Talk:Jimmy Wales

Notability

Is this guy really notable? Who even cares about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.131.55 (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:GNG. Rodhullandemu 20:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? J390 (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

He's notable if you think that Wikipedia is notable (which I do, as do millions of others).

98.245.150.162 (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is so notable that his page gets vandalized every year on April Fool's Day. =D CycloneGU (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I feel he has a point. Shouldn't he be, like, included in the Wikimedia Foundation article, for example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.79.174 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If he didn't stick his face at the top of every page on this site, very few people would know about him. I think he's only notable because of his "personal appeal" and should be included in the Wikimedia Foundation article, as suggested above.108.17.72.3 (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

He created the whole project, would you be here posting on his talk page if we was not notable, no. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia is notable does not mean he is. Thomas Edison is notable; Every school kid in the USA knows his name and some of his inventions. Harold Smith helped invent the crayola crayon, but does not have his own article. Wales seems to be using Wikipedia to promote his own notability. This is just a personal appeal from someone not familiar with the bureaucracy of WP though, so I'm sure there's some policy page (like WP:SPIP) to prove my lay opinion of what "notable" is wrong.108.17.72.3 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Go familiarize yourself with WP:NOTABLE, then come back here if you want to make a real argument. NickCT (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE reads like a tax manual to me. I do not have the intelligence to become versed in Wales Rules of Order well enough to contribute to Wikipedia in any meaningful way. However, as a normal person, as most of the visitors to this site are, he's just the guy at the top of the page begging for money. (btw, telling anyone to "go ____ yourself" is kind of rude)24.2.117.244 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if I did accept the fact that he deserves his own article, I still do not understand how an article like this could be rated B class. Continuing with my suggestion that this be merged with an article related to the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't really think that an article like this deserves a B class label. Especially when there are people who doubt whether this article should exist. Agreed, fame and popularity do not mean that a person deserves an article of his own, but it definitely influences it. Apart from moving for the setting up of Wikipedia and its sister projects (which I admit are no small feat), what has this man done? The Wikimedia Foundation is notable, not him. He should be a subsection of that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.17.125.43 (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, Bill Gates is not notable either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article proves his notability more than anything. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What or who made Jimmy Wales notable. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A whole bunch of independent sources made him notable. WP:CREATIVE for a quick answer. This is a silly discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Independent sources discuss Wales but what led sources to mention Wales in the first place. Is he really notable? QuackGuru (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

what led sources to mention Wales in the first place - That isn't our concern. That you even think this is a topic worth discussing is interesting. I guess I have a couple of issues to look into in the morning. --Onorem♠Dil 06:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This might help improve the article if we understand the notability and events that led to the notability. QuackGuru (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(My last comment of the evening.) What exactly do you think is lacking in the explanation of events leading to his being notable? Please be specific. Start a new section if needed. Arguing whether he's notable is silly. Discussing what commentary is needed about why he's notable is a different issue. --Onorem♠Dil 06:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Sanger was excited about the idea, and after he proposed it to Wales, they created the first Nupedia wiki on January 10, 2001.[24]"

The part "they created" seems vague. I think it could be improved. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Date of birth

Am I the only one who finds it a little ironic and strange that we can't be sure of the DOB of the founder of Wiki?

You'd think he would come here and correct it himself? 95.148.202.176 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

1) co-founder, please. 2) The issue is basically that he's claimed a date different from the birth certificate, leading to conflicts among official documents and hence sources. But I think it's essentially settled now. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

How is this "essentially settled"? First the footnote says that Jimbo said that August 7 is incorrect, but according to the next sentence he says that he was born on August 7. Edge3 (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Having cast my eye over this; this source seems to make it pretty clear that Wales believes his own birth to be the 7th. I'm not sure how reliable the Oregonian source is. I think we should edit the page to have it unambiguously state that his birthday is the 7th. Anyone second this motion? NickCT (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re this edit; @User:Cyclopia - You are WP:Wikilawyering - The fact is, Jimmy Wales is probably the best source out there in regards to what his birthday is. We have him saying his birthday is the 7th. Now I understand that there are some "source" concerns here, but I think this might be a good time to just ignore all rules and accept Jimbo at his word. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And how about adding a FAQ to the talk page that addresses this issue? As a page lurker, I can't believe how many times this comes up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The pith is WP:BLP and his word being wholly verifiable. There can be a note, either inline or in the text, about the birth certificate and what he has to say about that. I have strong worries that the founder of this website has been nettled over this all too pointishly. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

NickCT: Playing by the rules is not wikilawyering. We are an encyclopedia, this means that we follow sources and use them. In any case I don't object to using also Jimbo declaration as a primary source; I object to the removal of the information that was previously there. I see no reason to IAR here: we don't let people write their own bios, and I don't see why this should change here. If anything, given the obvious self-referentiality of a WP article on Wales, we should even be stricter here and held us to higher NPOV standards. --Cyclopia^talk 20:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a duty of care to consider the position of living subjects of our articles and Jimmy has clearly stated and requested that he wants the valueless disputed day removed. The detail is in the support from Wales personal comment and the issue is over a single days difference, which is of no educational value at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This has aught to do with WP:IAR. Claims of "playing by the rules" is what both WP:Point and WP:Wikilawyer are all about. Both birth dates can be given in the text, but if the subject of this BLP can be verifiably shown to have stated their birth date is one day sooner than that listed on a birth certificate, that easily breezes through WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So we ignore WP:AUTOBIO and we throw WP:COI out of the window? Since when we leave people modulate their own bios at will? It's not matter of a point and lawyering, it's an honest matter of a very fundamental principle. We are a neutral point of view encyclopedia aiming at objective coverage. If we begin to make people able to decide of their bios, we renounce to objectivity and neutrality: at this point, if all we care about is "consider the position of living subjects", well, why not simply substituting all BLP policy with "You're welcome to write your own biography on Wikipedia!"? Is that what we want? --Cyclopia^talk 20:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

