Talk:Michelle Thomas/Archives/2017

Dynamic IP edit warring

As the extensive history on this talk page indicates, we have been through the mill on several issues regarding Thomas. If there were no other sources, a costar stating a date of birth would probably serve as a reliable source for a DOB (though I'd tag it for better source needed). With numerous reliable sources not agreeing, however, we simply have another source.

Suggestions for what to do with this one (and all of the existing ones) are welcome.

Edit warring will not resolve the issue. I've requested page protection. If there is no discussion, the status quo will remain. If edit warring resumes after the page protection expires, we can easily add it back for longer and longer periods of time until either the disruptive editor goes away, discussion begins or page protection is applied indefinitely. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Page is now protected. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

As a result of this nonsense, I went back and checked. It looks like some of the uncertainty around her date of death was removed at some point. I have restored it. Thanks for that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Dead links

Shoudn't we remove all dead links as well? They do nothing good. DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. Sources are not limited to those easily available on the web. If we cite and article in the Podunk Reporter and give a link to the article, the source is the article in the Poduck Reporter, not the web page. If the paper reorganizes their website (or simply does not maintain old links), the article is still as valid as it ever was. If an archive of the site can be found (see WP:DEADREF), that can be added. If not, the source should simply be tagged with a DL tag. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"NOW, DOB has been satisfactorily established as per ancestry.com and gravestone commissioned by family"

Yes, the user-created site familysearch.org (which we are calling ancestry.com) gives this date. Its source? Why, it's findagrave.com, another user-created site. What's the second new source? It's findagrave.com, the same user-created site.

Yes, this one source does include a photo of a grave marker for "CHU-CHU", further stating "MERRY CHRISTMAS; EASTER BUNNY; SWEET DREAMS". How do we know this is her grave marker? The user-created site says so. How do we know it is the grave marker "commissioned by family"? The edit summary says so.

So, we're taking one user-created site, sourced to another user-created site (over the Miami Herald and Bay State Banner) to state that her nickname was "CHU-CHU" and, despite her requests for Muslim funeral services, we guess her family wanted to add a couple of Christian holidays to her marker.

In this case the grave marker contains no identifiable connection to Thomas, and Find-a-Grave (and even gravestones themselves) are simply not always reliable. As far as gravestones not always being reliable, let me explain: certain individuals shaved years off their ages and their families (unknowingly or otherwise), put the later (wrong) year down -- Merna Barry and Ruby Keeler, off the top of my head, for starters. Quis separabit? 20:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

So are you saying in this instance she added onto her age? Seeing as the stone reflects her being 40, as opposed to the younger 29. And how can identifiable marks matter in regards to the deceased when others are choosing the stone's design? It's got a DOB-DOD on it, and for all we know THOMAS may be on the back of it like some stones. Paul Walker's burial site merely has a wall with WALKER on it. For all we know that could be any number of Walker's, but via sites such as Find a Grave it can be established it is Paul's. It's a community that pour over Death records, funeral details and in some cases actually work at the cemetery. As for what's on the stone itself, who's to say CHU CHU wasn't a phrase she used, or gel it could've been a nickname. That can be considered an identifiable mark. Rusted AutoParts 20:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

To review:

• Variety says she died December 22, 1998 at age 29. We now cite this for September 23, 1968 – December 23, 1998 (calculates to age 30).[1]

If Variety says she died December 22, aged 29, then it would be September 23, 1969 - December 22, 1998, no? NOT September 23, 1968 – December 23, 1998. Quis separabit? 20:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

