Talk:Elizabeth Salmón

RFC on birth year

An anonymous editor and later User:Belboza have both removed Elizabeth's Salmon's cited birth year. Both of these times I have reverted the removal, as her birth year is sourced. User:Belboza explained that he or she was removing the information at the request of Dr. Salmon herself. In a comment on de wiki, he or she explained this was due to privacy concerns. A request to resolve the issue directly did not elicit a response (see User talk:Belboza), probably because this is a single purpose editor. But in the interests of WP:BLP compliance, I would like to be sure Wikipedia is not overstepping its bounds here. In your opinion, can the birth year (not the birth date), be considered a BLP issue? In particular, I think WP:NPF may apply in this case. Furthermore, the cited source is the candidate's own application for the position at the United Nations -- so she supplied the birth year (and so it should be correct), but this also is technically a primary source. Your opinion would be most welcome. Eniagrom (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If she's alive, it's a BLP. The current source is primary; it's a SPS on a primary (government) source. It's only better than nothing because BLPs prefer secondary sources. Since it appears to be contentious, then how about nothing? JFHJr (㊟) 04:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm leaning this way myself upon reflection. There's a natural tension between what a subject article would like written about themselves though and what best suits the readership community, and having a rough idea of her age seemed like it was both valuable enough to readers and imprecise enough to not truly be a privacy concern. WP:BLP doesn't say we should allow living persons to completely dictate what is written about them, particularly if it is substatiated by WP:RS. But, as you note, this source is a primary source. Her age is not truly material, even if it since to have. Editors over on German Wikipedia took the position that as the information was freely available online anyway, it didn't make sense for their wiki to censor itself. It seems like a gray area, hence the RFC. But like I said, I too am leaning towards remove after thinking about it. Eniagrom (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. WP:RFCBEFORE requires that substantial discussion on an article take place prior to an RfC, which is a substantial investment of effort and community time. That has not happened, so I have removed the RfC tag. An alternative forum to discuss it might be the BLP noticeboard, but RfCs should only be used after substantial discussion has failed to resolve an issue. There's been no discussion of this at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also, while it's a separate issue, I have substantial doubts about whether this subject passes notability to start with. The current sources certainly do not show that, but it's possible better ones are out there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think that her status as a United Nations special rapporteur confers instrinsic notability per WP:NPOL, but perhaps an argument could be made that this article could be a section in an article on the special rapporteurs instead. Having said that, I've created a number of these UN articles and historically they get fleshed out from stub status pretty quickly, because the high profile nature of the position generates a lot of secondary source chatter. Obviously WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but most UN special rapporteurs have their own article and the UN Special Rapporteurs template box is constructed with the assumption that such articles will exist. If you really think we should get into the weeds on notability I suggest we open a separate comment chain though. Thanks for your input in any case. Eniagrom (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Remove - her dob is not relevant and WP:BLPPRIVACY - identity theft is a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. And this was a Good RfC, considering this talk page has only had 3 pageviews in the last 30 days, who the hell is it supposed to be discussed with per BEFORE. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'd seen WP:BLPPRIVACY too and noticed this line: "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." (emphasis mine). Her date of birth is not in the article, only her birth year. But, as I noted and others have commented on, it's from a primary source. I think having a rough idea of the person's age is useful, but I'm also leaning towards remove on balance. Thanks for your input. Eniagrom (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  How about we simply list the bracketed age? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)