Sorry Tony you misunderstood meant dates of birth (certainly not address unless you live in Buckingham Palce)! Mike

Sorry Tony you misunderstood meant dates of birth (certainly not address unless you live in Buckingham Palce)! Mike

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:33:30 +0100, "michael west" <michawest(a)gmail.com> wrote: Several people think we should not include dob for living individuals.

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]].

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."

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.

On 27/06/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 ..."

On 27/06/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 ..."

On 27/06/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: >David Gerard wrote: > > >>On 27/06/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)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. >

On 6/26/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)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]].