He didn't make the edit, so WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI have no sway at all. As for objectivity and neutrality, that's spot on why what he verifiably says about his birth date (and his mum as a source) should be carried in the article. If this BLP was about any topic other than Wales, I think it highly unlikely you'd be going on about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We have no intention of allowing subjects to write their own BLP articles all this is is allowing a identified trusted contributor to explain and be cited as the explanation of his own birth details, in a pointless issue about a single days registration detail, in which we can happily take his detail about his life as reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether or not he's a trusted contributer to the project. His bio is a notable topic and his latest verifiable statements as to his DoB can be cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopia - I might agree with your points, if the edit in question was something of consequence. A dispute over whether one's birthday is the 7th or 8th just seems WP:LAME. Frankly, I am ready to ignore all rules and let Jimbo WP:AUTOBIO here. NickCT (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen: If this BLP was about any topic other than Wales, I think it highly unlikely you'd be going on about this. - You are utterly wrong and I ask you to retract such a WP:AGF-violating statement. I read about this on Jimbo's talk page and when I've seen Off2riorob writing "done", I said "wait, done what?" and came. You can read on the current threads of WT:BLP that my point of view is general. There, you'll see there is a current tendency of editors that want to throw WP:NPOV out of the window with things like requiring article subjects to self-identify before categorizing their articles. People who know my take in these discussions may disagree harshly with me but will confirm you that I am in good faith.

I didn't say you were editing in bad faith. I'm saying you're not being neutral as to this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is even more ridicolous: why shouldn't I be neutral about Jimbo's birth date? Is it the crux of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and nobody told me? Ahrrrr, evil 7th-ers! I'll get to them! No, wait, it was the 8th-ers... Facepalm --Cyclopia^talk 22:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

NickCT: I agree that it's a bit lame, and in fact you can see that I didn't enter into an edit war for that. But I am frankly appalled to see that people forgets all our efforts to put in place regulations to keep NPOV, reliability, objectivity etc. -and tiny matters like this are the gauge of this dangerous mentality. The problem is not the birthdate: it's the principle. The principle that we ought have a neutral point of view, that we should stick to reliable sources etc.etc. --Cyclopia^talk 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(rebooting) Why is this contentious? There's no dispute that his birth certificate says August 8. Even the words of Himself grant "My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate.". The only evidence otherwise is sourced "according to my mother". The legal paperwork is the date of record. A statement of "according to my mother" is perhaps a worthwhile footnote (one could reasonably go either way on that, but I'd say it's a useful valid footnote, given the confusion). I'm at a loss to understand his reasoning behind completely ignoring the official document ("I am of the firm opinion that the discussion in the Wikipedia entry on me should all be removed in favor of simply saying that my date of birth is the 7th"), but that's really another topic. This item really needs a subpage FAQ. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Seth Finkelstein - Your birthday is the date on which you were born. Not what your birth certificate says.

@[[User:Cyclopia|Cyclopia] - Re it's the principle - You know Cyclopia, I'm v. sympathetic towards your opinion, and actually, I'm glad to have you here playing "devil's advocate". The rules do matter, and I do think there are technical WP:COI/WP:AUTOBIO concerns here and it's good that you're pointing that out. Ultimately though, I'm going to stick with my position because; the harm of potential inaccuracy (or lack of appropriate ambiguity) behind listing Wales' birthday as the 7th is overridden by the harm done to Wikipedia's concision and general sense of order when we have founder/co-founder of WP's birthday listed as (7th or 8th).

On another note - Perhaps if you want to pursue this Cyclopia we should consider an RfC? If you think this is appropriate, let me know. I'd be happy to do it as a I think an RfC might serve to put this question to rest for once and for all. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Nick: Your answer to Seth Finkelstein is wrong, for WP purposes. WP is not about the truth: verifiability, not truth is one of our standards. We have no way to know the truth; we can only report what sources say. I may know the Truth on something and sources may be all completely wrong, but my truth is unverifiable WP:OR. --Cyclopia^talk 15:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia - Again, point appreciated. I guess the question here is whether a person can be a reliable source as to there own birthday. Frankly, I'd suggest that if anyone who has a BLP on WP was quoted by an RS as saying, "The birth date listed on my birth certificate is wrong b/c x,y & z", we should probably take that at face value unless we have reason to believe otherwise. I know this is against the spirit of WP:AUTOBIO, but I think major goal of WP:AUTOBIO is to guard WP:NPOV. I just can't see any potential WP:NPOV issues with taking someone at their word when they say they were born on a Friday instead of a Saturday.

Anyway, I'm not sure we're going to come to agreement on this issue. Let me offer you a friendly ultimatum - 1) Grudgingly accept listing it as the 7th w/ your objections noted, or 2) Let me RfC the issue to bring closure. NickCT (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

NickCT, for official records purposes - e.g. when you can vote, when you can legally consume alcohol, when you're eligible for various senior-citizen benefits - your birthday is the date on your birth certificate. Indeed, that date may not match the one which is objectively correct. However, it is the "date of record". I don't understand any argument for completely ignoring it, especially in comparison to a second-hand story (he says his mother says ...). Reasonableness would indicate noting that the subject says the official date is incorrect. So contention on how to treat this is unclear to me. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that for the purposes you noted, your birthday is the date on your birth certificate. I'm guessing though that when the average WP reader sees a birth date, they assume it means "the day on which a subject was born", and NOT "the day used to determine when someone can consume alcohol, get senior citizen benefits, etc etc".

