Talk:Lawrence W. Jones/Archives/2021/March

DOB and ID Theft concerns

• Note I am moving this from a user talk page to this page as it directly pertains to this article and should have been discussed here so all interested editors may contribute. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

DOB and ID theft concerns[edit]| Archive

Re Lawrence W. Jones: given the problems with identity theft and fraud these days, and particularly the problems faced by senior citizens with financial exploitation, exact birth-dates for living people have become unwise to distribute widely. True, the birth date is from reliables published sources. Nonetheless, so long as birthdates are being used for identity confirmation, it is more prudent to suppress exact birthdates for living people. Wikipedia should try not to contribute to the problem. I'd be okay with year of birth, but why list the day and month? Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 2:45 pm, 1 March 2021, Monday (9 days ago) (UTC−6)

That is YOUR OPINION, not Wiki policy. I read the link you sent me to that specific policy. If you had read the whole thing, you would notice that it clearly says that if the information is in the public domain and sourced, then it can be included in the article. I have never had any user object to this in the past, and I've edited 1000s of biographies over 15 years as a user on Wikipedia. Given that there are 100,000s of biographies of living individuals on here, the majority of which feature a full DOB, why are you selectively making a fuss over this particular page? I have to question – is there an ulterior motive/are you linked personally to the individual in question? Regardless, I have now added two academic sources which give his full DOB – a biographical summary and a reference publication from Google Books. On your point about fraud – if somebody wanted to steal bio stats for reasons relating to theft, their first port of call wouldn't be Wikipedia, it would be data harvesting sites like Clustrmaps or MyLife – sites that list out full details of individuals, including the social security, addresses, company ties etc. Anyway, I'm not interested in debating this any longer. If an individual is in the public eye and their basic vital bio stats (full name, birth date, birth place) are public knowledge, then there is no cause for excluding that information on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Jkaharper (talk) 2:57 pm, 1 March 2021, Monday (9 days ago) (UTC−6)

Clearly, we have a difference in editorial judgment.

You wrote, "That is YOUR OPINION, not Wiki policy." I base my argument on the first and third sentences of the WP:DOB, policy: With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private... 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. I take the "err on the side of caution" part of the sentence seriously, even without a formal complaint from the subject, because I have two friends who have had their identities stolen. I wouldn't wish that havoc on anyone! Discretion is the better part of valor, and caution therefore drives my practice in writing BLPs. I have created 46 BLPs, and on only one, Eunice Parsons, have I included day and month, because she made a point of mentioning her own birthday in the 2013 interview cited on that page: "That’s when I’ll be 98,” she said. "August 4th."

You base your argument on the second sentence of the same policy: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. You justify listing the subject's DOB based on "dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources", namely a book published in (pre-internet) 1981, which I was unable to verify on the Google books site, as the page cited showed only a small excerpt that did not mention him, but you have WP:AGF; and a single other source attached to his March 2002 donation of his papers to the University of Michigan library. Not exactly widely published.

You also questioned my "selectively making a fuss over this particular page", insinuating my motive must be related to a COI. I have never met this subject, and have no personal connection to him. If I had, I would have declared the potential COI on the article's talk page, as I have at Talk:Vera Lüth and Talk:Stephanie A. Majewski. I did meet Jones' most famous student, Samuel C. C. Ting, once at a social gathering about 40 years ago, but that does not constitute a COI.

I have sent an email to Jones go ask whether he's okay with his month/day being published on WP. In the meantime I decided once again to err on the side of caution, and I have suppressed those elements for now. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 1:34 pm, 3 March 2021, last Wednesday (7 days ago) (UTC−6)

Firstly – I noticed that despite the fact that I have now provided two RS from online, you deconstructed my edit rather than doing an auto revert, thinking that I wouldn't notice the changes that way. Very sly, and not a good natured or constructive way to conduct yourself on here. It is sourced, twice.

I have already answered your point on the policy you quoted to me. You can't just choose to cherrypick the "first and third sentences" as you please. The whole policy needs to be obeyed. He's a public figure, and his DOB is already in the public domain, in numerous places. End of.

I've also answered your point about identity theft/fraud – using a name and DOB alone, it would be incredibly difficult to commit fraud of any kind against somebody. There would need to be a compromise in the way of something like a National Security number, Passport ID, bank details etc. If you can quote me a press story of a single example of a notable individual who had their identity stolen because of their DOB on their Wiki page then I'll concede that you have a point, otherwise you're pulling that argument out of thin air. For your benefit, I have uploaded a temporary image here which proves the existence of the place and date of birth of Mr. Jones on the page of that 1968 book I have given reference to on his page. It wasn't hard to check yourself, all you had to do was go to Google Books and search "Lawrence W. Jones 1925".

One last thing – I don't see how the cases of Vera Lüth or Stephanie A. Majewski are comparable. I've just done a thorough search, and their DOBs are not in the public domain through any form of RS. As such, if somebody tried to add a DOB to their page without use of a RS, I would side with you. Whereas Jones's came up straight away upon a Google search!

Now, this is already the strangest, and most pointless conversation I have ever had on Wikipedia. Our time could be used elsewhere far more constructively. As I have already stressed, there are 100,000s of BLPs on here. I've never seen a user a flag this as a concern when it is healthily sourced from elsewhere. I can see you're determined to be as pedantic about this as possible but please no more conversation here – I'm not interested. I am not the one with a fundamental indifference to Wikipedia policy and norms. If this continues to keep you up at night, then take it to an administrator for closer review. Thanks again --Jkaharper (talk) 2:13 pm, 3 March 2021, last Wednesday (7 days ago) (UTC−6)

This will be my last note. I heard back from one of Lawrence Jones' children that he is no longer independent and does not read his email. One of his daughters acts as his conservator, so I have to assume she protects him from ID theft or other potential criminal bamboozlement that might arise from having his DOB on WP.

I'm sorry that what I thought was a simple request has become such a source of irritation for you. And my "deconstruction" was not an attempt to be sly; rather, you had made 2 additional edits in the meantime, and I thought those needed to stay in the article. I don't know how to auto-revert an edit under those circumstances, so if I'm guilty of anything, it's ignorance, not being sly — I noted it in the edit summary and I intentionally noted here in my previous message, just in case it was not on you watchlist.

You may want to move this conversation to Talk:Lawrence W. Jones. I wish you well. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 7:43 pm, 3 March 2021, last Wednesday (7 days ago) (UTC−6)

Copied from Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC) :

Closed, either as wrong forum, as premature for this forum, or as third opinion rendered. There has been no discussion at the article talk page. Discussion at the article talk page is required before filing a case request here, and is not a nice-to-have but a requirement that cannot be waived. However, the BLP noticeboard might be a better forum if a noticeboard is required, and its prior requirements are less stringent. However, although this is not a Third Opinion forum, I am willing to provide a third opinion. The personal information is verified by reliable sources, but there is a request from a conservator to omit the personal information. When the subject is represented by a conservator, this guideline applies, and the request should be honored. The date is in the public record, but there is no need for Wikipedia to publish it under the circumstances. Any further discussion can be at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lawrence_W._Jones. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The archived discussion at the BLP Noticeboard is here. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)