Talk:Elaine Devry

Does WP:BLPPRIMARY applies do a birth date when it is all over the Internet?
On 02:09, 26 December 2022, ((re|Teblick}} quoted WP:BLPPRIMARY in the part, which supported his revert ("Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth"), while omitted the part that allows quoting primary sources ("Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions"). How one can expect a birth date to be discussed otherwise then by quoting it? Is there another method of discussing hard data? What one can expect that a secondary source will do to a birth date, write it differently? Where is WP:GOODFAITH in quoting only a half of a rule?

My understanding of restricting quoting '"trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents" is to prevent spreading smearing and to preserve privacy, as to sensitive info. But, when a fact, as a birth data, is known all over the Internet, that consideration disappears and such info can be provided in WP, as it is widely practiced in other people bio. So, in this case, Devry's birth data may be provided w/o violation of any WP rule. Right?--98.113.209.92 (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I replied to the questions raised in the first paragraph earlier today after they were raised on my talk page. Here is the text of my reply: :, I don't quite understand your point. Where has the California Birth Index record for Elaine Devry "been discussed by a reliable secondary source"? All I saw (in addition to the date) in the edit in question was the citation " ".
 * I saw no mention of that primary source material for her date of birth having been discussed in a newspaper, magazine, reference book, or other reliable source. If you found discussion about it in such a source, mention of the source and an appropriate citation should have been included along with the California Birth Index citation. Such secondary discussion would certainly merit re-evaluation of the use of California Birth Index as long as the secondary source is cited, too.
 * With regard to your questions:
 * "How do you expect a birth date to be discussed otherwise then by quoting it, please?" As I said above, the discussion mentioned in WP:BLPPRIMARY would occur in other media before the date and citation might be added to an article. It's not a matter of adding content to an article and then looking for discussion in secondary sources.
 * "Do you know another method of discussing hard data?" No, I don't, but I did not write WP:BLPPRIMARY. I just read what that section says and apply it as I edit.
 * "What do you expect that a secondary source will do to a birth date, write it differently?" Again, I did not write WP:BLPPRIMARY, so I do not know what the authors had in mind when the section was created. My personal approach is that I look for such information in secondary sources, avoiding primary sources where living people are involved.
 * I suggest that you pursue this topic and raise your questions on one of two talk pages: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons is the talk page associated with the page where WP:BLPPRIMARY is located. Editors there might be able to answer your three questions. It is possible that some who were involved in composing the text in question might respond. The other option would be to go to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. As the page's title implies, it hosts discussions about contents of biographies of living people.
 * With regard to your question, "Where is WP:GOODFAITH in quoting only a half of a rule?" The "half of a rule" that I quoted is my standard edit summary when someone uses public records as sources in biographies of living people. I consider what I quoted to be the most relevant part of the section. I have never seen the kind of discussion that the section mentions in a secondary source, while the portion that I quoted is more significant. However, I did include an ellipsis at the end of the quotation to show that the original source contained more text, and I included a link to WP:BLPPRIMARY to provide access to the full section. Do you really consider those efforts to be bad faith on my part?
 * I appreciate your interest, and I hope that you can find answers to your questions.


 * 98.113.209.92 did not bring up the point that the date of birth "is known all over the Internet" in the post on my talk page, so this is my first opportunity to comment on it. A straightforward response seems appropriate. If one of those Internet sources meets Wikipedia's standards for being a reliable source, add the date with a citation to that reliable source. What I see too often in biographies of living people are dates of birth that have no citation or have a citation to IMDb or some other unreliable source. A reliably cited date in this article would be a welcome addition. Eddie Blick (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * {{re|Eddie Blick)), what about connecting 2 sources, namely a primary source, which provides an accurate data, with any secondary source, as Amazon in the case here, saying the same known, as being the truth from the primary one? That is my point.--98.113.209.92 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see how adding a non-reliable source helps anything. (The content in the Elaine Devry biography on Amazon comes from IMDb, which is not reliable. WP:IMDB) Combining that with a primary source would go against two principles for biographies of living people. That does not seem like an improvement to me. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * {{re|Eddie Blick)), from the point of view of sources you are right, but from the point of view of the content - not, as a primary source confirms the content of a secondary when identical. Neither not using primary sources nor unreliable ones is absolute and this case of complementing each other seems to be an exception confirming the rule, by mutually cancelling the restrictions instead of adding.  Right?--98.113.209.92 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with your reasoning about the two sources. I also see no point in continuing this debate on this article's talk page. In my initial reply I suggested that you make your case at either of two places:
 * Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
 * Other editors are more likely to respond there than they are on this talk page. I have made my views clear. See what others think. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * {{re|Eddie Blick)), yeah, you're right, but I lost interest. And that is my last point.  Why to loose interest of editors by discouraging them from editing when we know that their data is accurate, as from a primary source, and thus it is rather beneficial to have it?  What the harm of taking such an exception from the rule when harmless?--98.113.209.92 (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not create WP:BLPPRIMARY or WP:BLPPRIVACY, so I do not have answers to your question, "What the harm of taking such an exception from the rule when harmless?" You should ask on the talk pages related to those sections. I just apply the policies.
 * If you choose to let such policies discourage you from editing, that is your decision. You can probably find other types of edits that you can make without encountering difficulties. Ever since I began editing in 2014, my approach has been that when I learn about a policy that I was not aware of, I adapt my editing to abide by it. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)