Talk:Scott Lash

Untitled

Born c. 1946? Charles Matthews 12:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Cited and fixed now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

DOB

(In response to - I know it is from the LOC, I checked that. On the other hand, this being a BLP, don't we need a secondary source that attest to the notability of his DOB? The Library of Congress is a public record. Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC) ))

Notability is for a standalone page - content would be relevancy. In this case a date of birth, is pretty basic for a biography. Public records are public and primary documents themselves, but this is not the certificate of live birth record - which would not be really appropriate to use because it reveals a lot of personal information. Let's put it a different way, your marriage license - not okay to use, because it has basically all the key personal information that Wikipedia doesn't need and it would include contact information and addresses. This is basically a simple catalog listing, like the year of birth in other sources - its not some legal or sensitive public document, its just a reflection of the publication... most of which are well... included in the back of jackets on the books themselves. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY are formal policy. Until such time as DOB are changed, he can object and policy dictates we remove. There is an ongoing discussion Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#.E2.80.9CPrivacy.E2.80.9D_of_birthdates_that_are_published_in_reliable_sources.3F here regarding that change. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if the absurd WP:DOB does apply, first of all User:Magicrover's identity with Scott Lash has to be confirmed. Otherwise anyone can pose as someone else and request certain information to be removed from Wikipedia. I mean, what's next? Some anonymous user claiming to be Barack Obama and asking for his date of birth to be removed, and we do his bidding, no questions asked? --bender235 (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

bender235 From BLP "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first," and from WP:CON "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." - this is a BLP. As we are having this discussion, and many others chimed in as well, it is contentions. Is it your assertion that you have achieved consensus for it to be included? What is your beef with insisting this guys birthdate be visible? Additionally, You are 6RR for this content today, I suggest you undo your reversion and build consensus before you are blocked for edit warring. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on about this. WP:DOB says to use the year if there is an issue and this user has not identified, but I fixed much of the articles issues and I wanted the fighting to stop. If there a real person who objects, well, time to knuckle down and work it out, but I don't care about this article in the least. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you write "please try build consensus for your edit here", but what you actually mean is "please engange in a pointless talk page discussion with me in which I just veto and therefore create the ‘No changes due no consensus’-reason on my own". Sorry, but I have no intereset to participate in this charade. --bender235 (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the year since both discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#“Privacy” of birthdates that are published in reliable sources? and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Lash note that at minimum we should leave the year. The full date, while likely to return via consensus, is less so at this time. And I wonder why the text was removed while the identifying source was left - but whatever. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Update

I am actively working on sourcing a correct DOB for the subject. He is aware that, at a minimum, the year will be re-added, if not the full date. -- John Reaves 17:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Lash never claimed the current DOB to be incorrect. He wanted his DOB removed on the account of it "hurt(s) my employment prospects and chances of obtaining research grants." JFYI. --bender235 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bender235: I wasn’t aware of the previous discussions where he claimed that it harmed him professionally. I’ll wait to hear back from him on the issue of finding proper sourcing for his DOB. Also, you claim that there are “multiple sources”, I only see one. His most recent OTRS complaint ‘’did’’, in fact, claim that the DOB was wrong. JFYI. -- John Reaves 14:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If Lash claims the current (LOC-sourced) DOB to be wrong, why doesn't he provide the correct one, instead of having the current one deleted?

Also, while there are no other sources for the precise DOB, numerous other authority files list Lash's year of birth. That means it's fair to say that one is sufficiently sourced. Yet, if we include his year of birth, this whole "age discrimination" fear of his would not be solved, would it? --bender235 (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Why are you so adamant that it be included? In any case, Showing a source to be unreliable does not put onus on one to provide a better source, and even if he were to tell us the correct date, that would not meet WP:RS. LOC is a primary imo and likely falls under WP:BLPPRIMARY as well. I find it interesting that you in a previous edit summary asked him to file an OTRS to have the date removed, and then reverted the removal that was directly based on an OTRS. Seems like moving the goalposts. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, "but it's true" is no valid reason to anything included in Wikipedia, nor is "but it's wrong" valid to have it removed. Wikipedia includes information that is reliably sourced. Period. If the LOC-given birthdate is wrong, Lash should contact the Library of Congress to have it changed rather than to remove it from Wikipedia.

Why do I want to have this DOB included in Wikipedia? Because date of births are an essential part of biographies. There is a reason why we keep a list of incomplete biographies. I don't see any reason why we should give individuals any editiorial veto over this collection of public information (i.e., a Wikipedia article). --bender235 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)