WP:BLP seems to be the new crusade and of course I understand the reasons and largely support the concerns of BLP warriors. But aren't we going too far? The UK has a book called Who's Who? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whos-Who-2007/dp/0713675276 which lists everything about notable people (they have much stricter rules about notability than we do!) in the UK and Commonwealth right down to their address. Because its not online some BLP warriors have removed details listed from in articles. Are we only now to use online references on Wikipedia?
Mike33
On 6/26/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
WP:BLP seems to be the new crusade and of course I understand the reasons and largely support the concerns of BLP warriors. But aren't we going too far? The UK has a book called Who's Who? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whos-Who-2007/dp/0713675276 which lists everything about notable people (they have much stricter rules about notability than we do!) in the UK and Commonwealth right down to their address. Because its not online some BLP warriors have removed details listed from in articles. Are we only now to use online references on Wikipedia?
Listing somebody's full street address may not be appropriate for an article on Wikipedia. It depends on the context.
Sorry Tony you misunderstood meant dates of birth (certainly not address unless you live in Buckingham Palce)! Mike
On 26/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/26/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
WP:BLP seems to be the new crusade and of course I understand the
reasons
and largely support the concerns of BLP warriors. But aren't we going
too
far? The UK has a book called Who's Who? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whos-Who-2007/dp/0713675276 which lists
everything
about notable people (they have much stricter rules about notability
than we
do!) in the UK and Commonwealth right down to their address. Because its
not
online some BLP warriors have removed details listed from in articles.
Are
we only now to use online references on Wikipedia?
Listing somebody's full street address may not be appropriate for an article on Wikipedia. It depends on the context.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 26/06/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry Tony you misunderstood meant dates of birth (certainly not address unless you live in Buckingham Palce)! Mike
"Who's Who" generally includes office or PO Box addresses these days, anyway.
Offline references have always and will always be acceptable. Do you have links to where they've been removed? Id be more then happy to step in if its not something as absurd as addresses.
On 6/25/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry Tony you misunderstood meant dates of birth (certainly not address unless you live in Buckingham Palce)! Mike
On 26/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/26/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
WP:BLP seems to be the new crusade and of course I understand the
reasons
and largely support the concerns of BLP warriors. But aren't we going
too
far? The UK has a book called Who's Who? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whos-Who-2007/dp/0713675276 which lists
everything
about notable people (they have much stricter rules about notability
than we
do!) in the UK and Commonwealth right down to their address. Because
its
not
online some BLP warriors have removed details listed from in articles.
Are
we only now to use online references on Wikipedia?
Listing somebody's full street address may not be appropriate for an article on Wikipedia. It depends on the context.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:33:30 +0100, "michael west" michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry Tony you misunderstood meant dates of birth (certainly not address unless you live in Buckingham Palce)! Mike
Several people think we should not include dob for living individuals.
Guy (JzG)
Several people think that? That's sufficient reason then.
On 6/26/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:33:30 +0100, "michael west" michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry Tony you misunderstood meant dates of birth (certainly not address unless you live in Buckingham Palce)! Mike
Several people think we should not include dob for living individuals.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/26/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:33:30 +0100, "michael west" michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry Tony you misunderstood meant dates of birth (certainly not address unless you live in Buckingham Palce)! Mike
Several people think we should not include dob for living individuals.
Who? Where?
Several is a long, long way from consensus, that's for sure. There's a reasonable argument of how far we should dig to find a date of birth if one is not readily accessible, which goes into original research as well as invasion of privacy, but if a date of birth is readily obtainable, I see no reason not to place it in the article.
Since "Who's Who" is generally written with the cooperation of the subject, one could generally assume that a DOB stated in that publication is both accurate and OK by the subject.
-Matt
On 6/26/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Since "Who's Who" is generally written with the cooperation of the subject, one could generally assume that a DOB stated in that publication is both accurate and OK by the subject.
I would not assume accuracy. It's reasonably common for people to lie about their year of birth (less common for the day and month): see [[Age fabrication]] and [[WP:LAME#Dates]].
On 6/26/07, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
I would not assume accuracy. It's reasonably common for people to lie about their year of birth (less common for the day and month): see [[Age fabrication]] and [[WP:LAME#Dates]].
Of course - but we should always be citing our source in any case. Either the date of birth is uncontroversial, or there are multiple claims including the person's own.
-Matt
Privacy of birth dates of "less notable people" is policy.
"When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth."
On 6/26/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Privacy of birth dates of "less notable people" is policy.
"When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth."
It is an irrelevant policy, since when a person is in a standard, mainstream reference work like Who's Who, then there is no doubt about the notability of the subject.
