This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
There is no reason to clog the LEDE with citations for the DOB or other non-controversial items. Sure, other stuff exists in some other articles, but there is absolutely no indication of DOB vandalism to this page, nor is it required that all DOBs be cited in the lede of articles. Please don't edit war over something like this. Please respect BRD. Respectfully, GenQuest"Talk to Me"20:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are misreading WP:CITELEAD. I have no idea where people got the idea that CITELEAD = "no leads in cite". It's doesn't say that at all (and it would be patently stupid if it did) – useful articles are far more important than some editors' subjective view of what makes for "pretty" articles. In fact, CITELEAD very specifically says "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." (emphasis mine)This is another good discussion of the issue, and show that this goes far beyond just me – many of us who edit BLP's regularly feel that citing the date of birth in the lede is critical. Also, the fact that you are trivializing and dismissing the point about WP:DOB vandalism is frankly troubling. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And no response in over 24 hours. I am interpreting this to mean that there is no objection to restoring the justified policy-based referencing in the lede, as per what I've outlined above. If there's no further comment in another 24 hours, the referencing will be restored. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation is in error.
First off, there are no time limits on Wikipedia. Some of us are busy in real life, so arbitrary time limits can't be imposed by you or me.
Secondly, you are misreading WP:CITELEAD. I have no idea where people got the idea that CITELEAD = "everything cited already in the article needs additional cites in the lede". (From MoS: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged ... should be supported by an inline citation." (emphasis mine)) Are you saying that you are challenging McCook's date of birth? (no need to answer that, just rhetorical), because no-one else is. Non-controversial article birth dates are rarely cited in the Lede as un-necessarily bureaucratic. (See Tim Allen; Michael Jordan, Phil Collins, John McEnroe, David Beckham,etc. — just five of the millions of BLP articles that don't follow your unsupported, non-policy-based* guidelines.) CITELEAD further goes on to state: "... information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source ...and... "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." (emphasis mine). You must realize that your comment re: "...many of us who edit BLP's regularly feel that citing the date of birth in the lede is critical is just one way of looking at this. CITELEAD doesn't say that at all (and it would be patently stupid if it did). Obviously, there are many of us who edit BLPs regularly who feel that citing the date of birth in the lede is anything but critical.
Thirdly: Forcing a citation where one isn't needed is a gross over-reaction, and totally un-needed. If you are doing this to many other articles, you should probably re-think that, because making articles "pretty" (your word) is part of what copy editing is all about, subjective or not.
* If there is a recent RFC regarding this and perhaps CITELEAD just hasn't been updated, please point me to it.
Congratulations, everything you just said was wrong. But I am dropping this, because rather than being reasonable about it, you would rather obstruct legitimate, good-faith, actually policy-based edits in favor of your own completely unjustified view of WP:ILIKEIT. IOW, the kind of editor who makes Wikipedia editing a chore... However, the first time somebody edits McCook's DOB to change it to a wrong date (and it is likely to happen eventually, whether you will admit it or not), I am adding the referencing again, whether you like it or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
