Talk:Rachel Bright

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

OTRS

I understand OTRS (actually I don't) but what's to stop people in 2 years from coming along and doing what I've just done - removing unverified information? There's nothing to say the information is correct and there's nothing to say that it came from OTRS, and in 2 years, it'll be much more difficult to find this out. So why should we include this unsourced information? What's the source of the information anyway? –anemone projectors– 14:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is OTRS. The whole Wikimedia system is built on transparency, which I think we all agree is a good thing. There are only two exceptions: Office actions (which are very rare) and OTRS matters, since OTRS volunteers receive mail aso. directly from users, so they're dealing with people under real names as opposed to usernames. Of course, in many cases, they have to verify that the identity of their correspondents is real. All OTRS correspondence is strictly confidential, so OTRS can't give away the source or any specific details that would identidy anybody. Since we're only dealing with a factoid here, I would say that the principle "Verifiability, not truth" is fulfilled. As for someone changing it later on, that's always a possibility, but I have the page on my watchlist, so it won't happen in the near future. I hope this answers your questions! Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 15:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. –anemone projectors– 11:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just re-read this after making some changes to the article, having completely forgotten about it from before. According to the OTRS whatever thingy, Bright was born in Ilford on 16 December 1985. Her birthdate was removed at some point in the meantime, but her place of birth remained. Today I read an interview saying she is 29-years old, and found when she tweeted (from her verified Twitter account) on her birthday last year, making her birthday 16 December 1983, not 1985. As for her birthplace, well I won't be adding that, but I can see from searching birth registers (www.findmypast.co.uk) for people called Rachel Bright whose birth was registered in 1983 or 1984 (as her parents may have waited until January), that there is only one possibility - Rachel Ann Bright from Birmingham (1983). The other one, from Chelmsford, Essex in 1984, has her name spelt "Rachael", so it's not her. Looking at 1985 and 1986 (based on the OTRS birthdate) there are more possibilities, but none that seem at all likely. Anyway, I have to say I still don't trust OTRS, I'm very suspicious of it in many cases. Bright's verified twitter and her magazine interview are verifiable and reliable sources. –anemone projectors– 22:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]