Talk:Maggie Haberman

2022 book

I added a book to the bibliography section based on reporting at The Hill. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: 2022 book

I do not have enough time to parse wiki rules / style guidelines for this right now, so I just wanted to flag it for others: is it standard practice to list yet-to-be-published books without some notation indicating they have not yet been published? I appreciate the previous talk commenter's addition of Haberman's forthcoming book, but it is unclear from the bibliography section that the book is not actually published yet and will not be until October 2022 per its Amazon page. Since we are already in 2022, of course, that is not immediately obvious. Anyone have / know of a standard fix? Nieuwe Nederlander (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Her birthday

Many sources say October 30, 1973, but it's hard to find a decent biography that actually says that. What we do have is two sources:

1. Her own tweet for the day October 30
2. She was 30 when she got married on Nov. 9, 2003.
3. Many really good RS say she was born in New York City.

So we can confirm she was born on October 30, 1973. We can use the tweet based on WP:ABOUTSELF, which is one of the legitimate uses of a primary source. Pinging User:Toddst1. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Valjean:. The tweet just thanks folks for birthday wishes. The birthday could have been a day or few before. It's not like them saying "today is my 40th birthday" so I don't think the tweet supports the date.

I think the NYT article is plenty sufficient to use {{birth based on age as of date}}.

2 other comments:

1. You should remove the date you proffer as her birthday from your comments above - WP:DOB and WP:BLP apply to talk space as well as article.
2. For the weaker sources you allude to above, beware of WP:CITOGENESIS. It happens frequently where people have an unsupported DOB in the wiki article about them.

Hope this helps. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it helps. I have removed the mention from the heading, as that is prominent and will figure in edit summaries. The other mention is not negative material, so BLP isn't really a biggie for a talk page discussion. If one searches, that date is mentioned myriad times, but, as you say, citogenesis could be the explanation. I'll go with the template you mention. I wasn't aware of it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Problem. That template doesn't work. It produces this: -1993/-1992 (age 4014–4015) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Try {{birth based on age as of date | 40 | 2003 | 11 | 09 | noage=1 | mos=1}}. Toddst1 (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It's fixed now. I forgot one parameter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Politico Playbook also says her birthday is October 30. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for your work tracking the source down and restoring the now-sourced info. Toddst1 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe we can justify adding the full date based on adding the two sources, her tweet and Politico, to the current one. The tweet alone would be good enough for me because she's done it more than once, and everybody is congratulating her on that day every year and she does not correct them. That implies they are correct. Adding Politico adds more confirmation because it's a secondary source. I'll try that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)