That was the problem. At that point the citation did not support the dates it was used for. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• familysearch.com is a user-created site. It cites another user-created site as its source. We're calling it ancestry.com. It does, however, say what we are saying it says.[2]
• One user's only contribution to a user-created site is a photo of a grave marker for "CHU-CHU", with references to Christmas and Easter. We have nothing else to indicate this is in any way connected to "Michelle Thomas", who requested Muslim services. The dates, however, do match.[3]
• Entertainment Weekly says she died December 22, 1998 at age 30. We now cite this for September 23, 1968 – December 23, 1998 (calculates to age 30)[4]
• The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (now a dead link) was previously used as a source for September 23, 1969 – December 22, 1998 {calculates to 29). We now cite this for September 23, 1968 – December 23, 1998 (calculates to age 30).
• The New York Times says she died December 23, 1998 at age 30. We now cite this for September 23, 1968 – December 23, 1998 (calculates to age 30).[[5]]
• People says she died December 23, 1998 at age 30. We now cite this for September 23, 1968 – December 23, 1998 (calculates to age 30).[[6]]
• The Miami Herald says she died December 22, 1998 at age 29. We no longer cite this.[[7]]
• The Bay Street Banner says she died at age 29. We no longer cite this.[[8]]

To summarize:

• Born
  • September 23, 1968: findagrave.com** (findagrave.com is not a reliable source)
  • September 23, 1969: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
• Died
  • December 22, 1998: Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Miami Herald
  • December 23, 1998: findagrave.com** (findagrave.com is not a reliable source), The New York Times, People
• Age
  • 29: Variety, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Miami Herald, The Bay Street Banner
  • 30: findagrave.com** (findagrave.com is not a reliable source), Entertainment Weekly, The New York Times, People

No, it is not "satisfactorily established". I understand the desire to have one birth date, one date of death and one age. Unfortunately, the reliable sources do not provide this. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That's the same point I had been making; however, a family commissioned gravestone would seem to resolve the matter, but I see your point(s). Quis separabit? 11:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I see a photo of a grave marker that someone somewhere has asserted is hers and an assumption (built on that assertion) that it was commissioned by her family. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am the person who requested the photo of the headstone on Find a Grave. The user who took the photo left the following message on my page on Find a Grave after photographing, "RE: Michelle Thomas You're very welcome. I've been meaning to do it for years and I finally visited her grave. Good thing the office worker at the cemetery let me know that Chu Chu was on her tombstone instead of her name. Have a great weekend." HarlandQPitt 05:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That does not make it a reliable source and it leaves more questions than answers. That her family honored her request for a Muslim funeral is well sourced. The Find-a-grave marker would have us believe that references to Christmas and Easter on the marker somehow mesh with that. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No. I get it. That's why I reverted the edits I had made. Quis separabit? 00:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Not every tombstone is going to be reflective of the usual stone tropes: name, DOB-DOD, small epitaph/compliment. Do your doubt lies squarely in her family deciding to do something different with the tombstone and base that also off her having a Muslim funeral? The stone features DOB-DOD that fall in the exact range of Thomas's mystery DOB and DOD. I'm not sure why Find a Grave isn't reliable to you. Their exact function is to catalogue Graves and where they can be found. Unless for over 19 years they've been incorrect about her burial site/tombstone location, there's no reason to not take it into consideration.

As for sources reflecting different dates, can only surmise that as the publicist misspoke, but once they amended the DOD it was too late as the media sites were still running with the initial December 22 statement. So do we tally how many say what and base the DOD off how many more times the one date was used, or can we go by the tombstone which, aside from speculating it's not hers, is the most concrete proof of the exact DOD? Rusted AutoParts 20:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

In order to use the grave marker, we would need to know that it is a reliable source for the information provided. We have two problems here:

• 1) We know that grave markers are not always correct (as outlined earlier).
• 2) We do not know the marker shown by Find-a-grave is hers. Find-a-grave is a user edited site. Whomever added the info for her marker is the "manager" of that listing. No one else can edit it. I have no doubt the person who listed it thinks it is right, but there is zero oversight -- they think it is right, so the listing stays. Yes, the dates fit into the various disputed ranges. However, we have nothing connecting that marker to her other than a user edited website and we know Thoms received Muslim services, making the Christmas and Easter references very strange.

Further, we have numerous other reliable sources giving conflicting dates.

