Talk:Xenia Tchoumitcheva

Edit request from SunniK, 16 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The date of birth is wrong. Xenya was born on the 5th of august 1987, not in 1989 as you can see from many more reliable sources or the miss switzerland organization itself.

SunniK (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: Official facebook and modeling page has 1989. We also have the subject or a representative of the subject on file with OTRS confirming that (though I know we can't cite e-mails in the article). Perhaps your source was mistaken? I know there are conflicting years in varying sources, but the ones most closely associated with the subject and or the "official" sources say 1989. So I see no reason to change. And if we were to repeat a misprint from some outdated publication, it could do the subject harm (if that is indeed what is going on). Err on the side of caution, and go with official sources to avoid BLP violations.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I had implemented this based on the date found in some of the articles presented in the Press section of that official web site. I also wasn't able to find any mention of her birthyear on that site. That gets trumped by the OTRS document, though, so I have undone that change. Celestra (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

http://polepositionnews.wordpress.com/ Official PR agency blog, with a very recent entry that mentions 1989. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ferrise.ch/?page=testimonials&id=6 And another, in what appears to be Italian. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEhDZ8OJl3Y At 02.30 she says she is 19. This is 2006 footage, so there's no room for questioning. Sflowneppets (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringing youtube videos cannot be used as sources directly (though I guess a citation to the program itself may be ok). But that said, what's your deal? It's clear that there are conflicting sources. The ones that are most recent and from official outlets (such as PR and model agencies) are clear about the date. Perhaps there was a reason the age was presented differently back then, or perhaps there is a reason why the age is being presented differently now. Unless we have a reliable source explaining, it isn't our place to speculate (or even point out the discrepancy). This article is governed by our strict WP:BLP rules, so I'd kindly request that you drop this date of birth business, please. Not sure why it is such a big deal to people. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a showcase. That's the deal. You are relying to her PR and her model agency, dodging dozens of articles and other sources. BLP Rules also say "Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves (...) through a representative", plus "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say". Every source dated before a couple of months by now says directly and indirectly she was born in 1987, even articles published on her official site (http://www.xeniatchoumitcheva.ch/de/pressespiegel.php). These are not misprints from some outdated publications. There hasn't been a single rectification from 2006. If we accept "perhaps there is a reason why" we have to accept every possible amendment, letting people write their own autobiography. Then, in the end, what that video brings to the table is quite evident. It also looks like the only reliable source has been used in this whole discussion. There are rules involving the age of the competitors (http://www.missschweiz.ch/index.cfm?id=42), they can't simply fake their age. That's what mostly approaches to an indisputable source. She said herself she was 19, it was 2006. Sflowneppets (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP specifically singles out birthdates: people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth where these have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or where the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. I have stated above that we have an OTRS complaint concerning this. IMO, the privacy of the individual on this issue trumps sources from 2006. If you still disagree, I'd suggest seeking a third opinion, perhaps at WP:BLPN. I'm not sure what you propose doing anyway. We clearly have conflicting sources. How do you want the information presented in the article? Without a secondary source interpreting the discrepancy, any attempt to do so in the article would be original research, and I believe I've made a stronger argument for using the recent, officially approved year. Do you propose we ignore all of that in favor of 1987?-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

According to her new date of birth:

- Miss Switzerland organization (based on her id card), TVs and newspapers are reporting the wrong age since 2006

  http://www.blick.ch/unterhaltung/kino/xenia-spielt-mit-longoria-149099 
  http://www.20min.ch/people/schweiz/story/24037354 
  http://www.lematin.ch/people/xenia-tchoumitcheva-signe-contrat-elite-263356 
  The main swiss magazines still say she's 22.

- she obtained her driver's license at 17 (the age of acquisition is 18)

  http://www.20min.ch/life/story/20618135
  (dated 12.07.2007) She talks about how she drives. She is under contract with Hyundai.

- she graduated at 17 (this usually happens at 19)

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB9H1GSpb70 
  This was recorded 2 days after Miss Swizterland (Sept. 2006). She says she's attending her last year at school.

