Tammy Duckworth was nominated as a good article in the Social sciences and society category but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Reviewed version: January 13, 2013
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons 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 connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.
Request from Tammy Duckworth to withhold date of birth and mother's maiden name
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The following request was confirmed as coming from Tammy Duckworth (if necessary, I will forward proof by email to any administrator upon request). The result of the discussion at the biography of living perons noticeboard (archive link is here) and in keeping with WP policy/guidline, consensus is to remove the exact date of birth and her mother's maiden name (as requested). Thanks, R. Baley 22:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC) For the most recent iteration of this issue, please see the archived biography of living perons noticeboard discussion link here. Essentially, regardless of whether or not the subject of a WP:BLP is a public figure, Wikipedia's policy on date of birth states that if a subject objects to the inclusion of their date of birth, simply list the year of birth instead. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This is Tammy. I am requesting that all editors please leave my birth date and mother's maiden name off the page for protection from identity theft. I truly respect the free nature of this excellent page and know that I am now a public figure (if only a minor one). However, I would be grateful if we did not make it so easy for someone to have access to my personal information that is commonly used to verify identity. Thank you all in advance for your help. cheers, tammy. (IP address removed, R. Baley) 05:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
2007 Discussion of the issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Birthdate cited as well. I'm afraid the information is encyclopedic and has been published in multiple reliable sources, so I think removing it would only damage the article to no good effect. Even if we removed it here, it would make little difference in deterring identity theft, as the information could easily be found elsewhere. I've changed my opinion, see the WP:BLPN entry. Videmus OmniaTalk 01:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Back in 2007, Tammy Duckworth requested that her date of birth and mother's maiden name be removed from the article. Much of the debate, especially in the early going, centered around just how prominent a public figure she is and whether she was entitled to special treatment. At the time, Duckworth had recently been appointed Director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs, and was less than a year removed from a run for Congress that received international attention. It was ultimately decided to accede to her request, and the information remains excluded. At least one person who supported granting the request specifically mentioned revisiting the issue if her profile rose.
Since then, Duckworth was mentioned as a possible replacement for Barack Obama in the Senate. In fact, she was supposedly a favourite of Dick Durbin (and possibly Rahm Emanuel) before the Blagojevich arrest. Thereafter, she was mentioned in published reports as a possible Veterans Affairs Secretary and a possible candidate for Rahm Emanuel's House seat. Ultimately, she was appointed Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs (she was confirmed April 22).
She's a public figure, and the birthdate information should never have been removed in the first place. I say put it back in. As for the mother's maiden name, that seems pretty irrelevant. Why was it in there in the first place? Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not see that her new appointment has caused her public profile to rise (other than brief period when her appointment was part of the news cycle) sufficiently to revisit. Looking at the previous discussion (ignoring the politically motivated POV arguments), the reasons that applied then seem no less relevant now.
As for the argument that she is a "public figure", she is Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs; IMO that does not make her a terribly high-profile public figure, and I don't think her her previous position in Illinois did so either. I also do not believe that her name briefly being bandied about as a possible nominee for positions that were ultimately filled by others, while it might make her more noteworthy to Wikipedia, does not make her more a public figure. -- Couillaud (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Her appointive postion in Illinois was never the primary basis for considering her a public figure. She was a Democratic challenger in a Republican district who received national and international press attention. She is clearly a public figure. Also, you are ignoring the fact that she is now a person mentioned for important elective office in Illinois when such offices come open. She was repeatedly mentioned as a candidate for U.S. Senate and for Rahm Emanuel's House seat. It is frankly a matter of fact that her profile has risen. The question is whether she has passed a point where there is no longer any reason to honor her request for special treatment. I leave that question to other editors, but it is nonsense to argue she is not a public figure and that he profile is no higher now than in 2007. People less notable than her have their exact birth dates listed and have their mothers' maiden names included when their parents are discussed in their "Early life" sections. To boil it down, is it reasonable to believe that including one or both bits of information poses a substantial risk creating identity theft? -Rrius (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I will repeat my earlier statement from just above yours: "I also do not believe that her name briefly being bandied about as a possible nominee for positions that were ultimately filled by others, while it might make her more noteworthy to Wikipedia, does not make her more a public figure." I am not ignoring the fact that she was briefly mentioned in a number of articles as a possible appointee to the House or Senate as you feel I did, I am discounting its importance in this issue, as it was a "fifteen minutes of fame" kind of thing. If she had actually been chosen for those offices, then yes, the situation would be different, but it is not now, IMO.
Ms. Duckworth made the request personally for this, the issue was heavily discussed, and a decision to abide by her request was reached in accordance with Wiki rules. I see no compelling reason to change that, and unless you can offer some evidence that her noteworthiness, fame, etc. have changed significantly during that time, I see no reason to revisit the issue. -- Couillaud (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If this info is available online, why can't it be posted on this article? I call it censorship.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to provide her actual day of birth, esp as per her request and the prev resolved dispute about it, but i think mentioning the month might be helpful in being able remove that really weird-looking "(Age 40-41)" desig atop the article, when we know she's 41 (and 1/2 ;-) now. I'm also gonna reword desig for mom & dad, to avoid people (frequently) trying to put in the maiden name (that Tammy requested be removed) Beansandveggies (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
March 2012 Discussion of the issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is this still censored? She has been the head of the Illinois DVA and is a candidate for elected office yet again. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Tammy is a public figure without any doubt question or debate, 99% of all the other Senate and Congressional biographies have birthdays listed so the question begs why does Tammy Duckworth deserves this special treatment. I think it's silly that her birthday is censored which is inconsistent with Wikipedia philosophy. So, considering there is a consensus now to add the birthday I went ahead, being bold, I added it back.Themightywind (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)—This user is a sockpuppet of banned editor Joehazelton—
I assume you're familiar with the process of WP:BRD, in which you've been bold, it's been reverted, and now it's back to discussion. If you're not, please give that link a read and take note that the process is bold-revert-discuss, not bold-revert-revert. Turning to the issue at hand, I disagree with your statement "there is a consensus now to add the birthday". The consensus to withhold her birthdate information was originally formed back in 2007 at this location here. In the conversation thread just above, it was brought up again in 2009, with no clear consensus to change the outcome. Very recently, an IP address editor suggested it should be changed again in March 2012, followed by your comment yesterday. Again, this does not even remotely indicate that consensus has changed - not by a long shot! If you would like to proceed from here to revisit the consensus issue, I would recommend that you look into the WP:RFC process, in order to draw more attention to the issue and invite new editors to come here and comment on the prior consensus and as to whether or not the article should now change to include her exact date of birth. If you have questions about how to do that, just let me know. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I strongly support inclusion of her birth date. She's running for public office (again) and frequently appears on national TV programs. She's not a private citizen, and more notably her public figure status is something she has specifically sought out. Furthermore, if she wins in November, her birth date will be published in the Congressional directory and elsewhere, whether she likes it or not. Arbor8 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Arbor8. I'd certainly agree that Duckworth is a public figure. Did you read the prior consensus discussions and were aware of the policy arguments that took place previously (see link above), including the point that Duckworth (herself) objected to her full date of birth being included for identity theft related concerns? Are you familiar with the relevant policy? See WP:DOB; I'll copy the relevant portion here: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Hence, given that she complained about including the exact date of birth, consensus was to follow Wikipedia policy: err on the side of caution and simply list the year. Nonetheless, if you'd like to work with Themightywind and start an WP:RFC on this issue, please feel free. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with the relevant policies and the specific history here. Do you know whether Ms. Duckworth continues to object to the inclusion of her birth date? I'd certainly be more inclined to defer to her wishes, at least pending the outcome of the election, if we knew they were current. Failing that, I'd like to go ahead with an RFC. Arbor8 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
No clue on whether or not she may have changed her mind since then. With regard to an RFC, do you want to work up a proposed version on how to phrase it? I assume it will include addressing the policy consideration above as it's a key component to where consensus has stood up until now. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Ms. Duckworth is a big public figure no question about that. Also the argument of identity theft is non sequitur for I can find her birthday and other information on the Internet in approximately 10 seconds, so that the argument that her birthday information endangers her privacy, which Tammy is a public figure has no expectation, of is a moot point. Now since she is in involved with a campaign for November 2012, Tammy should have no expectations of her basic information i.e. her birthday to be private. If Ms. Duckworth wants privacy she should withdraw from public life and become a private citizen if that's so important to her. Again Wikipedia is not about censorship particularly information that is in the public domain i.e. particularly if public figures birthday.Themightywind (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)—This user is a sockpuppet of banned editor Joehazelton—