The argument for completely ignoring it is that, Jimbo is probably a reliable source for his own birthday, and that the confusion over his birthday is likely not WP:NOTABLE in the greater context of Jimbo. Furthermore, wikipedia is not an endless collection of trivia, and lame debates over Jimbo's birth date seem to be exactly that. NickCT (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't an average reader assume the day is the "date of record", if there is a conflict between that and other claims? In fact, I would say taking a person's word about their birthday is quite problematic. They can't have a reliable memory of the event, and they could have motives to dissemble (I'm not saying that's the case here, but there's many instances where people have been wrong or have had a reason to change the date). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Re (Why wouldn't an average reader assume the day is the "date of record") - I was born July 29th, 1980. If there was some error on my birth certificate/licence etc saying I was born 1880, would you suggest that I tell people my birthday was a hundred years ago? No! Of course not. Your birthday is day on which you are born. I think you'll find reliable sources back me in this assertion.

Re (memory of the event, and they could have motives to dissemble) - Give me any reason to believe either of these are true in this case and I will change my mind. NickCT (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Of course reasonable judgment must be applied - born 1880 would be an obvious misprint, or a different person. However, if you were an actor or actress, and said the error was that it really should be 1990 - i.e. were ten years younger than the birth certificate would seem to indicate - and the official date should not be mentioned, then perhaps that account should not be taken as gospel. Now, regarding "Give me any reason to believe either of these are true in this case and I will change my mind." - do you really mean that? Or is it tautological challenge? Meaning, if I give you "any reason", will you change your mind, or will you proclaim you mind is unchanged hence I have not given you sufficient reason? Just as a comment on this thread, I sadly suspect, given our evident different perspectives, we are in a situation I call no-evidence-accepted. That is, whatever I say, since it will not be within your personal experience, you will deem it insufficient. But, WP:AGF, let's try.
Now, disclaimer, I'm not saying I think any of the following are true, but they're conceivable: 1) Wales's mother might have made up the story as a way trying to inculcate skepticism against official accounts (i.e. "That's what the guvmint says, but I was there, and it's wrong"). 2) Wales doesn't talk about his politics in specific, but he has self-described "curious political views". For example, refering to UN grants as "being corrupted with money taken by force". He might think spreading confusion about his date of birth as somehow a way to hinder government database tracking. 3) He might have made a mistake himself one day in giving his date of birth, come up with the story as a better alternative to saying "I goofed", and decided to stick with it.
Over the years, I have become extremely jaded and cynical, especially in writing about prominent people. They lie. They have agendas. There's a journalism sourcing credo, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out.". Again, I am not asserting anyone is lying here. But I can certainly see reasons it could be possible. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Well come on Seth, this is just disingenous on your part. When it comes to sources, well you pays your money and you takes your choice. Personally, I find it hard to split Jimbo's own statement and the documented evidence- you seem to think that a day is relevant within the scheme of things. It isn't, since almost no source can be authoritative in this respect. Both Jimbo's assertion and his birth certificate are open to criticism as non-primary sources, but they're the best we have in the absence of an affidavit from the relevant midwife or other witness present at the time. I think this should move on, because there is plenty of other stuff to be done here, and to you, Seth, I would ask whether you are committed to the other stuff, or otherwise. Wasps are to be expected at picnics, but they should expect to be swatted. If you find that hard to understand, I'll put it more boldly: "is you is or is you ain't" interested in improving this encyclopedia? If so, let's see it. If not, you know what to expect. Good evening. Rodhullandemu 01:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I lost you somewhere. My overall interest in Wikipedia is in studying its dynamics, via the methodology of participant observation. I've said that many times. It truly does fascinate me. When a participant, I endeavor to adhere to its rules when editing (n.b. not saying I'm perfect at that, but I think I make a reasonable effort). Sometimes, I think I have information or insight that is useful to an article or discussion. Because of my interests, this is often on topics embarrassing or uncomfortable to those who are heavy supporters of Wikipedia as a quasi-religious movement. That's simply a result of my particulars areas of expertise. I'm not sure what more I can tell you. Please note, I'm not going to jump hard on this, but "expect to be swatted" and "you know what to expect" could be read as a threat. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You lost me, and my respect, when you started criticising from within, without committing to the complex process that is editing content here. Of course it's largely voluntary, but I do not see the commitment and involvement on your part that inures editors to becoming experienced here. You mention "participant observation", but I doubt your credentials for claiming to be a participant here other than in the most minimal and tendentious terms. In short, while "pissing from within the tent" may be seen to be better than "pissing on the tent from outside", in my view, your actual position is moot in that regard. You already have a platform for criticisms of Wikipedia, i.e. youer blog in The Guardian, assuming it's still extant, and of course the option of Wikipedia Review, a well-known repository for malcontents banned from here. I have yet to see you commit to this project without making waves, and if there is evidence of this, please refer me to some evidence. But (as Jimmy points out elsewhere), your edits here appear to be somewhat single-minded, and I eagerly await confirmation to the contrary. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I've given you a polite and reasonable reply. If you are unsatisfied with it, I don't think this is place for you to complain further. WP:NOTAFORUM applies also to your personal criticisms of me. Please note between my being threatened by you, and flamed by Jimbo, "the complex process that is editing content here" does not come off well. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Poorly sourced text is a BLP violation. Please don't delete reliable sources. A talk page comment is not reliable. Wales says My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate. According to Wales his legal date of birth is on the 8th. Wales was born on the 7th of August, according to his mother. This is an unreliable reference we can't use for this article. This edit from poorly sourced text claims the date of birth is 7 when the legal date of birth is 8 according to the unreliable reference. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding to your point, but doesn't it strike anyone as amazing that we are spending this much time on (1) whether he was born on the 7th or the 8th and (2) how to source the conflict? Only at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The simple obvious answer is the one that should be followed here. All this nonsense about my birthdate should absolutely and finally removed from this article and people should be blocked as vandals if they try to re-insert it. I was born on August 7th. My legal paperwork says the 8th. I have joked around about this in the past, not realizing how humorless some people can be. The only thing this entry should say is that I was born on the 7th, with a footnote if absolutely necessary to explain that my legal paperwork says the 8th due to an error in my birth certificate. Any other solution is POV pushing, WP:UNDUE, etc. Take note of the edit history of those who are POV pushing to have this complex mess included here: Quackguru and Seth are clearly POV pushers who ought to be banned from editing my entry altogether as clearly having committed multiple BLP violations over a long period of time. Quackguru in particular is essentially a single-issue editor: the main topic he has ever edited at Wikipedia is: me. And the tone of his edits are uniformly attacking and negative. He's singlehandedly responsible for the ludicrous presentation of various issues in this entry, and he thereby lessens the accuracy of the encyclopedia to push his vicious agenda.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, Jimmy, assume good faith. I'm sincerely interested here in people's reasons why, once it's undisputed what your birth certificate states, there's any further contention. The answer according to sourcing rules seems clear to me - the birth certificate is the most reliable source, and reasonableness would indicate footnoting a personal claim it is inaccurate. I truly don't understand your reasoning as to minimizing the "legal paperwork". Perhaps, as befits Wikipedia's "public face" (literally, per banner!), you could demonstrate the qualities that are alleged to embody its ethos, by civilly and without personal attacks engaging in discussion about the matter. After all, that's what anyone else would be told to do - as well as being cautioned not to lash out against others, plus threatened with a block and ban if such behavior persisted.