- she said herself she was 19 in September 2006

- she has never ever rectificated this for four years

Can we at least assume that something happened a couple of months ago? You wisely say it isn't our place to speculate. The chronological order of the events should look more than suspicious even to your eyes, though. Age has a pivotal role for models. Being officially younger makes girls more appealing in order to get a job, faking the year of birth then becomes self-promotional.

The official sources you are relying on can't be and simply are not impartial or unbiased. It's a PR and a model Agency that suddenly claim on April 2010 that Xenia Tchoumitcheva was born on 1989 against all the other (unbiased, I can say) sources. This whole discussion is about something Wikipedia Rules you talk about don't usually cover. They don't consider the age of famous people as promotional, but it clearly is for models.

Sflowneppets (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked this page after a few weeks and I see the last statements have been substantially disregarded. It's clear the administrator won't go on with this. It's a dead-end street. How about consulting a swiss admininistrator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sflowneppets (talk • contribs) 14:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sflowneppets (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved here from [1]:

Xenia Tchoumitcheva is borned on 5 August 1987, and not 1989. Ask her the copy from her identity, without falsification.

She is 1.65m and not 1.73m.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunastella01 (talk • contribs)

Edit request from 92.105.103.12, 17 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The birth date is false. Xenia (correctly spelled Ksenia) was born in 1987, as you can see from the certified website http://www.glanzundgloria.sf.tv/Promis/Xenia-Tchoumitcheva?WT.zugang=gg_promisuche

92.105.103.12 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That website does give a different birth date. What is a certified website? I think it would be better to just delete this article. I can find no independent third party sources containing significant coverage of the person. It still feels like promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree &  Delisted. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Well, she's in an industry where being perceived as younger is helpful to one's career, so barring OTRS confirmation of a birthdate, such information might only be included if in a sentence "Various sources disagree to the woman's birthdate, some showing it as "X" and others showing it as "Y". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter what industry she is in. Pretending she is a certain age and heigh, when she is not just makes her unprofessional. She looks good, she shouldn't be ashamed of her features. She was born in 1987, as she was registered in her high-school and her name in high school was spelled Ksenia. All the miss switzerland websites and newspapers report her true age august the 5th 1987, to participate in such a contest she had to provide the copy of her document, so those are certified and reliable informations. she was also described as 168cm tall. i doubt that at 22 you can grow 5cm in less than 6 month. This page in not relevant and misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.103.12 (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources I've already used to debate looked to me almost unquestionable, they were based on her ID and her driving license.

Assuming she was born on 1989:

• she forged her ID to take part in miss Switzerland;
• she's got a driving license at the age of 17.

She also received her diploma at 17 instead of 19 and her bachelor at 20.

She has not emendated her birthday from 06.2006 to 06.2010.

It's FOUR years.

Let's take a look at the references that have just been used in this page:

• reference 1 - 09.09.2006 - She's 19
• reference 2 - 29.06.2007 - Shes' 19
• reference 3 - 13.06.2007 - She's 19
• reference 4 - 12.06.2007 - She's 18+, since she says she can drive
• reference 5 - 12.07.2007 - she's 19
• reference 6 - 20.09.2007 - she's 22 (this looks more like a mistake)
• reference 7 - 08.10.2007 - she's 20
• reference 8 - 07.07.2010 - she turns 21
• reference 9 - 15.07.2010 - she turns 20 with a magic trick
• reference 10 - 08.07.2006 - she's 18
• reference 11 - 11.09.2006 - she's 19
• reference 13 - 08.10.2006 - she's 19
• reference 16 - 12.12.2007 - she's 20
• reference 17 - 05.05.2010 - she's 22
• reference 19 - 25.06.2010 - she's 20

If you look at the times these articles were published you see a clear trend.

The only reply I got for pointing this out was:

(...) The ones that are most recent and from official outlets (such as PR and model agencies) are clear about the date. Perhaps there was a reason the age was presented differently back then, or perhaps there is a reason why the age is being presented differently now.

This is a baffling application of the rules. It stands on the flaws of Wikipedia. It's tons of sources against a biased PR agency.

Then a little time for a short speculation.

It was already been pointed out by other people here: age is focal point for a so-called model.

She has been ok with her age for 4 years.