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Duckworth is a public figure and can not have any expectations that reliably published sources must withhold information like her exact birthday; indeed, it's been published on the Internet in news stories and articles, and that is readily verifiable. Further, everyone here agrees that Wikipedia is not censored. Her exact birth date, however, has not been "censored" for any arbitrary or impermissible reason; quite the contrary, it is based on a policy. That policy contemplates that Wikipedia may include "full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources," but that if a person objects about the inclusion of their date of birth, we are to "err on the side of caution and simply list the year." You can read that policy at WP:DOB. Given the policy, what are your policy-based argument points that lead you to the conclusion that we should overturn the prior consensus? AzureCitizen (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
If we can confirm that Ms. Duckworth continues to object to the publication of her birth date, then I don't see any reason to include it. However, omitting such basic information about a clearly notable person on the basis of a five-year old complaint seems silly to me. Arbor8 (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
If we can confirm she no longer objects, then we have every reason to include her date of birth. Concluding that her objections have probably evaporated, however, seems silly to me. If she did not want her exact date of birth on her Wikipedia BLP then, why would she want it listed now? WP:DOB does not require that a subject must periodically re-assert an objection to their date of birth being listed, lest such rights expire. If we're going to make assumptions here, we should err on the side of caution and assume they don't want their exact DOB listed until we hear otherwise. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
who cares what she thinks? Tammy is a nationally known political figure and candidate for a Federal office (congressional district 8), and don't have the expectations of this level of privacy considering her status as a national known public figure. This website is about truth, not about censorship. Themightywind (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)—This user is a sockpuppet of banned editor Joehazelton—
As mentioned previously, the relevant policy is WP:DOB. It says that if a subject objects to the inclusion of their exact date of birth, we simply list the year instead. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The mentioned policy wp:dobONLY applies to private or semi-notable people. Tammy is a full blown, nationally known Public figure and will be speaking on National TV at the DNC convention this fall. The DOB policy don't applies to national known congressional candidates. If Tammy don't like the public attention, then she should get out of National politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightywind (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC) —This user is a sockpuppet of banned editor Joehazelton—
WP:DOB does not make exceptions for whether or not a subject is a public figure; it applies across the board. If you disagree, please point out your reasoning and rationale, preferably using quotes from the policy. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Duckworth is now a duly elected Member of Congress and a representative of the US government; as such she is no longer a private citizen, but a public one, and it is the duty of Wikipedia to inform people about her, including her birth date. In short, if she didn't want her life publicized, she shouldn't have run for election. To summarize, I recommend we update her birth date. Grammarxxx(What'd I do this time?) 22:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The relevant policy, WP:DOB, says that if someone objects to the inclusion of their date of birth, we are to simply list the year of birth. This privilege is extended to any BLP subject who requests it, regardless of whether or not they are a public figure. Wikipedia didn't have to provide such a courtesy in formulating the policy, and public figures have no protection against others publicizing the information, but Wikipedia chose to do so, hence we follow the policy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
She is a MEMBER OF CONGRESS!!!! The birthday is fair game and Wikipedia should not be engaged in censorship. Your argument is lame. Policy is this...WP:BLPPRIVACY "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." The DOB is fair game.184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Simply dismissing an argument as lame is no way make your case. I do believe we should look back at her request; she wrote it back before the election, when she was a private citizen. Now that she has been elected to Congress and her information is public knowledge, and I feel that unless she requests it be removed again for some reason, which I seriously doubt she would, it should be added to Wikipedia. Grammarxxx(What'd I do this time?) 05:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Censorship is pointless now, since Tammy Duckworth is a public firgure and the whole world knows her brithday.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Read the thread above and you'll find that the applicable policy is WP:DOB, not censorship. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It's convenient to ignore this policy WP:WELLKNOWN if you insist on playing wiki lawyer. Censorship is what you want. Regardless of what Tammy want's the policy don't cover this and she is a major public figure, a congresswoman and has absolutely no expectation of that type of information to be private. Furthermore, the insistence to censor such information smacks of partisanship by you. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
...whereupon the matter was referred to ANI after 1, 2, and 3. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Redacting my words in this discussion is not very nice. It would appear Wikipedia is all about censorship. Censorship is what you want. Any fool can Google "Tammy Duckworth Brithday". Regardless of what Tammy want's the policy don't cover this and she is a major public figure, a congresswoman and has absolutely no expectation of that type of information to be private. Furthermore, the insistence to censor such information smacks of partisanship by you. 22.214.171.124 (talk)
Wikipedia is a private organization had has the right to respect peoples wishes, even if it may be construed as "censorship". This is not your public library where all information will just be given to you; if you wish to find Duckworth's DOB, than feel free to go to Google. Crying foul and censorship will not get you anywhere here, because until Duckworth wishes for her DOB to be published here, it will remain unpublished. Grammarxxx(What'd I do this time?) 07:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem with your Ownership argument is at YOU don't own Wikipedia and don't have any more say then me on this subject.
The problem with your augment is that's not what Wikipedia advertises itself to be. "Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge in the form of an online encyclopedia.." but what I see here is CENSORSHIP of legitimate information on a major political public figure just because Tammy got some kind pull in wiki. The only reason why is you are partisan to this person at the expense of this principle. I wonder if she or some of her friends are paying you for this censorship. Any rate, this is really a small place with petty bureaucrats who lost their way.126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
True to form, you keep lambasting and maligning the intentions of any editor who tries to follow the WP:DOB policy here by declaring their intentions to be about partisanship, censorship, petty bureaucracy, etc. You've been pursuing this line in an obdurate fashion for years now Joe, yet you are no closer to your goals in imposing your will here in your demands that displaying Duckworth's exact date of birth is "fair game." Your choice of words in your arguments going all the way back to 2007 are telling; it is you who is the one who is emotional about this, and it is you who are the one who puts your desire to see Duckworth's DOB listed here over all other principals and norms. Why? Just because Tammy Duckworth herself doesn't want to see it listed, and personally requested as much? So it's personal to you to? Duckworth does not have some sort of "pull" on Wikipedia, by the way. We are simply following the rules when we redact the DOB, and would have gladly done so for Peter Roskam as well had he asked. You seem to have a terminal case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, however, so until you find a way to make peace with this, you'll just be endlessly butting your head against the wall here. I can't help you in that regard I'm afraid. Peace and good luck with that, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Its deeds,not words I judge on and the deeds are simple. You are censoring legitimate, widely publish information about a extremely notable politician and public figure with weak and lame arguments is self-evident. Further more, the personal attack on me in-order to dis-credit and divert the argument away from your Censorship is self-evident as well. All of this shows how truly weak Tammy Duckworh is as well and the lack or integrity to the basic principle. of Wikipeidia. Finely, it don't matter there is about 1/2million adults in dupage county and any one who opposes the liberal leet here are all labeled "Joe" also show the weekness of those who run wikipeidia. P.S. What about policy WP:WELLKNOWN I guess I make a poor wiki lawyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of "self-evident" truths here for editors to take a look at, but lets "judge deeds", as you've said. You've repeatedly try to force the material into the article without seeking consensus to overturn the current WP:DOB policy. How do you justify that? If you disagree with the policy, or its interpretation, you are free to take your concerns to the relevant noticeboards again, yet you choose not to. If you think somehow WP:WELLKNOWN trumps WP:DOB, why not make your case at the BLP noticeboard? AzureCitizen (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
And you repeatedly Censored legitimate information. What justification you have to censor such basic and well published, public domain information, again read the term "Encyclopedia" in Websters and WP:WELLKNOWN Luckily, there is the Blue water internet as well as Goggle and the fact that most educated people think Wikipedia is a festering swamp of petty bureaucrats in training and places of lies, dam lies and Wiki-policy anyway. Just more poof here, by your deeds, and action, and the argument I am having here, shows who's right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The question is Censorship and you're dodging that question. The question is.... is the Birthday of a Highly Visible, public figure, an elected Congresswoman, need to be censored, considering its splayed all over Google and the internet. Apparently, Tammy Duckworth has no problem with Goggle publishing her birthday? Whats going on here? Any thing else is minutia and not relevant to this argument of censorship by Wikipedia. Finely, I'm not going to try to wiki-lawyer an expert Wiki-Lawyer over inane, and contradictory wiki-policy which make no sense any way. It's a waste of time. Tell Tammy her birthday is out there any way. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Connormah. The date is readily accessible via internet searching; the reason why we don't include it is because the subject requested it, hence WP:DOB says we should simply list the year of birth instead. You can find more information on this if you read the linked noticeboard threads above. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
