable, as it is in this case). It is not necessary to smack the reader in the face with extra words that mean "Please take extra-careful notice that we're talking about the date that Person X made the announcement, which could possibly be different from the date on which Event Y actually happened."
  If anyone's still struggling with the idea that the baby was actually born on November 28th, then please look at http://people.com/babies/ice-t-coco-austin-daughter-chanel-turns-2/ which was published on Tuesday, 28 November 2017, and which says the girl turned two that day. See also https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-moms/news/coco-austin-fresh-out-of-the-hospital-after-giving-birth-to-daughter-photo-w158932/ from December 2015, which says "[Coco] and her husband, Ice T, welcomed their daughter on Saturday, Nov. 28". There is no plausible reason to doubt that this child was verifiably born on that date. That said, I think that exact birthdates for BLPs are usually WP:TRIVIA and would be happy to see the specific date omitted, but if we can't manage to omit the date, then we really shouldn't add a bunch of pointless words about whether the announcement coincided with the event, given that we do actually know that the birth was announced on the same day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.