Assuming she was born in 1987, everything looks logical: Miss Switzerland, driving license, school, interviews, diploma, bachelor, no rectifications.

May 2010, she turns 2 years younger. Suddenly.

This is the same time:

• - she signs a contract with Elite model

(http://www.tio.ch/aa_pagine_comuni/articolo_interna.asp?idarticolo=548032&idsezione=1&idsito=1&idtipo=3);

• - she grows from 1.68 to 1.73 (this is about the minimum height for modeling, but it's not the place for digressions);
• - she begins to act in the US;
• - we hear for the first of her PR agency.

This strategy is leading to many short circuits.

• http://www.attika-magazin.ch/index.php?id=638

The magazine is using this page and her new official page for a small resume in a box, writing she was born in 1989. This is a part of the interview:

• Haben Sie manchmal das Gefühl etwas verpasst zu haben im bisherigen Leben? Ja sicher, alle machen Fehler. Aber es ist doch schön 22 Jahre zu sein und sagen zu dürfen, ich habe bereits was erreicht im Leben.
• Do you sometimes miss the feeling of having something in life so far? Yes, of all make mistakes. But it's nice to be 22 years and must say, I've already achieved what in life.

She's saying she's 22. Is this supposed to be a mistake by the interviewer, a mistake by Xenia or just a typo?

Looking again at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEhDZ8OJl3Y it's a reasonable thought she presented her age differently, assuming miss Switzerland rules are strict about the age of the pageants, then?

Sflowneppets (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you care so much about this. You in fact seem obsessed about this, almost to the point of being a stalker. I'd urge you to seriously reconsider how you can contribute to Wikipedia, and what really matters in this world. There clearly are better things to get worked up about. This just isn't worth it. As I have said, we have had a clear OTRS request on file regarding this BLP, and we have official sources stating the current age. Why try to dig up dirt or do original research on this matter. If an age discrepancy is really notable, then someone besides yourself, would have published something on that by now). Watch what you say on talk pages, BLP still applies. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So I'm not the only one who's arguing about it. I'm reading this on th top of the discussion page: "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." and I still don't understnd what's the matter, with the plenty of resources people gave. I don't care about this girl, it's a matter of principle, in switzerland people know her age seeing her growing up, and here we have the proofs. Then, why is Wikipedia lyng?Germanotta87 (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I find Germanotta87 persuasive. OTRS information is not on the public record. Nothing on facebook or youtube is reliable (enough for us). If the birthdate continues to be disputed, it should be removed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine removing the birthdate information all together, except we have official representation tied directly to the subject which clearly states the age and height. Apparently, some random, anonymous people on the internet think it is a conspiracy or that she is lying. It isn't their place to put forth such theories. We can only support such theories if founded in reliable sources. Otherwise, it is clearly potentially libelous (claiming that there is dishonesty or lying going on). I'm not denying that a few years ago, it was semi-widely reported that he birthdate was one age. But we've had a request via OTRS from an authorized party saying the information was incorrect, and that by itself, I recognize, is not enough to discount information, but we now have new official sources stating the basic facts. I don't see why it is necessary to repeat misinformation, or put forth novel theories on why there is the discrepancy. Can't we acknowledge that the subject does not want incorrect information in the article and move on? It's like, if a politician was misquoted in a source, and other media outlets picked up on the source, and then we received an e-mail complaint about the misquote, along side publicly available information about the correction of the misquote, would we fight the subject and try to force the allegedly misquoted information to stay in the article? Again, I really don't see what the big deal is. BLP states we should avoid potentially libelous information, and poorly sourced content. I don't see why this is a big deal to some. Apparently they are upset that the dates were reported wrong and/or changed, and it really really bothers them for some reason? -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So what's the source then? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