This topic should be re-opened with an RfC if possible. If the date is given to news organizations and appears that readily through a web search, and through official congressional directories, it should appear here. The subject seems to have asked a few years back, a time when she was less notable as she is currently - she will be sworn in as a congresswoman, a highly public position. If privacy concerns are that important, then I don't see why the date was given out to sources such as The Washington Times and most likely the Biographical Directory of the Congress. Basically, the date should probably appear here if it appears readily via reliable sources. – Connormah (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
With regard to the date appearing in the news and/or congressional directories, are you picking up some sort of indication in the sourcing that the subject volunteered the information? If so, please link it so that we can take a look; it is my understanding that while Wikipedia provides the WP:DOB courtesy, news and other organizations are not bound by those policies, hence it is public record and they will do as they please. There is no indication at present that Tammy Duckworth "gave" that information to them. With regard to notability and the status of being a public person, Wikipedia's policy at present does not restrict the courtesy of asking for your DOB to be withheld to only private persons; it applies to both private persons and public figures. You can see that being discussed previously on the BLP noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive160#Tammy Duckworth. The WP:DOB policy is a subsection of the WP:BLP policy article, which generally errs on the side of caution in favor of an article's subject. As a result, how do you propose to address the policy issue here? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
A WP:RFC probably wouldn't hurt here - inevitably, there will be others that will try to insert the date since she is a well-known figure now, a congresswomen. The request was made in 2007 from what I can see when her notability was not where it is now - we could try contacting her office maybe to address the issue, but I think wider comment may be helpful here. – Connormah (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
If someone is able to contact her or a trusted staffer in her office and confirm she no longer objects, that would clinch the issue right there (assuming reasonable authentication); I suspect that will be a tall order, however. With regard to an RFC, wider community commentary is usually a good thing, but we have to address the underlying policy aspect. As this is part of WP:BLP and has been raised a couple times before at the BLP board, a competent RFC should take place there rather than here. The core of the issue revolves around how we interpret and apply BLP policy in this regard; resolve that, and the answer becomes obvious (whether to include or exclude). Are you interested in drafting a proposed RFC? Something which includes the history, yet invites reconsideration of the issue? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I think an RFC on the subject would be a good idea, since like Connormah said, in 2007, she was nowhere near as notable as she is now. In fact, if someone really wanted to know her birthday, the Congress bioguide linked on the page states it. Canuck89 (have words with me) 22:53, January 4, 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that it was linked. Can you point out for me where that is on the article? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
It's in the external links section. I also support an RfC, GAR, or some other method to review the current situation and establish a consensus. Edge3 (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't think to look there. At present, there is a consensus, based on the original 2007 BLP noticeboard discussion, and continued along through the years including the most recent BLP noticeboard airing of the issue in 2012. Theoretically, a public figure far more prominent than Tammy Duckworth could post a request tomorrow on their BLP article asking that the month and date of their birth be removed, and according to Wikipedia's policy, that courtesy would be extended to them (if it was authenticated). Consensus is always subject to change, but it is a BLP policy issue, hence we're talking about either 1) trying to get the policy changed outright or 2) changing the way the policy is interpreted and overturning precedent. In either case, I think an RFC should take place on the BLP noticeboard as that is the policy forum where the consensus was established. Is anyone interested in writing up a proposed RFC that includes what has gone before but invites reconsideration of the issue? I've seen support for an RFC by three editors now, but nobody has put forth a draft. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'd be willing to start an RfC, but I'm too busy to do it right now. I'll try to address it by the end of the week, if everyone doesn't mind waiting a few more days. Otherwise, someone else can start the RfC.
Personally, I don't think that WP:BLPN would be the appropriate forum for this, since the edit war has somewhat died down. We can agree that WP:DOB requires that the full date of birth be removed, but we can't agree on whether WP:DOB is constrained by other guidelines such as WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:OPENPARA. We are seeking a clear consensus on how to interpret all of these policies in a harmonious way. WP:RFC states that we can do this here (on the talk page) or in a separate page. I'll take a closer look through the policy pages to see where we should discuss this further. If the GA nominator decides to take this to GAR, this issue can also be revisited there. What do you think? Edge3 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll wait until you've got time to work on it. If you feel we really should host the RFC here rather than at the BLP board, that's okay with me as we can post an appropriate link there about the issue being revisited with an RFC here. When you're available, let's first parse out a draft here too so that we can nuance the finer points of what we're attempting to resolve, we don't want a hastily worded RFC result in a lot of comments by drive-by editors who don't know the extent of the issue. Finally, I'd like to point out something important about the edit warring that has taken place here for many years over this issue; if you take the time to work back through the history, you'll find that the battle to edit war the DOB into the article has always been fought by one stalwart individual who has repeatedly returned via sockpuppeting. The socks are easy to spot because they edit almost exclusively over the Duckworth issue, repeatedly reverting on the article itself while posting on the Talk Page their outrage over "censorship" and/or admins allegedly collaborating with Tammy Duckworth herself for "partisan" reasons, or some other similar nonsense. If a named account, they'll typically have a long dormant period between creation and when they show up to edit war, as the sockmaster told admins in 2009 that he has "dozens of accounts ready" for when he needed them. If an IP address, they always resolve to the greater Chicago area (where the individual is known to live). If you'd like me to supply you with specific examples of his IPs and/or blocked sockpuppet accounts warring over this Duckworth DOB issue, let me know. The point is, if we're going to have an RFC, you can expect that individual will probably try to participate (via continued block evasion) to affect the outcome. No worries, but it's important that you be aware of it. :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
May I point out the her DOB is listed on the Italian wiki linked to this page (in addition to the Congress Bioguide I noted above)? Have we yet realized that with her being elected to the US Congress, that our efforts at censorship are mostly pointless? Canuck89 (have words with me) 04:10, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
Complying with WP:BLP (specifically, " If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth... ...simply list the year.") is not "censorship". Duckworth's date of birth is readily available on the Internet for anyone who chooses to search for it; other parties are certainly not obligated to render any such courtesies. The fact that there may be links on the article right now to an Italian Wiki article or a congressional guide is not a valid argument for vitiating WP:DOB; on the contrary, it would support their removal. If you think Wikipedia's BLP policy should be changed, there are avenues for that, plus a well thought out RFC may ultimately result in consensus changing. Someone could also make an erstwhile effort to see if the subject can be contacted and asked if they would like to cancel their previous request. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
There are too many quotations in the article, especially in the "Political positions" sections. The "Recognition" section has a boxed quote that has unclear significance. It needs to be cited and further explained, if it is to remain.
Missing citation on first paragraph of "Post-military career". References also are not consistently formatted, especially the dates. Bare URLs in citations 9, 19, 28, 32, and others. This isn't a GA issue, per WP:GACN.
Please expand both subsections of "Congressional elections". The 2006 section could use some significant expansion, unless someone can demonstrate that there really isn't much to say about that election. As for 2012, the section is longer, but surely the civil suit isn't the only noteworthy part of the campaign?
I've expanded both but I feel the 2006 election should be kept short since it has it's own article.
Ongoing content dispute about the inclusion of the date of birth. Please resolve this soon. I should point out that WP:OPENPARA says in part: "The opening paragraph should have...dates of birth and death, if known" (emphasis added). I'll look into this policy further, but it seems that including the date of birth might be necessary for this to meet WP:GACR, since the date of birth is known.
The article's been protected so there'll be no more warring over her DOB.
I'm placing this on hold for now. Edge3 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Early life, education, and military service
Ref 5 (Slevin) doesn't support the statement: "Because of her father's work with the United Nations and international companies, the family moved around Southeast Asia. Duckworth became fluent in Thai and Indonesian, in addition to English."
In the statement: "Following in the footsteps of her father and ancestors, who served in the Revolutionary War, World War II, and the Vietnam War..." — Ref 4 doesn't mention that she had an ancestor who fought in the Vietnam War.
"The explosion 'almost completely destroyed her right arm, breaking it in three places and tearing tissue from the back side of it.'" — Quotation not contained in ref 11.
"She worked to develop state programs giving tax credits to employers who hire veterans who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Desert Storm; more state grants to service organizations; and backing for below-market mortgages for veterans." — This statement almost copies word-for-word the phrasing used in ref 16. Please rephrase or use a quotation.
The Recognition paragraph begins with "Duckworth credits Dole..." without mentioning who Dole is until linking to Bob Dole in the third sentence.
"Duckworth credits Dole for inspiring her to pursue public service while she recuperated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C." — Not supported by ref 22, which only says "Duckworth has cited Dole's experience as an injured veteran-turned-politician as an inspiration for her candidacy."
"Former Republican Presidential candidate and Senator Bob Dole dedicated his biography One Soldier's Story in part to Duckworth." — First, it's an autobiography, not a biography. Second, perhaps it would be better to cite the book directly?
