Talk:Donna McNeil

Extrapolated DoB / year ranges
I don't have a negative opinion about your efforts in this respect, but that is not allowed for living persons actually. WP:CALC does not override WP:DOB which is more specific here and probably more critical because it's in the BLP area as well. There are several discussions about extrapolated BLP birthdates in various places. I particularly remember this one, to which I participated. Speculation about DoB caused an administrator to delete a few revisions (on the talk page). I advocate removing all such claims for the time being. —Alalch E. 03:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with WP:BLPPRIVACY (which WP:DOB links to for more info), and yet I see it differently.
 * Note A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it. therefore just one statement from the subject would be enough to give a specific date of birth. Which is a much higher bar than just the year. And in the McNeil article I extrapolated her two possible birth years (unquestionably correct) from an interview with her. She put it in the public domain and it remains in the public domain.
 * BLP:PRIVACY also says If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. Bold emphasis mine. The bold emphasis considers putting in only the year to be cautious. Which is where we are at: being cautious.
 * In the context of putting the year in being information that she put in the public domain, that remains in the public domain, the Twitter example in the guidance and the action being considered cautious by our guideline, I think I'm well in the safe zone here for BLP privacy.
 * I don't have a strong feeling about this, so I don't care deeply if you revert me.
 * Thanks for the collaboration on the article, I'm pleased to see it getting better. Peace. CT55555 (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)