Basically, we have a lot of problems here that we cannot simply ignore out of a desire to list one DOB and one DOD. No, we really cannot just pick one date for each and assume that any other date given or implied by other reliable sources are simply wrong. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we at least use this interview with her mother to confirm her age at time of death was 30? Date of death is still muddled, with the mother now giving Christmas Eve as the DOD. Rusted AutoParts 05:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Why was I reverted? I supplied a link to an interview with her MOTHER who stated she was 30. Seriously this is getting ridiculous the amount of scrutiny and second guessing there is on any source. Rusted AutoParts 15:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Rusted AutoParts: I too was shocked that there was another revert on this issuue. By now I would have thought you have realized that this has been a contentious issue and discussed the issue before changing virtually every piece of it without citing a source. Heck, you've been blocked more than once over it. Before making a change directly affecting this question, you will need to discuss it on the talk page. If you disagree, we can certainly take this question to another forum to discuss whether we need to put some kind of formal agreement in place to discuss the issue and find a consensus before assuming that -- this time for sure, unlike all of the other times you were sure but ended up having problems -- your change will solve this question once and for all without any doubts. I mean, I know I was sure all of those other times and it didn't work, but this time I'm really, really sure that I'm sure, so this time for sure.

This edit changes most of what we have been discussing without citing a source that verifies any of the info. Yes, the edit summery mentions a source (which is not citing a source) but that source does not confirm the changes made.

The source in the edit summary does not say she was born September 23, 1968. Further, the edit leaves various sources in place after changing the information they are cited for. This leaves us with information you have combined from various sources, citing some of those sources, leaving out one key source and including sources which directly contradict the claims you are making. That "...she was gone that Christmas eve. She had just turned 30." does not seem to be consistent with the other sources having her death occurring 3 months after her birthday and a day or two before Christmas Eve. As already discussed, we have various claims for her birth date/year and death date.

After all the back and forth on this, discuss the issue before making changes. Oh, and in case I don't talk to you between now and then, have a Merry Christmas, insha'Allah. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't need my edit/block history read back to me. I edit pages when new information can be added and with this, it was new information, which I actually linked in this discussion thread before, but I was ignored. How is "...she was gone that Christmas eve. She had just turned 30" evidence of contradiction to what the other sources state, or bare any relevance to not being reliable because a birthdate wasn't provided? People can tend to refer to things in a recent tense, despite it happening maybe a week or a month, maybe a few prior to them talking about it. Her mother is stating her age as 30. This specifies her age via a family member, someone who knows more about the person than the New York Times, or Wall Street Journal, or whoever else you may want to point to. It may further confuse the DOD, but I'm fairly sure it's usable to confirm how old she was when she died. Her own mother would know that information. Rusted AutoParts 15:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Who would think she was giving the DoD as December 24? Apparently you: "...with the mother now giving Christmas Eve as the DOD.

Let's review what you did that I reverted: Without discussing an issue that has been contentious for quite some time, you did NOT add a new source, you left all of the sources which disagree, agree, contradict and/or do not contradict the age and year of birth you are leaving. She "had just turned 30"... three months ago, if one of the dates given is correct. Maybe NONE of the DoBs are correct but no, you picked one.

(My reference to your block history, incidentally, was in the hopes that you would recognize a problem in the past and not repeat it.)

All of that said, without synthesizing the sourced information that we have, how would you suggest we present the DoB, DoD and age at death in the article? - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't remove the sources already there because they were shortened links for others used throughout the article and I didn't want to cause a problem in the references with their removal. I was not immediately free to link the source as I had prior things to attend to, so I put it in the edit summary for someone else to see it and put it in or for myself to just take it from the summaryh so i did not have to refind it. The source was not meant to be used to correct the whole issue, but rather at least fully confirm how old she was at her death. Seeing as it was a direct quote from the mother saying she was 30. Rusted AutoParts 02:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit made changes to content not supported by the (uncited) source without adding a cite, leaving sources that conflicted with the information. That is why it was reverted.

Now that we have that out of the way, without synthesizing the sourced information that we have, how would you suggest we present the DoB, DoD and age at death in the article? - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

DOB should be presented as September 23, 1968 to reflect her age as 30. The source I linked in my edit summary should be enough to cover that, as it's her mother directly providing that information and not people were weren't as directly connected to her. DOD should remain as is, her stating it as Christmas Eve could just be rounding off as opposed to her actual DOD. Rusted AutoParts 03:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

And that is where the synthesis comes in. We have sources giving a DoB that we are now assuming are wrong because combined with the varying dates of death on other sources give an age that is not consistent with a third source. We also have sources giving a DoB that combined with a DoD from another source gives an age that is consistent with the age stated in a third source. Compounding this, some of those sources give ages that are inconsistent with the third source.