The section for 2006 contains only one citation, which verifies only the final results between Duckworth and Roskam. The rest of the paragraph needs to be cited because there are statistics that need to be verified.
"Duckworth defeated former Deputy Treasurer of Illinois Raja Krishnamoorthi for the Democratic nomination on March 20, 2012, then faced incumbent Republican Joe Walsh in the general election." — Not supported by ref 30.
"Duckworth was considered the favorite, as the district had been redrawn to be significantly more Democratic than its predecessor." — Missing citation.
"On October 11, 2012, during a live debate between the two, Walsh brought up the fact that Duckworth had been named in a civil suit filed by two employees against Patricia Simms, director of the Anna Veterans' Home in southern Illinois." — Refs 18 and 19 seem to be irrelevant.
"... the first member of Congress born in Thailand." — Doesn't seem to be supported by the source.
Entire "Veterans affairs" section directly copies text from ref 38
Perhaps her stance on education isn't noteworthy? It's sourced to her campaign website's press release.
The first "Iraq War" paragraph implies that the positions Duckworth expressed in her press release were also expressed in her response to Bush's weekly radio address. Please separate the two and clarify the difference.
I'm not sure whether the quote in the "Iraq War" section is necessary.
In the "Gun control" section, none of the three citations have working links, and the quotation does not have a reference.
I now conclude this review. Because I have identified close paraphrasing or copyright violations, I fail this article's GA nomination per WP:GAQF.
I have also noticed that edit warring occasionally resumes over the inclusion of Duckworth's DOB. Most recently, an anonymous user re-added the DOB today. This edit cannot be considered vandalism, per WP:VANDAL: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." Thus, the article currently fails GA criterion #5, which is also grounds for quick failure.
Even if there is no edit war, I would argue that the GA criteria urges that the full DOB be included, per WP:OPENPARA. (For the path, see GA criterion #1, which requires compliance with WP:LEAD. Go to the WP:LEAD#Biographies section, which in turn points directly to WP:MOSBIO. See WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph.) I should note that WP:GACR does not require me to check for compliance with WP:BLP. Because there seems to be a conflict between WP:GACR and WP:DOB, which is further complicated by the existence of WP:WELLKNOWN, this GA nomination cannot proceed without further clarification on how the guidelines and policies should be interpreted when we mix them together.
I recommend asking Tammy Duckworth if we can include her full birthdate on the article, since that would allow us to sidestep this debate entirely. Once all of the other issues I listed above are addressed, I recommend submitting this for renomination or, if you challenge my reasoning, reassessment. --Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a really well written article. Kudos to all who have contributed. It was only when I came to the use of the word ancestors that I felt that not quite the right word (nor the right tense in the subordinate phrase) had been used. Ancestor has the connotation of legal terminology on the one hand, biological descent trees on another, and spiritual and ethnic roots on another. In the context of military prowess and service to one's nation, it seems to me that either forebears or forefathers is the better term. Given that all the said fighting forebears were fathers rather than mothers, forefathers seems to me to be the right word here.18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Reflecting the strength of the arguments that the subject is a public figure whose personal details are already widely available and reported in high quality sources including those of the government, the consensus weighs heavily toward the fact that while the subject does not desire her DoB to be mentioned in Wikipedia, it should be cited in the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The request may have carried more weight in 2007, when Ms. Duckworth had less notability as an official in the Illinois state government. However, now she serves on the US Congress and has less of an expectation of privacy, as per WP:WELLKNOWN. I am initiating this RfC to request that the community allow this article to display Ms. Duckworth's full date of birth, as per WP:OPENPARA and WP:WELLKNOWN. WP:OPENPARA states that "The opening paragraph should have... dates of birth and death, if known". Since the date of birth is known, the MOS urges us to include it. Furthermore, WP:WELLKNOWN suggests that we should publish information that is "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented", even if the subject does not want it mentioned.
For reference, the birthdate is published on her official, Congressional bio (). Edge3 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Do not include. I see no good reason to go against her specific wish. It is not vital information and the MOS does not override our responsibility towards living subjects of biographies.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
do not include - have you read the threads above? This issue has been discussed ad naseum. Why does her birthdate matter to you? If she specifically asked to have it removed, in hopes of a little bit of security-through-obscurity, we can certainly do this for her. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI, a newer thread in January 2013 suggested that an RfC may be necessary. Just because the issue has been discussed ad nauseum doesn't mean we can't discuss it now. Edge3 (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Why not include it? As Edge3 noted, it's not that hard to find her birthday, since its published on her official Congressional bio. Canuck89 (chat with me) 03:58, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's up for debate to say that at this point her full DOB is extremely easier to readily find presently rather than around 6 years ago. I see no reason not to include it at this point as the circumstances have obviously changed from 2007. In addition to the Congressional bio, it is worth mentioning that multiple 2012 election publications also include the full date. – Connormah (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Include. Consensus can change. Widely available information from multiple reliable secondary sources. Published in her own congressional bio, which obviously renders her six year old request moot. Gamaliel (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Weak Include - Agree with Edge3 that this subject clearly has become more notable, which suggests it might be more appropriate now than it was previously to include the birth date. At the same time, agree with User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· that there is very little value to readers to know her exact date of birth, and there are legitimate personal privacy concerns as suggested by WP:DOB. All-in-all I think the bottom line is that, for better or worse, it's probably not reasonable for US members of congress to expect that their birth date should not be public knowledge. NickCT (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Do not include per the prior rationales in the archived talk page threads unless the policy issue is resolved. WP:DOB states that if a subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, simply list the year instead. It's obvious from looking at WP:BLP that WP:WELLKNOWN was not intended to trump WP:DOB which comes immediately afterward. Regardless of the stature of the subject (let's say it's the President for example, rather than a first term Congresswoman), or Internet exposure of the information (let's assume even the simplest of Google searches will return the exact birth date), WP:DOB makes it possible for any subject to request their exact DOB be omitted and Wikipedia renders that courtesy. There is nothing in the policy about second guessing the subject's intentions or putting an expiration date on their request. If it's important to include the exact month/day here on the subject's Wikipedia entry, we should either 1) contact the subject and ask if they would like to rescind their prior request or 2) amend the WP:DOB policy such that it doesn't give subjects that unconditional courtesy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIVACY also states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." - I thinks that this can be argued at this point that this has become the case. If anything, it seems that people are coming to this article and asking themselves, "why is the full date missing?".. – Connormah (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIVACY is the sentence immediately preceding WP:DOB: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Thus, we display a subject's DOB if it has been widely published, or if an inference can be drawn, but if a subject complains, we err on the side of caution. Again, a policy change should be sought to put the matter to rest. Additionally, it is unlikely the subject herself personally created the biographical entry at bioguide.congress.gov. That database covers every congressperson since 1774 and is likely maintained by non-elected Government service employees who are charged with assembling the information for congressional records. On that last point (the readers), I certainly agree with you, I'm sure people do come to this article and wonder why the month/day is missing. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Including a link to an article on Rense.com with the headline "HI Paper Erases Obama Indonesia Birth In ARCHIVED Story"? Really? Dezastru (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Include My rushed thoughts are that if the information is PD, we should summarize it here. I have not read related policies though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Include: It's the right thing to do, perhaps not by Wikipedia standards, but by encyclopedic standards. Grammarxxx(What'd I do this time?) 16:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Include More well known than before, already published in many sources.--Otterathome (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Include Found in multiple reliable sources, and as a former Federal official (2009), her birthdate was public record in many places now. Inane to withhold something so widely found. Collect (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)  clinches it for me. Collect (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Do not include I have trouble understanding why anyone wants this information on a garden-variety biography. It is not typical for encyclopedias to include birthdates unless there is some particular reason, such as a national holiday on the person's birthday. I suppose that an encyclopedia written by astrologers would include birthdates for everyone, but who else cares about this? Does knowing that the subject is born on January 4th or 5th or 6th (or whatever the date is) really improve your understanding of the person? (Again, for non-astrologers.) The exact date is pretty close to trivia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Birth dates may may be trivia, but almost every other biography on this encyclopedia provides birth dates, as instructed by the MOS. The question here is whether there is a compelling reason for this article to go against the MOS by providing the year only and not the date. Edge3 (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that complying with BLP really counts as "going against the MOS". If you think that these are in conflict, then I suggest changing the MOS to reduce trivia and more clearly comply with BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Do not include. WP:BLPPRIVACY is clear about this: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." SlimVirgin(talk) 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Additional reason to not include I recently emailed Duckworth, and received the following response:
From: Duckworth for Congress <email@example.com>
Date: July 31, 2013
Thanks for checking with us - we really appreciate you seeking the congresswoman's input.
Rep. Duckworth still prefers that her birthdate not be published.