Note, I vigorously deny your accusation about "multiple BLP violations", and would defend Quackguru too. I assume that's code-words for opposing you in your campaign of declaring yourself "the sole founder of Wikipedia". That is utterly contradicted by Larry Sanger's Wikipedia co-founder historical references.

By the way, hypothetically, were I to write your biography page entirely myself, I think you'd end up overall with a better deal than the current version. I would be much tougher on what I view as aspects of sensationalism and groundless charges. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In my view, the more appropriate course is to say August 8 (citing the certificate) and footnote the report(s) of what Wales said his mother said. I understand the certificate may be wrong, but, by Wikipedia standards, it's more reliable/citable than Wales's say-so. I continue to maintain, though, that this is much ado about very little. There are times when a day matters (e.g., court deadlines), but not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you completely. --Cyclopia^talk 00:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

{ec}}, ffs. I couldn't agree more. When sources are at odds, we cite one (probably a perceived "reliable source") in the text of the article, and add a footnote, and, to be honest, the discrepancy is usually so trivial as to be not worth arguing over. We've done this successfully with George Harrison and Bea Arthur, and I see no reason why we cannot do the same here, move on, and write some articles rather than argue as two bald men over usage of a comb. The theories of policy may be all fine and dandy, but the bottom line is that some pragmatism has to apply sooner or later. I vote for "sooner". Rodhullandemu 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, you just managed to break WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:COI, while threatening people who simply want to use WP:RS to source content -all in one single comment. I hope you can elaborate and perhaps retract. I understand you may be emotionally involved with the issue, but saying that inserting reliably sourced information is akin to vandalism to substitute it with "I say so" it's a total no-no. And no, we don't need IAR here. --Cyclopia^talk 00:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

An IP made this change to the DOB on this article. Wales also made the same change to 7. The same IP changed co-founder to founder at the Wikimedia Foundation page. An edit by the IP was signed by Wales. Now in 2010 Wales says 7 (legal DOB is 8) is correct. Back in 2004 Wales wrote 7. However, for the BLP article we use reliable references. In June 2007 Mr. Wales notified Britannica that the date August 7 was incorrect. Where is the reference that said August 8 with citing the certificate correct? QuackGuru (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I assumed, apparently incorrectly, there was a cite to his birth certificate that said August 8 - don't we have that cite? If not, we have far more reliable sources that say August 7, regardless of what Wales himself says now, said before, or may say in the future. If we can't find a reliable source that says August 8 (e.g., the marriage license that says August 7), we should go with August 7. Otherwise, we just have Wales's word that his birth certificate and driver's license say August 8, which is just as impermissible to cite to as anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok... this debate seems to be getting lamer and lamer. I'm working on an RfC to try and bring closure to this subject. I'll probably set this up in 24 hrs or so. See the rough draft here. I'd appreciate questions/comments/concerns/suggestions for improvement on my talk page. Thanks all. NickCT (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

One secondary source about this is from The Oregonian - "a public records search shows that his Florida driver's license lists his birthday as Aug. 8, 1966." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Oregonian source - it's cited in the article now - but, as you acknowledge, it's at best a secondary source, and it's not particularly convincing without a copy of the driver license. Doing a little research, one Florida county says that to obtain a Florida marriage license, you must present "a driver's license, state ID, military ID or passport." See here and here. I haven't verified that that's a correct statement of Florida law, or that it was a correct statement as of the time of Wales's marriage, but assuming it's accurate, the marriage license birth date (August 7) is derivative of another ID that would have had to say August 7.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is where we start. After years of harassment by Seth, I no longer have to assume anything - I know full well that he's trolling and trying to harass us further. Perhaps Seth won't mention when he vandalized Wikia so he could write about it. Perhaps Seth won't mention his history of bad behavior, but after years of this nonsense, I will.