This has us picking and choosing bits of information from various sources based on whether or not those bits and pieces are consistent with info in the third source when combined with bits from second sources. It also has us accepting and rejecting info from the same source.

Finally, we're interpreting info from that third source so that it fits with other sources. Christmas Eve? Well, maybe-kinda-I-guess she might be referring to December 22 or 23 in some kind of off-hand way. "Just" turned 30... Yeah, 3 months ago. Maybe that's what she meant. That MUST be what is happening, because it couldn't possibly be that her birthday was actually in early December or late November and her DoD couldn't have been December 24. It COULDN'T be any of those, of course, because that wouldn't allow us to finally give just one age and birth date, like we really want to.

In other articles, we have various reliable sources giving conflicting dates of birth, dates of death and ages, sometimes based on sources surprisingly similar to those being used here: a family financed grave marker (which we can't confirm here), the New York Times, etc.

In my book, we do not have a final answer on much of anything. Yes, instead of "29 or 30", I think we now have "30 (some sources say 29)". That said, I think everything else stays the same. I do not think we have clear enough sources to dismiss those that conflict with any given info. I think it is clear that there is clearly disagreement among reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You say disagreement when it's more some getting incorrect info, which can only be surmised as borrowing from sources that gave that info at the time. They plucked their information from a publicist. We now have an interview with that mother that took place in the last 5 years, stating she had just turned 30. That to me counts more than outdated and incorrect information. That's the point of updating sources, no? It's not saying the interview is more reliable and better than say the New York Times in general, its just the source happens to be who the mother gave the interview to. And i'm sorry, but the bit about her birthday comes off as egregious overthinking, The day and month were never in dispute. It was whether she was 29, or whether she was 30. Unaffiliated sources gave conflicting ages. Her mother gave 30, in a much more recent interview. Rusted AutoParts 13:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edit, however, does not treat all of the "outdated" sources the same. You are assuming some are right and some are wrong by combining other equally old sources with the newer source. The newer source, if correct, does not give a birth date or death date and -- as you indicated -- seems to conflict with all of the given dates for her death.

Yes, the mother says 30. Your assumption that she is an unimpeachable source is unfounded. While I have no specific reason to believe it is or is not the case here, there are clearly instances where individuals have misstated their birth dates/ages. (In another article (also a young actress), ALL of the older independent sources, plus an older interview with the person in question, gave one date and a newer interview with her suddenly made her two years younger. I leave it to you to imagine why.)

(None of the sources are "outdated". There is no reason to believe info on her date of birth becomes more accurate over time. There are certainly reasons the complete opposite may be true.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? The woman who gave birth to the deceased in your mind could be wrong about the precise age of her own daughter? Why does her stating her daughter's age make the date of birth ambiguous? The day and month were never in question, it was always cited by all as September 23. What was conflicting was the year (1968 or 1969). All it does is provide a precise age. By her mother stating it as 30, her death being in 1998, it's pretty clear that the year of birth is 1968. And sources may not become outdated, but new information is able to come out. It's been 18 years. All this is is egregious second guessing because "some" sources printed different dates. All of their information comes from a publicist. This source is from the bloody mother. Why are we applying original research in an effort to state her as less than reliable? Rusted AutoParts 16:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not say she was "wrong" (though that is far from impossible), you assumed that's what I was saying. In another article, the subject of the article herself gave a date that conflicted with all of the older sources, including an interview she had given year prior. I doubt she was "wrong" (though that is possible), I suspect she was shaving a couple of years off her age to maintain her career.

I have no idea where you think "new information" on her date of birth has come from in the past 18 years, especially given the near complete lack of new sources during those years. I can assure you, there is not a project room at the University of Tinseltown where scholars are diligently researching this question.

You are making the following assumptions:

A) The sources, some of which clearly have the year wrong (because there can't be more than one) must have the month and day right.