From the top of this page: an official PR agency blog has year, but not the day and month, and then profile from another official marketing agency. I was also supplied with some recent articles from blick.ch, but they did not mention a year and only said "20-year old", and were not what I called "official". I thought this was settled back in May, but apparently it is really important to some, and I can't fathom why.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That snippet "Our client Xenia Tchoumitcheva will be the star of this signature campaign…….Xenia (born 1989) is Switzerlands new superstar with many high end campaigns and endorsement deals under her belt" does not carry much sense of reliability. "an official PR agency blog" is far from impressive, and is not good enough given a rational challenge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, what about the 2nd link? If that is also problematic, what would you consider reliable enough for your standards?-Andrew c ^[talk] 07:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ferrise.ch/testimonial/xenia-tchoumitcheva (which is not the page you link to) says date of birth: 05.08.1989. Normally, I would be happy enough with that. However, I read a plausible challenge here on the talk page. Admittedly, I haven't quite got my head around it all, it could just be mistakes, an underage entry, compounding confusions, and I could be persuaded that the challenge is refuted. But given that there is a challenge, in the absence of an independent source with a reputation for fact checking, and given that independent third party sources don't discuss her age, it is better to not have information than to have unreliable information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the valid challenge? That a few years ago, some older sources unrelated to the source published another date? We received an e-mail via OTRS from someone related to the subject pointing out that the older date was wrong. This is what we encourage subjects of articles to do when they read their article and see an error. Next, the BLP page specifically addresses birthdates and says it is OK to include the information if published by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Now, not including a date isn't the end of the world (as opposed to some people who have insisted on including information identified as inaccurate via OTRS), but I feel we are bending over backwards for them. I also feel like all this mess has been ignoring the processes we have set up for subjects of BLP to identify errors and correct their articles. And I don't think this is by any means an abuse of the process.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I’d prefer to say “plausible” challenge, and plausible is enough. Older sources have a different date. She and her agents may be pushing a younger age. Wikipedia should worry about accepting deliberate misinformation. The OTRS information is more than enough to have the data removed altogether, but including a challenged date is a bigger hurdle. Wikipedia:Verifiability is quite strong and explicit concerning challenged facts. If we have a plausible challenge, and if there is a suggestion of deliberately false data, I think we need an independent source for it to be considered reliable. A primary source supplied though OTRS would be OK to repudiate the challenge given that the DOB is on the agent’s website. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was, the plausible challenge and accusations of deliberate misinformation is coming from anonymous internet fans, not reliable sources. It's like, I received an e-mail from a college athlete's mother saying "my daughter's hometown is not X, which you have on your website. He is from town Y." I replied that we had some sources saying X, and did she have any new sources saying Y. She said it was listed on websites A, B, and C, two of which were officially associated with the athlete. So of course, I updated the information, even though some sources claimed he was from X, we had no reason to go all out and claim she was deliberately promoting misinformation. I honestly, do not see the difference in the situation here. It is only an issue because a couple anonymous internet people think they know better and want to borderline libel this individual. And even if they are, by chance, correct, does it really matter? Wikipedia is not about finding the truth, and only being factual. It is about summarizing published sources, while avoiding synthesis. It is 100% verifiable that her official bio on one of her agency websites states a certain birthdate. Verifiability established. Verifiability, not truth. So even if we were to assume that the model and her agency are trying to pull a fast one on the public, it only becomes an issue if another reliable source discusses the discrepancy in a non-trivial matter. It is not our job to analyze the discrepancy, or come up with our own pet theories, especially if we have received a complaint regarding inaccurate information in a BLP. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Xenia and her agents are pushing for a younger age (1989) but correct is (1987) as per http://www.missschweiz.ch/index.cfm?rub=84 (official Miss Switzerland home page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.21.231 (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello to everyone, I see now your debate on this page. I deleted some evident spam. Just my two cents, maybe it could be useful to you. Please note that the biography of Tchoumitcheva has been deleted from 2 other wikis (german and italian, the most close to this girl considering the birthplace: the Italian Switzerland) due to pretty heavy lack of notoriety of the model, evident promotion, lack of reliability on references. --Lucas (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As I repeatedly said in the chronology, I ask the fouth time to the user Cioccolatina to stop her vandalism about the fake birthdate of the model and other stuff. Thanks. --Lucas (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Birth year is disputed, so leave it out

The subject's birth year is disputed, so we would do best to leave it out. Cioccolatina (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA with a history of promotion of the subject. An email to OTRS is not meet verifiability enough to justify inclusion of disputed information. A google search [2] turns up several independent sources with a different year to the year given by dependent sources. It is not our job to resolve the discrepancy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And the real birthdate is.........