My birthday is August 7th, 1966. My mother is visiting me this weekend, maybe I'll have her sign a note to that effect and upload it to commons. But this entire debate is idiotic. My birth certificate is wrong. It is not a reliable source.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I completely deny your accusations, and if it were anyone else, I would request you be blocked for libelous personal attacks. As you know, you threatened to complain to the Guardian about my alleged "vandalism", and were told in no uncertain terms that your charge was nonsense. Further, I gave you a break as a gesture of good faith by not making an issue of it. Yet you take advantage here of your personal position to defame and viciously attack me. Rhetorical question - Who do I complain to at Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation about you? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And for heaven's sake, don't you think that if I did have ill-will, I could find better material than a repeatedly characterized as WP:LAME argument over your date of birth and citing it? Your charge is literally paranoid, where I use the word not in the common sense of merely suspicious, but meaning utterly beyond reasonableness. Again, it just shows how there is no check on you for abusiveness. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that Jimbo's suggestion of using Aug 7 as the birthday and a footnote to explain the discrepancy sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Quest: I disagree. I think we should put down the 7th, cite to the marriage certificate, the Brittanica, etc. and that's it. The rest is smoke and mirrors.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo: Your birth certificate has become irrelevant because no one has a copy of it to cite to. Your previous statements are contradictory - perhaps intentionally for fun, I have no idea. The best evidence I see now is your marriage certificate, which says what you say at the moment is the right date, the 7th. Why you keep injecting your birth certificate into this when no one has any evidence of it is beyond me. To the extent it matters, your birth certificate would be a reliable source if we had it. You know, your mother can "correct" the certificate. Florida has forms for doing that. See here and here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't born in Florida, and in any event I hardly think we should ask people to undertake a legal process to have their wikipedia entry fixed. I am generally ok with the citation to my marriage certificate for the date of the 7th. There could be a footnote, if necessary, explaining that my other legal paperwork says the 8th. Anything beyond that is silly. In fact, I'm pretty sure I have never made any contradictory statements about this - I've been careful about that, but I do confess to intentionally having fun with it.  :-) As a separate matter, we should remove the *county* of my marriage from the article - it is of no relevance to anything, and it is important to understand how it got there... as I recall a stalker put it there after digging up my marriage certificate and finding that he had gotten married in the same county. It has no relevance to anything.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought you told the Brittanica you were born in Florida? Just kidding, my momentary lapse, but Alabama probably has a similar procedure. Fixing your birth certificate wouldn't be for Wikipedia, but for you, and it was just a suggestion. As for the footnote, I've already made my position clear: I don't see why it's needed. Finally, as to the place of your marriage, it's on the marriage certificate, which will be cited to, and many articles include the place of marriage, not because it's terribly important, but it's just a small piece of background information. How it got into the article in the first place is irrelevant if it's sourceable and warrants inclusion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wales is notable for founding wikipedia, not for being born on some particular day. Hence, the 7th is as good as the 8th. There is no BLP issue here, unless Wales plans on suing himself, which I would consider unlikely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a pity this has gone on for so many years. In the article, we can source both the 7th as a date of birth, and the 8th as the date on official paperwork, and leave it at that. On the talk page we can have an FAQ, so that this is the end of the matter. For a starting point for such an FAQ, see Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate and Jimbo's comments in this thread. Geometry guy 22:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, there is no citable official paperwork that says the 8th, only an indirect reference in a newspaper article, and, of course, Wales's say-so. Wales is not a third-party published source, and the article is too oblique to warrant inclusion as a contradiction to the marriage license. I agree with your first sentence, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question. Do you mean why does it matter if we cite to the Oregon article, or do you mean why does it matter which day he was born on? And realize there at least three options (someone may come up with others): (1) we say the 7th and cite to marrriage certificate and encyclopedia; (2) we say the 7th but cite also to the 8th article in the footnote; (3) we say the 7th and 8th and cite to everything, including why cows give milk. My preference is in the order I presented the three options.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does it matter which specific day in August he was born? But I would go with the 7th. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and stating your preference. As I said earlier in this interminable thread, I don't think it matters whether he was born on the 7th or 8th, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Another word for "indirect reference" is "secondary source" and reporting what secondary sources say is what we do here. Geometry guy 22:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

But not always. We may cite to secondary sources, but we don't have to. And in this case the source becomes almost tertiary because it refers to something else in support of what it says. I'm not convinced that's good enough, especially for this assertion. Moreover, the Oregon article doesn't say it checked his birth certificate, just his Florida driver license. Wales was born in Alabama, and we don't know what he had to present to Florida to obtain a license or what he had to show for the birth date. Too much speculation and not worth sourcing to.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what secondary sources do: refer to primary sources, in this case the drivers license, which is an official document. This does not support his birthdate being 8th (reliable sources concur it was the 7th), but it does support an official document giving his birthdate as the 8th. What Wales had to do to get his driver license is unsourced speculation. Geometry guy 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We should go with whatever Wales says it is. That's the path of least BLP trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the result of your statement (the 7th), but I must disagree with the rationale. Wales should be treated no differently from anyone else, and a BLP's say-so, in and of itself, is not citable and does not follow policy. Here, Wales's current say-so (it seems to be a moving target) and the citable source (the marriage certificate) happen to coincide.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I have to ask again, Why does it matter? What difference does it make whether the 7th or the 8th is posted in the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, you don't have to have such strict sourcing for non-controversial information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying why does it matter, but regardless of how trivial this entire debate is, we have to make a choice. And frankly I've seen other discussions on Wikipedia about subjects that just as trivial as this one, not that's a good justification for perpetuating such discussions. Anyway, what do you propose? (As an aside, another editor, not involved in this discussion, changed the lead to say the 7th. For whatever reasons, she left the first section still saying the 7th and the 8th. She didn't include an edit summary. I reverted, even though I'm in favor of the 7th, because it's not right to change the birth date in the article until this discussion has been resolved, if that actually occurs in my lifetime.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets have a straw poll or move this to the BLPN the living subject has expressed a position and unless you don't want to listen to them for some reason, BLP supports his statement as a reliable self published source. There really is nothing to discuss, of course it is just silly, makes the subject of the article look silly that he doesn't know his own birth date, but we should allow him the decency to accept his statement and add it, as I did, all the rest is POV. What is there now is laughable, rude really, no one can be born on two days, and we have a clear statement from the living person, just accept it why don't you? Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's so clear that Wales's statements qualify as a reliable self-published source. The policy permitting this kind of self-publlished source has quite a few requirements (see [[Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. However, putting that aside, which could generate yet another debate, I agree with starting a straw poll and putting closure to the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion is excessive pointiness having to do with its specific subject. The rule in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is that items that are likely to be challenged need accurate sourcing. Who, besides a few non-notable editors, are challenging the facts regarding Wales' birthdate? If there's uncertainty, state its the 7th and have a footnote indicating that some sources have it as the 8th. There is nothing notable about the specific date, and no one who matters is likely to challenge the 7th. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He is the most reliable source for this detail, as it is now it is missleading. Yes, start a straw poll to see if there is support to allow the subject to clear this up and have his comment accepted as a reliable source for this simple statement about himself. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comments in this discussion are straight on the mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bugs, good to agree sometimes, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I started the straw poll. No doubt, I'll be criticized for how I laid it out (you remember, don't you Rob when you were in the hot seat on a much more important poll?), but at least I started it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I do, that was a hot place I was in then....phew. I think there is a lot of support for this, User SlimVirgin has also just added it back to the seventh again. Well done for starting the poll. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is easily resolved in one of two ways. Per BLP, we give subjects the benefit of the doubt when nothing hangs on the issue, and nothing hangs on whether he was born on the 7th or 8th. Or we remove the day entirely, also per BLP: "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth ... err on the side of caution and simply list the year." So we could say 1966 or August 1966. What we must not do is include two dates in a way that implies there is something untoward. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead has been changed and the citation restored thanks to me. You deleted a reference and sourced text without consensus. Please try to explain your revert. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, what was the reason for deleting the sourced text in the body of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In June 2007 Mr. Wales notified Britannica that the date August 7 was incorrect. SlimVirgin, there are other reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, is it still 2007? Or has he commented on the question more recently? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any other reliable sources where Wales commented on the question more recently. QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