Please let me know if there are additional steps we should take to weigh in.
Eve, Duckworth for Congress
Include Privacy can only apply to information that is at least somewhat private. Otherwise, elected officials (and others) could constantly be challenging sourced info on WP on the grounds of so-called "privacy." Arbor8 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Include the information is readily available on her congressional bio. Her concerns about identify theft fall flat unless she can prove she's more likely to have her identity stolen than any of the countless other individuals have who have birthdays listed on Wikipedia. Hot Stoptalk-contribs 01:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted, Duckworth's Wikipedia bio is the only Congressman Bio, which Wikipeida has no birthday on it.Seeroftruth (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Include Based on Wikipolicy WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:OPENPARA as well as her birthday is published on her official, Congressional bio () IF she don't like it on wiki, then don't be a congressmen, Her request, considering her status as a "ELECTED PUBLIC FIGURE" precludes and superseeds her desire to keep her bday off of Wikipedia. Duckworth's desire to keep her birthday off of Wikipedia is unreasonable and should be ignored, based on Wikipolicy as stated above, as well as basic Encyclopedic standards. Seeroftruth (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:BLPPRIVACY#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources, which states, quite clearly: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." That's pretty clear, and there's no "tough cookies" clause. Why exactly do you want to ignore a reasonable request, esp from an elected official who lost two legs while serving her country? The insensitivity in the responses above is rather stunning- plz remember BLPs are people too.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Its rather stunning considering, even Duckworth's Official bio on Congress.gov includes her birthday demonstrates how ridiculous her request is. Also, such compliance with such a ridiculous request, calls in the question the fairness and non-bias place Wikipedia should have on Political Bios. as well, it should be noted that Duckworth is the ONLY one of the 500 Plus Congressmen listed on Wikipedia? What makes her so special is to warrant this special treatment?Seeroftruth (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's a ridiculous request, and publication elsewhere doesn't mean much. We don't have to dig into details as to why she doesn't want it listed here - it's a simple fact that she doesn't. We would do the same for any other figure on wikipedia who made the same request - so if 500 congressmen request it tomorrow, we should delete their birthdates too. We're not giving her special treatment, we are giving her standard treatment accorded to all bios and enshrined in our policy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - This is not a valid topic for an RfC, as any calls to "include" are moot per WP:BLPPRIVACY, which is part of a policy page. BLP policy cannot be occasionally be set aside as guidelines can, so if there is objection to how the Wikipedia currently treats date of birth and the subject's wishes therein, you would have to make your case at Wikipedia talk:BLP and gain consensus for a policy change first. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Policy: or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object -- I suggest her official Congressional bio is "linked to the subject" and that she did not object to the DOB being in it. Collect (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to brush up on your reading skills a bit. The first few sentences describe what we do in normally in regards to date-of-birth and BLPs. The Next sentence tells what the exceptions are; a) the subject requests removal, or b) the subject's notability is notable. Condition "a" is satisfied. Case closed. The only thing this hinges on is whether the person requesting the deletion is verifiably the subject...if that is going to be a nitpick, then all we have to do is point her or to WP:OTRS. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLP also states: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." See WP:WELLKNOWN. We're not attempting to "set aside" the policy, but rather interpret it in a way that allows us to comply with all policies and guidelines. Edge3 (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Include This is an encyclopedia, not a data base of information. Its sourced and its notable. And we cannot simply remove reliably sourced and notable information from an article simply because some random ip or new account "claims" to be the person in question.--JOJHutton 14:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Did you read the email cited above? That was sent to me from her official congressional account, after I posted a query on her official web page. If you have doubts, I encourage you to write her directly and ask her yourself, or I can forward the email to you. I'm an editor in good standing here, I don't know Duckworth and have never heard of her until this discussion, and have no reason to make sh*t up.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Your email is not a reliable source for her information, nor would mine be. And if being a editor in good standing, which you are, is enough of a reason to add or remove information from Wikipedia, then we wouldn't need sources or proof at all.--JOJHutton 15:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
That is an absurd argument. We are talking about exluding information not adding it, and removing information does not require reliable sources but a consensus of editors in good standing. What is your reason to assume that someone other than Duckworth would email Obi Wan Kenobi to have the birthdate removed. AGF applies. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree. If you notice, the staffer who responded to the email even asked if there was more they could do. Are we really going to force them to send a formal request in triplicate to WP:OTRS? The only other possibility is that I'm making this all up, which, frankly, is absurd.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to be extra clear, Duckworth's staffer did not initiate the conversation with me. I asked a question on her official website, and her staffer responded a few days later (having presumably talked to her). That exchange was way more than enough for me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
DO NOT Include per the WP policy on BLP DOBs, and the policy on the misuse of primary sources in BLPs. These policies are crystal clear on this issue: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth ... simply list the year." (from WP:DOB) and "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth ..." (from WP:BLPPRIMARY). I agree with Tarc, we should not even be having this discussion. If you don't like the BLP policy, feel free to begin a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Until that policy is changed, any further discussion here is moot. -Wine Guy~Talk 16:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Except it's not solely primary sources that we're relying on. Multiple secondary sources that I have linked above do include the full date. – Connormah (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The sources argument isn't important, what is important is that the subject has made their wishes known, and per policy, the full DOB can be kept out. There is no wigle room here; if you want wiggle room, then goto the BLP talk page and propose a change in policy. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, I should clarify a bit. My point in referring to BLPPrimary is that many here are arguing that since her DOB is listed on her official congressional webpage that it should be fair game. I would suggest that her webpage falls into the category of being both a primary source and a public record; while there are other sources, the congressional page is specifically excluded from consideration according to our policy. Regardless, the WP:DOB issue still applies. That the information is available elsewhere should not give us latitude to casually throw BLP policy out the window. –Wine Guy~Talk 19:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not the congressional page is a primary or secondary source is irrelevant, as on the first page of a Google search you find her full date of birth in the Washington Times. - The BushrangerOne ping only 05:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Include As a Member of Congress, she has no reasonable expectation that this information would be kept private. --rogerd (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment. This is the point, she is now a "public figure", as well as standing member of Congress, where her birth day is a valid constitutional issue regarding Duckworth's qualifying for office () so Duckworth's DOB is relevant. Also, why should Duckworth have any expectations of her DOB censored on Wikipedia, since "ALL" of the 500plus members of congress, who have articles on Wikipedia, have birthday details listed. Besides, is Duckworth entitled to more special treatment, in contrast to the other 500plus Congressmen who's birthday is publish on Wikipedia and have no problems with it.? This slavish devotion to Duckworth's unreasonable request is inconsistent with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy's WP:NOTCENSOR policy and Commonsense.Seeroftruth (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Do not include. You want it in? Then change the policy. --NeilNtalk to me 05:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Include. Her date of birth, on a quick Google search, is on biography.com, the Washington Times, imdb, Women in Combat: A Reference Handbook, and others. The first two of those are the second and third hits on Google, in the snippet Google displays. While policies should, indeed, be upheld, slavish adherence to policy in the face of WP:COMMONSENSE does nothing but harm the encylopedia - this is exactly the sort of thing that the people who like to say "Wikipedia is Inaccurate!" devour. WP:IAR is also policy (and one of the Five Pillars, at that), and when, as in this case, following a policy is bad for Wikipedia, we need to IAR until the policy is changed, not say "change the policy" as we blindly follow it off a cliff like lemmings. - The BushrangerOne ping only 05:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I'm no fan of slavish adherence to policy, and I'm a big fan of WP:IAR—but not when it comes to privacy issues in BLPs. I agree that it is common sense to include the exact date in this case, and it gives us good reason to revisit the wording of WP:DOB. That discussion is taking place now at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposal on date of birth. It's a shame that people seem intent on hashing this out on this individual article, rather than fixing the policy which clearly needs refinement. One other note, listing the year of birth is in no way, shape or form inaccurate unless the wrong year is in the article. –Wine Guy~Talk 20:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Include I agree with Nyttend and the Bushranger-Ballotpedia had an article about Tammy Duckworth and her birthday is mentioned there. In 2007, I can see excluding her name because Tammy Duckworth was not in elective office at that time; however in 2013 with Tammy Duckworth in the US House of Representatives and her birthday mentioned in the Congressional Biography this has changed greatly since 2007. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Include- There is no good reason not to, and misstating the intent of WP:DOB is not giving a valid policy reason. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Proposal to Move Discussion – Can we move this to WP:BLPN? This issue really is a policy one and BLPN can recommend a policy change. Otherwise the resolution is confined to this single article, and subject to even more discussion. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's not a policy issue. What's happening is that people are incorrectly interpreting policy in this specific case, given this particular set of circumstances, and that is a local matter, not a global one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