B) Statements in an interview are never anything but honest and correct. (Apparently the woman in that other article had two birth years or miraculously "discovered" she was two years younger than she thought, just as she would have otherwise turned 40...).

C) Sources in "A" that are not contradicted by "B" are obviously right about things "B" did not state.

D) Anything in "B" that might conflict with the sources in "C" is a matter of interpretation.

People's date of birth do not change. What people, particularly actresses, say there birthday is does change.[9]

Here's what we have, as sourced: DoB - September 23, 1968 (some sources say 1969), DoD – December 22 or 23, 1998, Age at death - 30 (some sources say 29). Anything else is synthesis and/or special pleading. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Her co-star Jaleel White also confirmed her D.O.B, may it be reliable?--Venjea87 (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If White is a reliable source here, we have new problems. Currently, we say she was diagnosed with intra-abdominal desmoplastic small-round-cell tumor in August 1997 and died a year and a half later, after two rounds of surgery. White says she died "quickly" of "stomach cancer". From our article, desmoplastic small-round-cell tumor apparently occurs just about everywhere but the stomach and I personally don't see a year and a half with two rounds of surgery as "quickly".

If anyone would like to suggest the "psychic" or his research as a reliable source, we also have the 21st as a date. It's no more ridiculous than the "Chu-chu" grave marker, supposedly place by family, wishing "Merry Christmas, Easter Bunny" to a Muslim. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Rusted AutoParts about the interview with her mother. Her mother says she was 30 at the time of her death and since the day and month never has been questioned that gives the year as 1968, that's how we have handled other articles where only the year have been questioned. "Just turned 30" doesn't liiterarly always means that it happened some days ago. Two months ago isn't that long ago. And "gone that christmas eve" isnt the same as "died that christmas eve". It means that she was dead then just as she is dead today even if she didn't die this year. When you're dead, you are dead for all eternity. DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

We have multiple independent reliable sources giving her birth date and/or death date and/or age at death. If we had only one, we would report that information without question. No one would say, "Oh, but that's just the New York Times, we should wait for a vague statement from her mother that we can interpret."

In other cases, we have unequivocal statements from individuals and/or their families/representatives that contradict other unequivocal statements from individuals and/or their families. In other cases, we have unequivocal statements that are plainly incorrect (unless the subject was a college freshman at age 10). In those cases, we report what the multiple sources say, with high quality sources of various types openly saying what they say and the whole mess laid out for readers.

When asked by the readers eyes: "How old was she?" We answer with: "This is what the reliable sources say." That's what Wikipedia does. We do not say: "This is the opinion of several editors who have looked at the question and selected and interpreted bits of information from various sources to quilt together one coherent narrative which might be correct." - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The difference between NY Times and her mother is that her mother is flawles, NY Times etc are not. The reporters at NY Times did not know Thomas (In fact thay didn't know her at all), they didn't gave birth to her. This makes that the mothers statement triumphs what NY Times etc says, because that weighs just as much as a birth/death certificate. DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the Times should hire Thomas's sanctified, flawless mother.

Barring mental defect, I would expect that Thomas's mother would likely know the dates of her daughter's birth and death.

Barring a slip of the tongue, I would expect she could accurately say what those dates are.

Barring her having some reason to perpetuate a false age for her daughter, I would expect that she would intend to give the correct dates.

Barring simple typos, the site being hacked or some unknown reason, I'd expect the WordPress blog to accurately report what she said.

Barring simple misunderstandings of vague statements, I'd expect that our understanding would match her intended message.

Barring several other issues, I'd expect her to accurately report when her daughter was diagnosed. I'd also expect Jaleel White (see above) to accurately report when she was diagnosed. (Actually, they disagree: White says she was diagnosed with "stomach cancer" in August 1997 and died a "year and a half later" (circa February 1999). Thomas's mother days she was diagnosed November 1998 and "was gone" December 24, 1998.

Unfortuantely, we cannot accept Rusted AutoParts' assurance that Thomas's mother is "flawles" (thought they weren't able to convey that flawlessly).

Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The New York Times, People, The Miami Herald and The Bay Street Banner are all reliable sources. The information they give is verifiable. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This is insanity. Information updates as time goes by. What was initially believed can be corrected. How is there so much intense scrutiny over her mother’s interview, yet not for the sources you cite? An interview with the mother, the blood relative, a main figure in that person’s life saying in a direct interview her own daughter’s age should not be subjected to this asinine scrutiny as if there’s a reason to doubt her. What reason do you have to believe she’s lying or mistaken? What reason do you have to believe the New York Times would know the deceased more than the mother? We know your stance, I’m opening the floor to others outside of this discussion. Rusted AutoParts 07:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"Information updates as time goes by..." Yes, it does: One day, your official documentation says you were born in 1941. As the years go by, you say you were born in 1947, 1949 and 1951. Soon enough you're in federal court arguing your records should be changed to say 1951 (sourced at Charo#Birthdate).

One day you're explaining away a recording of things you said as "locker room talk", the next you're saying it didn't happen. Information updates as time goes by.

Yes, this is insanity. Dates are "tweaked" for various reasons: to hide a scandalously young marriage or affair, to keep an aging actress marketable in age-obsessed popular culture, to cover up that someone joined the military with fake documents (a felony) and hundreds of other reasons.

What reason do I have to believe she is lying or mistaken? None, specifically. What reason do you have to say she is flawless? Similarly, I do not have any illusions that Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The New York Times, People, The Miami Herald and The Bay Street Banner are flawless. Lumping together the newspapers, magazines, Thomas's mother and her co-star, it is clear some of them are wrong because they cannot all be right. Point: Thomas's mother and co-star disagree on when she was diagnosed and what she was diagnosed with. You've presented both as unimpeachable. If we look back far enough in this discussion, we have references to Thomas's mother supporting two different birth dates. If she's flawless, Thomas was born twice.

History is sloppy. People make mistakes and lie regularly. Nothing is "flawles". Wikipedia presents verifiable information. Sometimes reliable sources disagree. We don't get to pick the one we like and disregard the rest. This is not Rusted-AutoParts-Best-Guess-ipedia. The policy here is WP:VERIFIABILITY, not WP:PICKONE. I hope you have a merry Christmas, insha'Allah. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel at this point we should conduct a straw poll. I agree that Thomas’s mother’s interview should be what puts this all to rest, but for consensus sake (or at least a consensus update). Rusted AutoParts 21:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep the multiple verifiable dates and ages. Realizing that a straw poll is not a vote, Wikipedia does not use voting and that consensus is reflected by policy-based arguments (not the number of votes), I again point to WP:V and WP:IRS as discussed above. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus clearly seems to be changing in the eight years since this issue first began being debated. The fact you reject a direct relatives sourced interview giving a definitive age at death is concerning. To value an article written 18 years ago over a newer source with an answer to this question because of the fact “multiple sources say this” is just incorrect to me, especially when this interview was with the mother. The person who’d know the deceased above these publications. I don’t need another long winded response from you because I know what your response will be, just several sentences of overanalytical, scrutinizing nothingness. Rusted AutoParts 07:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The consensus is that Wikipedia is about verifiability. The consensus is that all of the publications I keep listing (even the one's that don't quite fit with your interpretations of Thomas's mother's vague statements) are reliable sources. The consensus is that we do not go by votes, we follow Wikipedia's policies (such as WP:V, [[WP:IRS and WP:PSTS).

I see no indication of a consensus to dump those policies and choose some sources over others based on your interpretation of Thomas's mother's vague statements. She said Thomas was diagnosed in November 1998. No sources agree with her. Multiple sources say she is wrong. According to your interpretation, she said Thomas died December 24, 1998. No sources agree with her. Multiple sources say she is wrong. "Flawless". - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Cute sarcasm. One problem: I wasn’t the one who referred to the mother as “flawless”, so the sarcasm falls flat. And how is the mother’s statement “vague”? Care to share what’s vague about “she just turned 30” for those clearly less intelligent than yourself? I think at some point you misconstrued me fighting for the source to confirm the DOD whereas my point was always it served as confirmation she was 30 at time of death. That would bolster all the sources you hold so dear as being correct in reporting age at death was 30. Rusted AutoParts 17:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