His current comment on the subject (noted at bottom of this page) is the best evidence we have. And since he now agrees with the date Britannica uses, where's the issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide RS that supports that view. Did Wales recently notify Britannica about this. QuackGuru (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

RS is a red herring. There's no issue here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead and infobox are 7. The body is 7 with one sentence about 8. What is your proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the edit battle, my proposal is people vote in the straw poll section.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Which I've done, and in reference to Quack's question, the best answer is indeed 7, with maybe a footnote explaining about the 8. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to only 7. I don't currently have a specific proposal for a footnote. QuackGuru (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• This user Quackguru has three reverts today prior to this single talkpage comment, I have accordingly left him a Revert warning template on his talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Congratulations everyone - Oh hell, I was about to gleefully add this masse of navel-gazing irrelevance to our WP:LAME, only to find that it's already been there for several years. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:LAME navel-gazing is an accurate description. This non-controversy arose from 1) Jimbo apparently trying to play what appears to be some kind of prank on Encyclopedia Britannica & 2) A group of editors who seem determined to pester Jimbo with WP:Wikilawyering and general nonsense. NickCT (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Editorial power curbed

Wales says Wikipedia role unchanged, but editorial power has been curbed. This reference and matierial about role and power can be added to Jimmy Wales#Role. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's wrong and can't be added.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Very aggressive donation requests

This is certainly not the correct place to place this question, but since (a) Wales' face is on every donation request and (b) I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia hierarchy, I'm asking it here anyway:

The donation requests include an "X" to close it for those who are not interested (in donating or staring deeply into Wales' expertly photographed face), however: it simply pops up again the next time you visit Wikipedia even if you're on the same computer as before.

That's very aggressive marketing right there. Can anything be done about this?--Larssl (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't work that way. For me, clicking the x sets a cookie that lasts for... well I'm not sure really... but several days at least.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, and apologies for the unintentional rudeness (I meant to say "Mr. Wales"). I'm using Google Chrome, and looking at other comments below this may be a common problem with that particular browser (or WP's cookie solution?). I just got exposed to the banner _again_ after navigating to a different WP article. --Larssl (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

At least for me, there is a setting in My preferences/Gadgets/Browsing gadgets/Suppress display of the fundraiser banner. I checked that box, and I don't see the banner anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Article talk-page is not for communication with article's subject. DMacks (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewish and Leftwing Controlled Wikipedia Please Jimbo, break the Jewish and Leftwing control of wikipedia. Please enforce brutally that wikipedia needs to be neutral. The best thing you could possibly ever do is liberate the Jewish Controlled areas of wikipedia and break the left wing cabel that controls wikipedia. That's worth a million dollar donation. If you can't do that, you might be surprised in the future when you are no longer #5. Build a NEUTRAL ENCYCLOPEDIA WITHOUT JEWISH SUPREMACISM. 195.91.56.231 (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Hey - FYI - Messages intended for Jimbo Wales should be left User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Though frankly, I'm not sure he's going to dedicate much time to dealing with this kind of comment. Is there is a specific area you feel lacks a neutral point of view you should try taking it up on that article's talk page. If that fails, you should probably read wikipedia's policy on dispute resolution to figure out what steps to follow. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. I motion to close this subsection as it does not seem to provide any helpful commentary. NickCT (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC) I concur with NickCT. Article talk pages are to discuss improving the article. This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with improving the article. I'd close it myself but I forget the tags. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll on day of birth

Please vote on one of the items below. You can, of course, explain the rationale for your vote, but try to keep it brief.

Option One: List birth day as August 7. Cite to only third-party sources.

Option Two: List birth day as August 7. Cite to third-party sources and to Wales.

Option Three: List birth day as August 7 or 8. Cite only to third-party sources.

Option Four: List birth day as August 7 or 8. Cite to third-party sources and to Wales.

I didn't include an option for August 8 only because I didn't think anyone would vote for it (I could, of course, be wrong).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Option Five: List birth date as August 7th, with a footnote indicating that some sources have it as the 8th. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Option Six: Something other than Options 1-5, with explanation.