I'd take some objection to this, my father's in the "who's who of professionals" publication (or was, im not sure if he still is, but he has the early 90's edition that first had him). He's somewhat known among managers and such, helped with the roll out of TQM in the government back in the day. Some other minor things, a couple low level "presidential" commissions to ease bureaucracy in some small division in some second tier department, but nothing approaching real notability. People who are marginally notable in a specific field can get in those books, but it doesnt mean that they are generally marginally notable. Who's who is almost on the verge of being a vanity press.
From the biographical submission page:
" Please enter the VIP code that was listed in the mailing (or advertisement) you received from Marquis Who's Who(r)"
On 6/26/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/26/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
Privacy of birth dates of "less notable people" is policy.
"When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth."
It is an irrelevant policy, since when a person is in a standard, mainstream reference work like Who's Who, then there is no doubt about the notability of the subject.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 27/06/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
I'd take some objection to this, my father's in the "who's who of professionals" publication (or was, im not sure if he still is, but he has the early 90's edition that first had him). He's somewhat known among managers and such, helped with the roll out of TQM in the government back in the day. Some other minor things, a couple low level "presidential" commissions to ease bureaucracy in some small division in some second tier department, but nothing approaching real notability. People who are marginally notable in a specific field can get in those books, but it doesnt mean that they are generally marginally notable. Who's who is almost on the verge of being a vanity press.
There is a substantial difference between "Who's Who", the original general publication, and "Who's Who ---", the genre of publications. The original takes "notability" (with a few odd caveats) as its basic threshold of entry; the various "Who's Who in X" are not nearly as discriminating, and will often take anyone willing to pay.
Yes, it's confusing, but there you go. I believe this all has its roots in a *really complex* transatlantic trademark dispute...
On 27/06/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
There is a substantial difference between "Who's Who", the original general publication, and "Who's Who ---", the genre of publications. The original takes "notability" (with a few odd caveats) as its basic threshold of entry; the various "Who's Who in X" are not nearly as discriminating, and will often take anyone willing to pay. Yes, it's confusing, but there you go. I believe this all has its roots in a *really complex* transatlantic trademark dispute...
Being in "Who's Who" (the original) is prima facie evidence this is a generally notable person and warrants an article. However, the Who's Who text itself is pretty much written by the subject. An appropriate phrasing would be something like "In his Who's Who entry, X claims ..."
- d.
On 27/06/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/06/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
There is a substantial difference between "Who's Who", the original general publication, and "Who's Who ---", the genre of publications. The original takes "notability" (with a few odd caveats) as its basic threshold of entry; the various "Who's Who in X" are not nearly as discriminating, and will often take anyone willing to pay. Yes, it's confusing, but there you go. I believe this all has its roots in a *really complex* transatlantic trademark dispute...
Being in "Who's Who" (the original) is prima facie evidence this is a generally notable person and warrants an article. However, the Who's Who text itself is pretty much written by the subject. An appropriate phrasing would be something like "In his Who's Who entry, X claims ..."
Mmm. As soon as it disagrees with a secondary source, it gets dumped or relegated to "...<ref>some biography</ref> although Lord Archer himself claims to have three degrees.<ref>Who's Who entry</ref>"
That said, it's pretty safe when there's no real reason to doubt it, which is for things like career progression (ambassador Sofia in 1973, Belgrade in 1979, break from '82 to 86, then to Moscow...). I don't think we automatically need to add caveats unless we actually have reason to dispute it - saying "claims in Who's Who that... [factual statement]" sort of implies we think the subject's lying about it in some way. "Claims" is a slightly loaded term.
On 27/06/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
That said, it's pretty safe when there's no real reason to doubt it, which is for things like career progression (ambassador Sofia in 1973, Belgrade in 1979, break from '82 to 86, then to Moscow...). I don't think we automatically need to add caveats unless we actually have reason to dispute it - saying "claims in Who's Who that... [factual statement]" sort of implies we think the subject's lying about it in some way. "Claims" is a slightly loaded term.
Yes, sorry, I meant "states".
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/06/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
There is a substantial difference between "Who's Who", the original general publication, and "Who's Who ---", the genre of publications. The original takes "notability" (with a few odd caveats) as its basic threshold of entry; the various "Who's Who in X" are not nearly as discriminating, and will often take anyone willing to pay. Yes, it's confusing, but there you go. I believe this all has its roots in a *really complex* transatlantic trademark dispute...
Being in "Who's Who" (the original) is prima facie evidence this is a generally notable person and warrants an article. However, the Who's Who text itself is pretty much written by the subject. An appropriate phrasing would be something like "In his Who's Who entry, X claims ..."