5. August 1987!

Confirmed by a Swiss newspaper article from today (in German). There is written (shortend and translated by myself):

"There was a change on the year of born on her website, so the Swiss Television asked Xenia personally, and she said she is 23 years old. Also told she, that her producing team changed the age because they wanted to attract more international jobs for her." --KurtR (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So I entered into the article. In the infobox, I don't know how to do that, please help. Thanks and regards. --KurtR (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Xenia Tchoumitcheva schummelt mit ihrem Alter

This article is taken from the site of a show broadcasted by the main Swiss german language channel.

It's dated December 6th, 2010.

This is a quick and approximate translation of the article, just to make things easy:

Xenia Tchoumitcheva cheating with her age

According to the article:

When confronted, Xenia said on Sunday that she could only vaguely imagine what had happened, but it must talk to the controllers of their home before she could say anything definite to do so. A simple mistake? The fact is that Xenia Tchoumitcheva had in 2006 not with their new age, according to the rules of the Miss Switzerland "organization may participate in the pageant confirmed as Karina Berger against Glanz & Gloria," Xenia at the time was recorded on her identity card. »

People is beginning to question her age on the papers.

She's admitting 1989 is false.

Furthermore: miss Schweiz records, based on her identity card, say she was born on 1987.

And I'm not even trying to bring back the other contributions reported on this page.

What's still missing to make 1987 official?

It's clear administrators have to stick to the rules, nevertheless the compromise of removing the date is still baffling.

Complaints by the representatives of the subject has just been contradicted by the subject herself.

Isn't this enough for saying that what they are pushing for is blatantly false?

In the end, at least, the number and the force of the sources provided should at least move the burden of proof to the counterpart.

There's no reason to hide 5 August 1987 as her birthday.

Sflowneppets (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to hide 5 August 1987 as her birthday. The lesson here is that information supplied via OTRS does not meet our requirement for independent sourcing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate revisited

The TSR story cited in the face of the article currently comes back to a 1986 or 1987 birth date (19 years old in 2006). Two newspaper stories are corroborating 5 August 1987 as a birthday. Is there a reason not to go with the date corroborated by three news agencies? —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the sources look pretty convincing for 1987. There are non-independent sources stating 1989, but these have been reasonably challenged, and there is an admission of putting out a false birth date. Very old (2006) versions of this article stated 1987 (thus age=19). I think it is obvious that this article has been targeted for the planting of false data.

Now that it is sorted, and the original birth data is sourced, and the admission of deception is on the public record, I say we simply state the birthdate 5 Aug 1987.

I think there is almost, but not quite, a case for mentioning the period of deception, and discrepancy between sources, in the article.

I think that users who have a record of adding the false data should be banned from editing the article directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that her DOB should be included as being in '87 Swiss Television looks like a reliable enough source to me for this. As there is a dispute between sources, it may also be best to mention there is some disagreement as to her DOB, with her claiming it is '89. SmartSE (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

several recent attempts to hide her age

In recent days there has been an outbreak of attempts to change or hide her age. This topic has been largely debated on here, and 1987 has become undisputable Some countermeasures are needed, in order to stop this. Is there any viable strategy?

several recent attempts to hide her age

In recent days there has been an outbreak of attempts to change or hide her age. This topic has been largely debated on here, and 1987 has become undisputable Some countermeasures are needed, in order to stop this. Is there any viable strategy? 78.159.102.109 (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

several recent attempts to hide her age

In recent days there has been an outbreak of attempts to change or hide her age. This topic has been largely debated on here, and 1987 has become undisputable Some countermeasures are needed, in order to stop this. Is there any viable strategy? 78.159.102.109 (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

several recent attempts to hide her age

In recent days there has been an outbreak of attempts to change or hide her age. This topic has been largely debated on here, and 1987 has become undisputable Some countermeasures are needed, in order to stop this. Is there any viable strategy? 78.159.102.109 (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

several recent attempts to hide her age

In recent days there has been an outbreak of attempts to change or hide her age. This topic has been largely debated on here, and 1987 has become undisputable. Some countermeasures are needed, in order to stop this. Is there any viable strategy? 78.159.102.109 (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)