An admin, SlimVirgin, has revised the article, essentially choosing Option One. I reverted another editor who partly "resolved" the birth day issue, but I'm not reverting SlimVirgin. Whether SlimVirgin should or shouldn't have done this on his/her own I'll leave to others. (Baseball, thanks for adding Option Five.)--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't have straw polls when BLP is clear, Bbb. As I wrote above, we give subjects the benefit of the doubt when nothing hangs on the issue, and he says he was born on the 7th. Or we remove the day, also per BLP: "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth ... err on the side of caution and simply list the year." So we could say 1966 or August 1966. But BLP is the policy that we have to comply with. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the BLP section is precisely on point. Wales has not complained about the inclusion of his DOB because of any privacy issues. He's complained about the accuracy of it, which is a different beast. I might add that there's very little on Wikipedia that is "clear" - hence, the interminable debate. Regardless, I would vote for Option One, so I'm personally happy with your changes. I'll let others do what they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Good enough. We have his word and several other sources stating the 7th. If someone comes up with incontrovertable proof that it was the 8th (like for example a sworn statement from his mother), then further info would be needed in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 - After digging this one a little, I think the 7th is the most likely DOB for Jimmy Wales. Additionally, I don't think the "8th debate" is notable or particularly helpful to WP readers. @SlimVirgin re"he says he was born on the 7th" - The problem is he's said different things to different people on this issue. Re "We don't have straw polls when BLP is clear" - To which "We" do you refer? NickCT (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think she means we as a community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I just heard a rumor that Wales is an active editor on wikipedia. Has anyone asked him what is his current opinion on what his birthdate was? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

@QFK - Well in that case, perhaps she could explain why "we" think this BLP is "clear". I thought I was "we". I don't think it's clear.

@Bugs - see [2]NickCT (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. Go for the 7th. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree with the 7th, so I won't debate. But let me say in slightly ambiguous language, that I think Wales might be partially responsible for confusion about his birth date. Regardless though, this is a lame non-issue. Birth date should be given as the 7th. NickCT (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Option One - I do think it worthy to cite Jimmy's statement. The seventh as per Jimmy's statement and request, cite it to Jimmy's self declared statement from last week or anywhere else. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment.You want to delete reliable sources and use a primary source from a talk page? Your change was rejected a while ago. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• reply - I don't care where its cited to, I support Jimmy's statement and request as a living person, Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• reply - I was born on the 7th of August, according to my mother. My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate. (The year: 1966)--Jimbo Wales (talk) revision as of 21:07, 1 December 2010 The reference you want to use says the legal DOB is 8. QuackGuru (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• - He was born on the 7th, what is wrong with that? As per the subjects request I support the seventh as his dob. I am also happy to just cite to his primary statement as I did last week when he made the personal request.Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Option Five: List birth date as August 7th, with a footnote indicating that some sources have it as the 8th. QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Option One: Even though Wales wants it to be August 7, he should not be cited (I don't agree with SlimVirgin on her interpretation of the policy in this context). I have no confidence in the reliability of the Oregon source that says they looked at Wales's driver license after a public records search; therefore, it should not be cited. It is the ONLY source that says August 8. Thus, although I get there a different way, I agree with the version SlimVirgin put in. I also liked her putting the birth date in the lead but not in the first section.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. In June 2007 Mr. Wales notified Britannica that the date August 7 was incorrect. I think Britannica is reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Response. I agree that Britannica is reliable, but it should be cited for August 7 (which is what Britannica is using as the date), not for Wales's odd comment that August 7 is incorrect.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Option Two. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Option One. Lots of people have incorrect birth dates on their birth certificates. This is a very common issue, and in cases where the mistake is known there is no reason to slavishly follow what is written on the certificate. Kaldari (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support option one. I don't think this poll is a good idea, because we should be following BLP and common sense instead, but given that it's here I support the first option (7th August, citing a secondary source), and citing Jimbo would be fine too. But no mention of the 8th, no footnotes, no attempt to turn this into an issue in the article, because it's not important. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Everyone loves a poll. We don't need a poll on this. Options 1 and 5 are fine. I favor something inbetween: option 1 with something to indicate why anyone might think Jimbo was born on 8th (his drivers license says so!) But voting on such nuances is futile. Geometry guy 01:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think like SlimVirgin says, we should close this poll as lack of interest and there seems little objection to what is in the article now, the 7th supported by secondary reports - option one. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I tentatively second Off2riorob's motion. I repeat the call for an FAQ. NickCT (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

An FAQ? where abouts placed, on a page of its own ? to say his mum told him it was Friday not Saturday. Off2riorob (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem with the article as it stands is the citation to OregonLive.com. The article says Wales is born on the 7th. It cites many sources in support of that but also cites the Oregon source that contradicts it, including Wales's alleged statement to the Oregon source that the 7th is wrong. Without getting into another discussion about the reliability of the Oregon source, doesn't that strike people as a wee bit confusing in light of what the body of the article says? The intent of Option One was to cite only to third-party sources that support the 7th as the date, and the Oregon source does not. Also, the way I read SlimVirgin's comments, she would not include the citation to OregonLive. She can correct me if my interpretation of what she said is wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't give a darn about what is cited. I'm only concerned that the article doesn't mention the "8th debate". I've mocked up an FAQ here. Unless someone objects I'm going to be bold and put it in. NickCT (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I object and SlimVirgin seems to object and the living subject seems to also object. Sorry but looking at it, its a bit silly. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to where SV or Jimbo objects to a FAQ? I can't see it. Plus, note that A Quest For Knowledge, Seth Finklestein, and Geometry have all explicitly asked for an FAQ. NickCT (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