If they are incorrectly interpreting policy (and the issue has arisen here 5 different times), then let's get the policy clarified. (In fact, there have been 2 dozen BLPN debates over the years.) If this is a local matter for a Congressperson, what about a state government representative, or non-government "famous person", or someone "not-so-famous", and how about non-United States BLPs? Why do we have so much debate if the policy is clear and people are clearly "incorrectly interpreting policy"? BLPN is the best way to go for the community. – S. Rich (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure it should be moved, however a seperate discussion on changing the policy should be done. - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Do not include per WP:DOB and the subject's wishes. Incidently, does anyone have decent secondary sources publishing the date? So far all I've seen are primary sources like the officla bio and minor or contentious secondary sources like Washington Times. Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
...how exactly is the Washington Times "minor or contentious"? As for "the DOB is a privacy issue", that horse not only bolted long ago, it was so long ago that the barn has collapsed from old age and removing the full date on the grounds of privacy isn't just locking the door after the horse left it's building an entirely new door just to lock it (without rebuilding the rest of the barn). - The BushrangerOne ping only 04:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Include. The information is out there, and including it here is not a threat to information security. Andrew327 18:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Include since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy of birthdate for a US congressperson , when it is included in her official congressional biography and in numerous reliable sources. Edison (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:DOB does not state that cases in which there is no reasonable expectation of privacy are exempt from the policy. Dezastru (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Include heck, we should ask her office if she minds at this point. The request is stale give the time that's past and that she publishes it. Hobit (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
We've asked her office, and as you will see above they responded that she preferred it to be excluded.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Noted. Seems very strange. But I can't see a justification for not publishing something due to privacy concerns when she has it published. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Do not include - The WP:DOB policy says, "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." She HAS complained about inclusion of this information in her BLP, so we should follow the policy. No one has explained what overriding public interest would be served by superseding the policy and including the information in the article. Does it really make that much of a difference to know the precise date of the birth, rather than just the year? Is so, how? Someone argued here that her date of birth is relevant to the position of public trust she holds—her main point of notability—on constitutional grounds (since the Constitution requires that members of the House of Representatives be at least 25 years old). That argument would only be relevant to whether Wikipedia should publish the precise date of birth if there were some question as to whether she had reached the requisite age by the time she took the oath of office – a moot point since she was over 40 when she took the oath (and we only need show the year of birth to establish that in the article). Several have noted that her birthdate is published in her Congressional bio, but WP:DOB says, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth [that have been published]] by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." Publication of someone's date of birth on their personal Facebook page, or on their personally-managed website, or in an autobiographical book or article would be examples of "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably inferred that the subject does not object." An official Congressional bio is not such a source. There are many scenerios under which a person could reasonably object to the information being published in their Congressional bio yet not have had the information removed, not the least of which might be the Streisand effect. And for those who say that 'the information is already widely available, what harm could including it in Wikipedia do?' the difference is that the reach of Wikipedia is far, far greater than that of many other sources. Wikipedia info box material appears at the top right of Google searches on people, while info from newspaper articles, scholarly books and articles, and other more reliable sources is typically buried in search results. Dezastru (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment SO much double talk, but in the wikipolicy WP:DOB its the fact Duckworth is a standing Congressman, as well as her DOB sprayed allover the Internet like here Duckworth's Bio Considering Duckworth is noteworthy, her birthday is not bound under WP:DOB. Seeroftruth (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The policy says "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Thus, the subject's birth date is bound by WP:DOB and we are properly following policy by honoring the subject's request to omit the exact month/day while simply listing the year instead. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The policy you quote only applies to non-public figures - and Ms. Duckworth is very Public Figure, as well as as an elected Congressman. Plus you convietly discount this "...Public figures
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it (bold mine). If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out..."Seeroftruth (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:DOB applies to both public figures and non-public figures. If you disagree, please point out exactly where in the text "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" that you perceive that the WP:DOB policy excludes public figures from this courtesy. WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN appear in the section immediately preceding WP:DOB and speak to "allegations" and "incidents" that are noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented. The examples included therein are about divorces and affairs... negative things which subjects often dislike any mention of it (and we don't censor allegations and incidents just because a subject asks for it). A person's exact month and day of birth, however, is not a scandalous "incident" or allegation". WP:DOB follows the text of WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN and makes it clear that if a subject requests removal of the exact birth date, we simply list the year instead. Hence, we are following policy here (and have been doing so for many years now) when we omit Duckworth's exact DOB. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that "WP:DOB follows the text of WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN and makes it clear that if a subject requests removal of the exact birth date, we simply list the year instead." If we are excluding a piece of information that is well-documented in a "multitude of reliable published sources", then how are we compliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE/WP:WELLKNOWN? This policy does not grant an exception to dates of birth. Edge3 (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
We are fully compliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN right now with the month/day of birth omitted. WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN say nothing about publishing the exact month and date of birth because WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN have nothing to do with a subject's DOB. The policy issue of DOB is governed by WP:DOB, which appears immediately after WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN and makes it a condition that if a subject (which can be any subject, regardless of whether they are a public figure or a non-public figure) requests removal of the DOB, we remove it. By contrast, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN speak to "allegations" and/or "incidents" that are "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented", going on to say that they belong in the article "even if" they are "negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The examples given are divorces and affairs. How is a subject's month/day of birth an "incident" or "allegation" that is noteworthy and negative like a divorce or an affair? Why should we think WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:WELLKNOWN were ever intended to be interpreted the way you're trying to construe them? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The examples provided on WP:PUBLICFIGURE/WP:WELLKNOWN are not meant to be exhaustive. It is possible that they were meant to provide guidance on specific issues that were on the minds of the editors that drafted the policy and the community members that approved it. As stated in WP:BURO, policies are reflections of evolving consensus and should not be subjected to strict interpretation. Even though DOBs aren't explicitly mentioned in WP:PUBLICFIGURE/WP:WELLKNOWN, DOBs may still be subject to the general mandate of this policy, in the same way that DOBs are also subject to other considerations like WP:OPENPARA.
Our discussion archives suggest that there is no absolute right to privacy with respect to one's DOB. In this discussion we can see that the editors of the BLP policy were aware that Wikipedia's guidelines should reflect different degrees of notability and fame. Edge3 (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Saying that although DOBs "aren't explicitly mentioned in WP:PUBLICFIGURE/WP:WELLKNOWN, DOBs may still be subject to the general mandate" of those policies would make sense to me if WP:DOB did not exist. WP:DOB does exist, however, so we are correct in looking first to what WP:DOB has to say on whether or not to include DOBs. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Do not include. This is a tough call because, practically speaking, regardless of what we publish, the information that she's requesting be excluded is out there. Never-the-less, WP:DOB seems clear to me:
If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.