What date is "just turned 30"? What date did she die if she was "gone by Christmas eve"? That's vague. Reliable sources disagree on her date of birth, date of death and age at death. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The interview gives support to the sources going with September 1968 as her DOB. I’m sorry if you needlessly confuse yourself whenever you read anything but there’s nothing vague about it. Quite frankly it’s starting to seem to me you’re being intentionally pedantic to try and frustrate people into dropping their argument. If that’s the case that’s disappointing. All sources have all very clearly established September 23 as her birthday with the year in confusion. The mother stating 30 bolsters the sources that said 1968. Your scrutiny over the precision of the date is irritating because the day itself (September 23) was not in question. We don’t need her to directly state the date in order to cooborate the fact she’s confirming she was 30 at time of death. We can pair her interview up with the sources that cite 1968 to Out that’s issue to bed. Rusted AutoParts 00:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The interview is another source that says she was 30. It does not conflict with sources giving the September 1968 birth date. As you said, it seems to give a third date of death. As noted, she seems to have her own opinion as to when Thomas was diagnosed, giving a date that is completely at odds with what every other source says. If Thomas's mother is the be all and end all of sources, every other source is completely wrong about that. If, instead, she is wrong about that, I'm unsure how it is that she's more reliable than any other source for other information. I'm also not sure how synthesizing information from sources you trust and sources you don't works, but I am sure it's synthesis. (Incidentally, you're treading awfully close to a personal attack. Please discuss content, not editors.)- SummerPhD^v2.0 00:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The interview is a direct conversation with Thomas’s mother who’d know for sure her own daughter’s age and date of birth. I’m not talking about her discussion about her daughter’s diagnosis, I’m not talking about her giving an approximated date of death (she didn’t say she was gone on Christmas Eve, said she was gone by Christmas Eve. Distinct difference). I’m talking about her age at the time of her death. And according to her mother, that was 30. It’s not another source, it’s a definitive answer to the 29 or 30 answer. That’s the last I’m going to say of it, hopefully more voices chime in, we’ve said our pieces over and over again. And I’m not making any personal attacks at all. It’s up to you how you elect to interpret it but ultimately I’m not making any. Rusted AutoParts 00:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

She doesn't say that Thomas died on December 24. She says that she was gone by then. That's a big difference. DrKilleMoff (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

When that was first added, Rusted AutoParts said, "Date of death is still muddled, with the mother now giving Christmas Eve as the DOD." It's one of the vague statements from the mother: She stands alone in having the diagnosis shortly before her death (apparently dismissing or unaware of the 18 months and 2 operations), has a two month gap between one of her possible birth dates and "just" turning 30 and gives a statement that we can be generous in interpreting "gone by that Christmas Eve" as meaning her Muslim daughter died one or maybe two days before the day before Christmas. Merry Christmas, Easter Bunny. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Rusted Autoparts haven't said that. At least there are no such statements on the talk page now. She doesn't say exactly when she died so there is still a question about DOD. When it comes the when she was diagnosed we are not talking about that. We are talking about her DOb and age at death which her mother says was 30 and for those who can do the math 1998-30=1968 since the birthday has never been questioned. We know for a fact that it was September 23. You may call it Synthesis. I call it doing the same thing we have done on other articles when the birth year has been uncertain but not the birthday. DrKilleMoff (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I am talking about. Thomas's mother said she was 30 when she died. Thomas's mother is not an unimpeachable source. Her statement on Thomas's diagnosis is, more likely than not, wrong. Either:

1) she is right and every other source available to us is wrong,

2) she did not know about the surgeries and when her daughter was diagnosed,

3) she accidentally gave a random date for the diagnosis and left out the operations,

4) she deliberately gave a wrong date for the diagnosis and left out the operations,

5) the blog inaccurately reported what she said,

6) the blog's site has been hacked.

Some of those are highly unlikely, including #1. (There are other possibilities that would seem even less likely: She's not Thomas's mother, the interview is a complete fabrication, etc.) Other than possibility #1, all of the other options point to the source, whether in reporting or content, is wrong about a fairly basic piece of information.