EC - As there is clearly opposition to such a FAQ, I wouldn't boldly add it, create it and ask for opinions and assess the support for its inclusion. - add - Well, Jimmy clearly says he just doesn't want it bigging up and expanding into a big issue and SlimV says the same and you know my position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Well I don't think Jimmy or SV explicitly opposed an FAQ. You clearly have though so I won't add it unless I get support from others. NickCT (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jimmy said ..."I am of the firm opinion that the discussion in the Wikipedia entry on me should all be removed in favor of simply saying that my date of birth is the 7th." and SlimV says - "no mention of the 8th, no footnotes, no attempt to turn this into an issue in the article, because it's not important." - although there is no specific mention of FAQs they both seem to feel it was a minor issue being given undue weigh by inclusion in the article. I support adding Jimmy's personal statement as a self published source to the date of birth, the statement explains the whole issue and removes the need for any notes, FAQs and subpage issue escalation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob - Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. I am talking about an FAQ on the talk page for this article. Similar to those seen on Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy. I'm not talking about including it in the article. That clearly would be against what Jimmy and SV said. NickCT (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I was a bit confused but I got there in the end. I think sometimes we are up our own *****, this discussion appears to be about that you want to add a FAQ template to the talkpage templates that no one will ever read about the naval gazing issue that Jimmy Wales mother told him he was born on the seventh but he didn't get registered at the birth center until the next day. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh.... right I guess. FAQs aren't typically read, but are commonly referred to when a question that has previously been debated is reposted by an editor that is new to the article. In my mind they help to prevent the same debate from being continually rehashed, adding stability to an article. Do you still oppose, or are you on board now? NickCT (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am on-board and willing to support your position. However - I don't support bloating and exaggeration of trivial issues. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re I don't support bloating and exaggeration of trivial issues. - Agreed. Frankly, I see FAQs as a method of preventing trivial issues from causing more bloated and exaggerated debate..... NickCT (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, great. I may take a little time to write WP:BLOAT. Lets see, the FAQ, what is in it? I don't really support one but if it is minimal and unobtrusive then I won't object. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'd prefer to have no FAQ. This is a non-issue. We have a date (7th), we have a reliable source (the EB), and we have the BLP subject saying the same thing. We have no reason to believe anything hangs on it, and we wouldn't be fussing about it were it not Jimbo (or the president of the United States, maybe). But if people do decide to add an FAQ, it should be collapsed as they usually are. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Re SV - You don't think an FAQ might serve to prevent future protracted debate? Have you seen Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate? This subject will undoubtedly come up again. Often times I find an FAQ serves to stymie debate before it starts. Take a look at User:NickCT/FAQ and tell me what you think. I agree with you re "it should be collapsed as they usually are." NickCT (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy's personal statement on the dob issue from last week

• - I was born on the 7th of August, according to my mother. My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate. I am of the firm opinion that the discussion in the Wikipedia entry on me should all be removed in favor of simply saying that my date of birth is the 7th. (The year: 1966)--Jimbo Wales 6:12 pm, 1 December 2010, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC+0)

Subsectioning of poll section

Rob added a subsection at the top of the poll section putting in Wales's personal statement as its own subsection. He then put the poll itself as the next subsection. I think it's wrong. If Rob believes that Wales's statement is important, he is free to cite to it in his vote or in a comment or anywhere else, but to put it so prominently at the top of the section preloads the argument, which I tried to avoid when creating the poll by not putting in any arguments, just choices. I asked Rob, whom I like and respect, to remove it, but he refused. So, because I feel uncomfortable removing his changes (theoretically, you're not supposed to remove other people's comments, although this is an unusual twist on the guidelines), I'm posting my displeasure here. If I'm the only one who's bothered, I'll let it go.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if it bothers you, I have moved it to the bottom, but Jimmy's personal statement and request from a living subject is what this is all about. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In your move, you made it its own section. That's great as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not sure if it's what you intended. If it is, I can remove the "poll" subsection header, and we're fine. If, however, you intended to keep it a subsection but at the bottom, that would be an improvement, but I still think it shouldn't be there. Otherwise, anyone wanting to highlight his/her argument could add a subsection to the poll section.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Its the reason this whole discussion is taking place, it should have been added at the top, but at least its there for users to see, what this is all about. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your subsequent edit made it clear that your section is to stand alone, which means I no longer have any objections. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

FAQ for Aug 8th Debate

Hey all, I have made an FAQ in response to the straw poll.

I did so b/c several editors including myself, seem to think it's a good idea.

See comments above from;

"And how about adding a FAQ to the talk page" - A Quest For Knowledge

"This item really needs a subpage FAQ" - Seth Finkelstein

" On the talk page we can have an FAQ, so that this is the end of the matter" - Geometry guy

Off2rob objected above, so I am asking for comments from other editors before I put it in.

Anyone got any opinions? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed your links above. I think a talk page FAQ is a good idea, but it should contain more information: we need such an FAQ to prevent this silly debate happening over and over. See Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate for older info. Geometry guy 23:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

@Geometry guy - Could I suggest that you be bold and edit the FAQ I setup? If I dislike the changes I will revert per WP:BRD. The same goes for any other editor that wants to contribute. NickCT (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok... This debate seems to have trailed off. I was bold and added the FAQ. I'm not going to be offended if someone removes/edits it. NickCT (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Noted, and I support the addition. We could probably move the "this is not Jimbo's talk page" banner into the FAQ as well. Geometry guy 21:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done I would point out there is already a note at the top of the page talking about this issue. It may be redundant to include it in the FAQ. Again, I don't mind if anyone edits/deletes. NickCT (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I was actually proposing removing the note as redundant to a comment in the FAQ. Geometry guy 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I suggest you be bold and delete it. I'm a little concerned about SV's addition of the Wales' quote to the FAQ. I fear people are going to see that and whine about WP:AUTOBIO. I wanted to make the statement about the birth certificate without citation, to force interested editors to read the discussion.

But whatever... it seems that both SV and Geo are good with it, so I will leave it be. NickCT (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I have also removed the last sentence of the quote, to avoid AUTOBIO concerns. Geometry guy 22:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jimmy,

is it possible that you help me to create my Page. I did it with my german Page and i need it also in english. I hope that you or somebody else can help me. thanks for awhile Dinzey Dinzey (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Better picture needed

The one you guys are using now looks kind of creepy. For the owner of the site, that seems like a mean treatment. How about one of the ones from the fundraiser banner? Most of those are a lot better.--74.193.55.195 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)