At least a person who has paid to have his name in there is not likely to complain about that information being used in a Wikipedia article.
Ec
On 27/06/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/06/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
There is a substantial difference between "Who's Who", the original general publication, and "Who's Who ---", the genre of publications. The original takes "notability" (with a few odd caveats) as its basic threshold of entry; the various "Who's Who in X" are not nearly as discriminating, and will often take anyone willing to pay. Yes, it's confusing, but there you go. I believe this all has its roots in a *really complex* transatlantic trademark dispute...
Being in "Who's Who" (the original) is prima facie evidence this is a generally notable person and warrants an article. However, the Who's Who text itself is pretty much written by the subject. An appropriate phrasing would be something like "In his Who's Who entry, X claims ..."
At least a person who has paid to have his name in there is not likely to complain about that information being used in a Wikipedia article.
I think you've gone far off topic and I don't think that vanity publications have a place in Wikipedia. I used it as an example of simple biographical details. But would never use it to pad out a badly organised BLP that is just going to include what X has for breakfast.
Mike
michael west wrote:
On 27/06/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 27/06/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
There is a substantial difference between "Who's Who", the original general publication, and "Who's Who ---", the genre of publications. The original takes "notability" (with a few odd caveats) as its basic threshold of entry; the various "Who's Who in X" are not nearly as discriminating, and will often take anyone willing to pay. Yes, it's confusing, but there you go. I believe this all has its roots in a *really complex* transatlantic trademark dispute...
Being in "Who's Who" (the original) is prima facie evidence this is a generally notable person and warrants an article. However, the Who's Who text itself is pretty much written by the subject. An appropriate phrasing would be something like "In his Who's Who entry, X claims
At least a person who has paid to have his name in there is not likely to complain about that information being used in a Wikipedia article.
I think you've gone far off topic and I don't think that vanity
publications have a place in Wikipedia. I used it as an example of simple biographical details. But would never use it to pad out a badly organised BLP that is just going to include what X has for breakfast.
So who's saying that we should report what anybody had for breakfast? Who determines which publication is a vanity publication? Who defines "padding out?
Ec
On 28/06/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
michael west wrote:
I think you've gone far off topic and I don't think that vanity
publications have a place in Wikipedia. I used it as an example of simple biographical details. But would never use it to pad out a badly organised BLP that is just going to include what X has for breakfast.
So who's saying that we should report what anybody had for breakfast? Who determines which publication is a vanity publication? Who defines "padding out?
Ec The breakfast thing was an analogy used in one of the children/young people BLP debates, but notables indeed do tell us they love bacon and eggs. Vanity is a book you have to subscribe to to be included in. Padding out is an old stub warriors idea that probably was my mistake to use.
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 6/26/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Since "Who's Who" is generally written with the cooperation of the subject, one could generally assume that a DOB stated in that publication is both accurate and OK by the subject.
I would not assume accuracy. It's reasonably common for people to lie about their year of birth (less common for the day and month): see [[Age fabrication]] and [[WP:LAME#Dates]].
Sure, people lie about their birth data. What proportion do you find "reasonably common"? If the "reliable source" that you use is really reliable why would you not assume accuracy. If you want to question the DOB that they provide it's your responsibility to give sources for that different data.
To an extent it's good to doubt everything, but you can take that too far, and end up with the conclusion that there is no such thing as a reliable source.
Ec
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:29:25 -0700, "Matthew Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
Several is a long, long way from consensus, that's for sure. There's a reasonable argument of how far we should dig to find a date of birth if one is not readily accessible, which goes into original research as well as invasion of privacy, but if a date of birth is readily obtainable, I see no reason not to place it in the article.
I didn't say it was right, I didn't say it was consensus, I merely pointed out that there was more to it than the complainant had revealed.
Guy (JzG)
On 26/06/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
WP:BLP seems to be the new crusade and of course I understand the reasons and largely support the concerns of BLP warriors. But aren't we going too far? The UK has a book called Who's Who? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Whos-Who-2007/dp/0713675276 which lists everything about notable people (they have much stricter rules about notability than we do!) in the UK and Commonwealth right down to their address. Because its not online some BLP warriors have removed details listed from in articles. Are we only now to use online references on Wikipedia?
It is online - Xrefer, or whatever they've renamed themselves, do access. And there is nothing wrong with citing an offline source - though I find myself baffled why anything in Who's Who, an anodyne and effectively self-authored publication, could be considered contentious.
If people are being stupid and screaming "BLP", the fault is with the fact they're being stupid...