The only indication that any of the other sources are possibly wrong about anything is that they do not agree with each other. They are all reliable sources. What they have to say is verifiable.

Were Thomas alive stating her own birth date/age, we would report that. If her mother gave a different date/age in an interview with a blog, we would not report that date, based on WP:SPS and WP:BLP. If any of the other sources gave a different date/age, we would report that date, along with the date Thomas gave. Because Thomas is dead, though, we're supposed to upend that, accept a blog, assume Thomas's mother is flawless and dump any source that conflicts with it? - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have the mindset that any new source can’t be used because it then contradicts sources listed. Thats kind of the point. We’re working to find definitive answers to the questions the conflicting sources generated. So why does an interview done within the past 5 years get discounted based off of the notion “because then it makes the New York Times look wrong”. If that’s the result then so be it. The statement of the blood mother should not be given less of a consideration just because it wasn’t published by a major news outlet. We need to find the correct answers, throwing out every source that comes along simply because it doesn’t reflect what some sources say is ridiculous, and any doubts you may personally have are your own, and aren’t reflected in the source to confirm your confusions. Rusted AutoParts 07:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stick with what I am saying rather than crafting straw men based on what you think my mindset is. I have not said sources which contradict other sources cannot be used. I have said quite the opposite: Reliable sources, even those that contradict blog's reporting of someone who is clearly wrong on some of the facts, are still reliable sources. I have never said anything making the Times "look wrong" should be discounted.

We absolutely should not try to "find the correct answers". We are absolutely not here to research the issue. We report what reliable sources say, nothing more and nothing less.

I am saying "When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Reliable sources disagree here. We should present what the various sources say. We should be mindful of WP:WEIGHT. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Once again. We are NOT talking about when she was first diagnosed. That's a complete different question which has nothing to do with her age. If you want to discuss that then make a new topic. In this topic we are discussing her date of birth and if the mother can be counted as a flawless source regarding her own daughters age. I would say she is, despite what some sources that hasn't been updated for 19 years says. I don't know if you have children of your own, but if you do, aren't you flawless when it comes to their ages? Aren't your parents flawless when it comes to your age? If the answer to those questions are yes, why shouldn't the same go for Thomas's mother? DrKilleMoff (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thomas's mother is a human being. She is not "flawless". My mother recently forgot my brother's 40th birthday. She can likely tell you the name of every child she treated over her entire career. You wouldn't know it to talk to her, but she thinks Barack Obama is currently running for president. I once misspoke and said my niece was my wife. Would I be surprised if Thomas's mother turned out to be human? Not in the least. The world is riddled with typos, transcription errors and fraud. The New York Times makes mistakes daily. I'd rather suspect a run-of-the-mill blog makes more. Thomas's mother's statement, recorded by a blog is not stone tablets from God carried by Moses.

"When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." That's not my opinion, that's Wikipedia's core policy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I give up. Trying to find the correct answer is apparently wrong so I’m not gonna waste my time on something that one person will just reject and refuse to change. You keep harping about “She’s not flawless”, well neither are media outlets, as evidenced by ABC the other day. But setting aside your personal doubts, we can’t assume she’s wrong based off the notion “people forget”. Your mother may have forgot your brother’s birthday, doesn’t mean she forgot when he was born. But this is a lost cause. So I’m done. Good luck to anyone willing to take up the reins. Rusted AutoParts 17:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

MadameNoire is not a blog, it's an Online Magazine. DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Well in the Soul Train clip [10] (that aired December 15, 1984 [11] which had to have been tapped after she won Miss Talented Teen on September 30, 1984) from YouTube, Hal Jackson states that Michelle Thomas was 15 years old; Which would make her birth year 1969. T.D. Hoxey (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, TD Hoxey for finding that video. In fact the pageant happened at the end of July 1984, and she was 15 then according to this report of the competition. [12]. That points 1968, as does this newly found reliable source [13]. In my opinion, these new data points put us over the tipping point towards 1968 as the most likely date. I suggest we do what I had to do in a featured article I wrote, Olivia Manning. Put 1968 as the year of birth but add a footnote detailing that other reliable sources state 1969. Slp1 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)