Please note the highlighted or - that is not an and. That means if either condition is true -- either the subject complains OR the person is borderline
notable -- then we exclude. Well, the first condition is undeniably true. Therefore we do not include, per the subject's request. Our hands stay clean that way, we're compliant and consistent with our own policy, and no harm is done. --B2C 05:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment ::: Commonsense dictates the DOB should be added to Duckworth's Bio as it is the cass with the other 431 congressmen with published DOB, on Wikipedia. Why is Tammy Duckworth the only one who who does not have a Birthday published on Wikipeida. What makes Duckworth so special to get this special treatment by Wikipedia contrary to 434 of her colleagues? Seeroftruth (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd have figured that common sense would have deduced that probably very few, if any, of Duckworth's colleagues have similarly requested that their birthdates not be included in their bios, which would explain why Duckworth is the only one who does not have a birthday published on Wikipedia (if she actually is the only one). The rest are free to request that their birthdates likewise be excluded, and under Wikipedia policy, we should generally accede to those requests. Dezastru (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Include There is no point in removing information which is a click away and listed on the official Congress bio, and as such massively public and officially recognized as correct. Therefore there is no privacy concern whatsoever. There are many requests from BLP subjects we can kindly accomodate, but being gagged from telling the obviously public is not one of these. To whoever cites policy: Here WP:DOB fails spectacularly, and in fact it is now under discussion, with consensus leaning towards its narrowing. I am not a big fan of WP:IAR, but this is a correct case for its application: when rules have it wrong, reason needs to get it right (and then to change the rules accordingly). BLP exists to avoid chances of clear unnecessary harm, not to slavishly self-censor at every BLP subject whim. -- cyclopiaspeak! 14:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Include Absent a recent request, it is safe to assume that her more recent publication of her birthday in her official biography obviates any prior concern. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC); Under "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources" in biographies of the more than borderline notable persons, the policy only requires partial compliance ("err on the side") of the request (by including only the year) when privacy and weak sources are all there are. Here, we should follow the usual practice of high quality biography sources and include the year, there is no reason to "err" at all. The subject here is very notable and the prominent, high quality secondary sources (which we have) - and which obviate any privacy issues - should be followed by including the date. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Several have commented here that Duckworth has published her birthdate in her official congressional bio, the implication being that she does not really object to this information being readily available to the public. But has she? Do we know for a fact that the online bio cited by Edge3 as being her official bio is really her official bio, meaning that she approved the content prior to its publication? Is it not reasonably possible that a functionary working for her employer prepared that bio without consulting her about the content? Is there any other information available which might suggest that her own preference would be to exclude this information from her public bio? Such as we see in the biography section on her official House of Representatives webpages and in the biography information on her Facebook page? I don't see her birthdate mentioned in either of those bios which are far more likely to have been prepared according to her instructions than the bio at the previously mentioned http://bioguide.congress.gov webpage. Dezastru (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Duckworth's "employer" technically is the people of Illinois, not Congress. A lot of information related to her service is already publicly available. But that doesn't matter here, since we hold all sources to the same standards of reliability. I don't want to misrepresent the opinions of others, but I think the main argument now is that Wikipedia generally includes information that is published in a multitude of reliable sources, even if the subject dislikes any mention of it. Edge3 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
fwiw, her employer is the United States : she is paid a US government salary, and receives US government retirement and and health care benefits. See United_States_Congress#Privileges_and_pay. She is chosen by the people of her district, and is of course ultimately paid indirectly by them in combination with everyone else in the country through federal taxes. It is not unknown that a person's employer keeps in publicly available records material which the person would otherwise not publicize--for example, as a government requirement, the salaries of key corporate employees. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
That is true -- unless the information is the full date of birth and the subject has asked that it not be published in Wikipedia. (And I'm pretty sure that Duckworth's paychecks are issued by the US government, not the state of Illinois.) Dezastru (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Include – Wikipedia is basically all (or most) of the information available about a subject unified to one central source. If the information is out there—especially on a relatively high-profile subject and more especially if it's from a official, online source—we should include it. ~HueSatLum 04:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Include -- if it's good enough for her official congressional biography, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Failure to exclude it from the congressional bio suggests that if she controls the content of her bio, she's being very selective about where she wants it published; and if she doesn't control the content of her bio, then perhaps she shouldn't have run for Congress. Then she would still have complete control over her personal information. She is a public figure now, and there are good things and bad things that arise from this change in status. She accepts the good things. She should be an adult about this and take the bad with the good. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Do not include per longstanding BLP policy on dates of birth. AndreasJN466 08:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Do not include
"As Tammy Duckworth has previously requested to have her birthdate excluded from this article, we have complied as per WP:DOB."
This tells me what I need to know. Duckworth made the request properly and the policy that is established is to honor that request. If editors want to make distinctions between individuals who have a "public profile" and those who ordinary are ordinary citizens, then they should work on changing the policy. We shouldn't ignore a valid request and break policy and create exceptions in order to refine a policy. That is working backward.
It could be that the WP:DOB is changed and no longer applies to celebrities or people with a public persona and then this article can be revisted AFTER the policy has been changed, not before. To ignore policy because of subjective evaluations of "Well, the information has already appeared in X" or "The policy wasn't really meant to apply to people who are Z" sets a bad precedent. Newjerseyliz (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
That is not what DOB requires. "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources" is not categorical: Request does not equal exclude. Although, it would have been very easy to make it so: "do not include." Instead it is written as an appeal to editorial judgement: "err on the side of". And its concern is "privacy" and "primary source" use. This means that editors may choose not to "err" at all, and instead follow high quality secondary sourcing, and the usual practices and discipline of high quality biography to include. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:DOB states "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Thus, if a subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, we simply list the year. Thus, a request does oblige us to exclude, which is the way WP:DOB has been applied for years now. Newjerseyliz has it correct in saying that if editors want to make exceptions, they should work towards changing the policy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
No. It does not say "do not include". It asks for editorial judgment -- we are obliged to consider the request in kindness, respect, consideration, privacy concerns, and in light of the high quality sourcing on the subject -- and when in doubt to "err on the side" of the request (in part, only, by including the year). But we need not err at all. Not for non-existent privacy, where high quality sources already include. If you want the policy to read "do not include," or "must not include," you need to change the policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No. It does not say "use your own editorial judgement". It says if the subject complains, simply list the year. If you want the policy to read "use your own editorial judgement", you need to change the policy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No. I did not say it did: its a matter of WP:Consensus not my own anything. It does not say "if the subject complains, simply list the year" If you want it to say that, you need to change the policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't need to change the policy to say "If the subject complains, simply list the year." The policy already says "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year," which is the way it has been interpreted here on this article for many years now. If you want it to say something else, you need to change the policy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes. You would, as it appears you want to enforce a consensus cannot change rule. Consensus can change. Moreover, according to what you quote (and the facts and sourcing we have) we need not "err" at all, here, now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Alanscottwalker. Our Wiktionary entry on wikt:err on the side of caution implies that we have to assess the risks and choose the least risky approach. Under normal circumstances when the DOB is not widely published in other sources, the least risky approach is to protect privacy by excluding the DOB from Wikipedia. But in the case of Tammy Duckworth, whose DOB is widely published in government and news sources, the privacy concerns are negligible. By excluding her DOB, we are exposing ourselves to a different kind of risk -- the risk of being criticized for withholding publicly available information. This risk should also be considered, since WP:DOB does not categorically say that we must exclude the DOB. Edge3 (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The risk that we will be "criticized" for withholding publicly available information? It seems to me we could advance many bizarre arguments about how we might be criticized for doing or not doing something. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
How is there any risk involved in "withholding publicly available information"? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not know if I would call it a risk, but any Wikipedia article that ignores and fails to reflect the pertinent information identified by high quality reliable sourcing in the scholarly discipline at issue (here biography) -- indeed, to go so far as to "err" (introduce error) -- is a failure of WP:NPOV (and depending on the evidence compelling the decision WP:OR) and must be a very exceptional case, with exceptional facts/need, subject to well considered consensus -- (and these cases do exist and having participated in such discussions on the side of "err" it can be warranted, but not, given consensus, here in this article, with this subject profile, with this quality of sourcing). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I dont see anyone having suggested that we should introduce a fake DOB. I still dont see why short of astrology birthdates are pertinent information about politicians. And if it is then people can find it elsewhere.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - we are not "introducing error" by listing the year of birth instead of the month and day, nor is it a violation of WP:NPOV to follow policy and omit something. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not the error. The error is refusing to follow the information in high quality sourcing. As you are not a professional biographer of a Congressperson (under our rules) but the Historian of Congress is, following his/her judgment ensures that error does not occur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
"Refusing to follow the information in high quality sourcing" is a blatant distortion of the situation here. We know that the subject's date of birth is readily available in reliable sources; WP:DOB, however, says that if the subject complains, we err on the side of caution and simply list the year instead. Whatever the Historian of Congress wants to do with DOBs and their website is up to the Historian of Congress. Editors such as ourselves are making edits here on Wikipedia, where we follow policy, precedent, and consensus. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You explicitly are refusing to follow high quality sourcing. That's why it's a decision that runs afoul of NPOV and OR -- nor is it, here, required by policy. And, yes, as I've repeatedly said it is subject to consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
You are explicitly distorting the situation here. This is not a NPOV or OR issue, period. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No. Every representation in an article on the Pedia is an issue of NPOV (and depending on the evidence OR). To maintain otherwise is a "distortion." Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No. There is no NPOV-violation or OR-violation issue here to deal with with regard to whether or not the subject's month and day of birth is included in the article. The subject complained and we erred on the side of caution by simply listing the year, as WP:DOB instructs. Perhaps you should take this to the NPOV noticeboard if you feel that strongly about this alleged distortion of WP:DOB and NPOV. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't have to since consensus appears to be include. And it does not look like we will err, at all. (Besides, not following high quality sources on the subject is an issue of NPOV) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Are we being held at knifepoint to follow the DOB policy exactly as it instructs or something? If anything a case can be made to IAR because it appears that we have the consensus to do so at this point. – Connormah (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
In a way. Actually, we are being told there is nothing to discuss. But nothing about DOB policy (and NPOV is the superior policy, regardless), requires only one outcome (in the given circumstances), given consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Nice analogy about being held at knifepoint Connormah, but other people genuinely see this situation differently. If you think there is a consensus to ignore or override WP:DOB, you can call for an uninvolved admin to take a look at it and consider taking action. Right now, there doesn't appear to me to be a consensus here to do that; this is not a vote and many of the "include" comments fail to discuss the WP:DOB policy issue. Take note that after dozens of other editors have commented about this issue for weeks now, nobody else has claimed we are violating NPOV policy here by omitting the month/day either. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No. The discussants don't have to cite every policy which supports the consensus to follow the high quality sources. (See, WP:NOTBUREAU) That is what we do on the Pedia. (Also, RfC's run for at least 30 days, usually) - Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The "discussants" can cite or comment on anything and everything they want, but at the end of the day it's not about a vote but instead the strength of the collective arguments and the underlying policies. Any determination of this issue is going to have to involve WP:DOB, while the claim that we're violating NPOV is obviously a fringe view here. You disagree? That's fine, we can agree to disagree, and someday we'll see what the closing admin has to say about NPOV. I'm heading out for lunch right now and on to several other activities today, so I will circle back here later. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No. NPOV, underlies all the arguments that call for following the high quality sources. You're the only one who argues NPOV is irrelevant (that policy is non-negotiable, overrides other policy, and must be followed in every edit). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I haven't been arguing that "NPOV is irrelevant", instead I've argued that claiming we are violating NPOV policy by omitting the month/day of the subject's birth is a fringe view. I don't think anyone else here would agree that we have somehow been violating NPOV policy all these years either. If you think otherwise, by all means please point them out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you now agree that NPOV is relevant. Since I have not argued that NPOV has been violated for years, then that is irrelevant. Nonetheless, the issue is now joined because of the high-quality sourcing that has been brought forward during this RfC that includes the birthdate, and the position is made that we need to properly follow that sourcing in article content. That is an NPOV issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't "now agree" that NPOV is relevant; what I said earlier is that this is not an NPOV-violation or OR-violation issue. I made that comment here in direct response to your comment here that the longstanding decision to omit the month/day of birth "runs afoul of NPOV and OR". Since you've elaborated more below on what your take on NPOV is here, I'll respond further there. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Then you misunderstood. It runs afoul only given the proper evidence. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, the NPOV argument is quite novel. I think you are suggesting that including the DOB is compliant with WP:NPOV because we would be providing the information published in other sources, fairly and without bias. Is this correct? I would also add that we should heed the WP:COI policy, which tells us that external interests may not supersede the core aims of Wikipedia. I'm not saying that these should be the primary arguments in favor of including the DOB, but they do help by enriching the current discussion. As AzureCitizen said, it's the collective strength of the arguments that matter, and we should be considering as many viewpoints as possible. Edge3 (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Well remember that the NPOV discussion arose because there was a question about first principles. NPOV is a first prinicple, so its not going to be brought up all the time but it does not become a dead letter. Including the birthdate, because it is included in high quality sources on the subject is the governing principle addressed in NPOV. If we don't cover the issue like the high quality biography sources, we intentionally introduce our own bias. WP:DOB has as its subject primary/weak sourcing and privacy (and is subject to NPOV), and it is not written in the mandatory ("shall not"), it therefore guides consensus on when and which sources to fully represent, on this issue. If consensus (and the evidence) is that there is high quality sourcing that includes that date of birth (making it -- by sourcing -- pertinent to the biography), and that privacy is not thereby a salient issue, consensus may do so, according to these policies as currently written. We thereby avoid introducing our bias in our coverage, because we handle the issue as the sources do. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps my analogy was a bit off, however I don't see that the DOB policy should always be a "be all, end all" argument, especially in this case, where circumstances in favour of inclusion are clearly evident. We can't ignore these and just go with the policy. – Connormah (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
@Connormah: I certainly think there are more editors here who think we shouldn't extend the WP:DOB courtesy to public figures whose exact birthdates have been widely published in reliable sources. There is an initiative going on right now to change the WP:DOB policy on the relevant discussion page. After dragging on for many years, I think it would be better to have a policy change and then implement the change here, rather than make a change here first and ignore the policy. What would the compelling reasons be for doing this backwards? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: Thank you for elaborating more on your perspective on how NPOV plays into the month/day DOB issue. I better understand what you are getting at, but beg to differ on the contention that "If we don't cover the issue like the high quality biography sources, we intentionally introduce our own bias." The concept that we must convey and/or handle all issues "as the sources do" is constrained by policies which tell us to omit certain things when certain conditions apply. You see WP:DOB as being more of a flexible guideline (you're not alone there) and I see it as being more directive in nature (the way it's been interpreted here for quite some time). This is why resolution of the underlying WP:DOB issue is so important. You made the point that it is not written with a mandatory "shall not", but Wikipedia doesn't have any policies that contain "shall not". In it's plainest and most direct meaning, WP:DOB says that if the subject complains about it, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. If the single word "err" was replaced with "consider erring", it would make a huge (180 degree) difference in the interpretation... but for now, it still says "err on the side of caution and simply list the year." The way I see it, if we don't cover the subject's exact month/day of birth like some high quality biography sources, we're just following WP:DOB policy in that regard. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
"Shall not" and its various iterations is certainly a part of Wikipedia policy beginning with WP:V's "Wikipedia does not" and "must be" (see multiple iterations here and at "Wikipedia is not"). WP:DOB cannot be divorced from other policy and in particular the core content policies (V; NPOV; and OR). It must be read and construed in light of them. "Wikipedia:Privacy of personal information and using primary sources" also cannot be divorced from its purpose and its concerns. It is not rational to read "list the year" as a command when privacy complaint it made, because that is not how it is written, nor what it fully addresses, nor in keeping with NPOV's requirement to treat information as high quality sources do. When a privacy complaint is made, the issues that it invokes is 'what is the sourcing' and 'what is the privacy concern.' Where the sourcing is primary/weak or in doubt, and the privacy concern is demonstrated or in doubt, the Pedia errs on the side of excluding the information. But when the sourcing is high-quality and of such a degree for the given subject, making the privacy issue ephemeral, then there is no reason to err at all and we do what we normally do -- follow the sourcing. The reason we follow the sourcing is because they are the determinant to what is relevant, and what is not Wikipedia's bias. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker argues that: "Including the birthdate, because it is included in high quality sources on the subject is the governing principle addressed in NPOV. If we don't cover the issue like the high quality biography sources, we intentionally introduce our own bias.... If consensus (and the evidence) is that there is high quality sourcing that includes that date of birth (making it -- by sourcing -- pertinent to the biography), and that privacy is not thereby a salient issue, consensus may do so, according to these policies as currently written. We thereby avoid introducing our bias in our coverage, because we handle the issue as the sources do." The argument conveniently ignores the fact that there are other high-quality biographical sources on Duckworth that include her year of birth but do not include the full birthdate (such as in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, an article in Mother Jones, and the Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World (2011) pp 430-1). Following AlanScottWalker's line of argument, why isn't handling the issue as one set of sources does while ignoring how other sources do introducing our own bias? Particularly when doing so involves overriding one of our policies (WP:DOB)? Dezastru (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Because we are writing encyclopedic biography. That is why WP:NPOV and WP:V make source evaluation a consensus issue and DOB makes sourcing an issue, at all. Do we follow the historian of congress in the congressional biography or do we follow newspapers or news magazines writing political profile, and giving resume snippets. What is the highest quality source for the information in issue for an encyclopedic biography. These are matters only consensus can decide. (As an aside, the Wall Street Journal political profile cannot be a usable source at all on the matter, as it does not discuss even the year she was born). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
"Do we follow the historian of congress in the congressional biography or do we follow newspapers or news magazines writing political profile, and giving resume snippets." We aim to judiciously select content from sources that allow us to develop articles that fit best with our policies and goals. We never slavishly follow any individual sources. If a particular source is generally of high quality but includes some information that would conflict with our policies or goals, we do not include that information. As for "resume snippets," have you actually looked at the congressional biography you keep citing recently? (You were right that that WSJ article didn't include the year. I didn't initially mean to include it. I've stricken it from the list in my previous post.) Dezastru (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Just following the source, as the New York Times presents its information as ". . ." resume ". . ." snippets. And, yes our goal here is encyclopedeic biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment - When I initiated this RfC, my argument partly relied on WP:OPENPARA, which says that the opening paragraph should have "dates of birth and death, if known". I think it's important that we consider the provisions of this guideline in addition to WP:DOB, since all policies and guidelines are supposed to be reflections of the community consensus. I think that some good advice on the relationship between policies and guidelines may be found on Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. Some have suggested that the BLP policy trumps MOS in most cases. Indeed, user Wine Guy has proposed that the MOS be modified to clearly state that the BLP policy may take precedence over MOS. However, over the past 18 days, there has been no support for this change. Edge3 (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Include. Given that certification of date of birth is an essential (if normally perfunctory) step towards demonstrating eligibility to hold federal elective office, there is no legitimate expectation of privacy here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.