Talk:NNDB

Mass adding to WP.

This site has been added to the external links sections of more than 150 articles. It doesn't seem to merit inclusion at WP. Thoughts? — Jeandré, 2006-01-01t12:50z

Nobody is mass-adding those links. They were added by probably at least 100 people. Each editor of those articles saw fit to add the link independently, so they are certainly worth keeping. The site in question does not have advertising and is not a link farm, which is quite unlike many of the spam-links polluting external links sections. (I removed two that were part of casino advertising rings the other day.) It would be better to concentrate on removing that sort of pollution rather than something that isn't a problem. Quatloo 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with — Jeandré,. I have just come across an editor of some scores of biographical articles who has added links to entries in the NNDB. As far as I could see the editors in the NNDB do not state its sources. In fact they encourage people to send in infomation (without sources being needed) which the site owners apparently then consider using in the database. The possible problem I can see with this database is that we dont know anything about the rigour of the checking process which the data goes through. Indeed for all I know, not having done a thorough check, the database may offer little more than can be found in Wikipedia. Judging by the WP article on Alan Turing which is what alerted me, everything on him in NNDB can be found already within the WP article.

So what is the value of such an external link to an NNDB entry? If it were a reference to verifable source data which we could use to support the WP article then I would find it useful, but as it is you have to search elsewhere to find reasonable verification for what I found in NNDB. I think links to NNDB in the external links of wikipedia articles could be removed without loss to WP. -- Op. Deo 09:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Requiring that your sources state their sources is indeed a novel one. Do you intend to apply this universally to all sources that Wikipedia uses? If you do that, you will certainly have almost no usable sources. This is a terrible idea.

Novel? Hardly. See WP:CITE and WP:RS. While not everything needs to cite sources (it could itself be a primary source), NNDB is certainly not acceptable as a Wikipedia source. --Yamla 03:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

All properties you describe for NNDB is also true for IMDB. Do you recommend removal of those as well? That is just one of the more prominent of many sources, I could include the Encyclopedia Britannica as well. Most reasonable people would disagree with you. Now for an individual case, it would be fair to consider removal of any source, be it NNDB, IMDB, or whatnot. But this must be done on a case-by-case basis by people who are involved with the articles in question -- because they are the ones that added the links in the first place. Any such decisions ought not be done by a person with an agenda against a particular source. There is a tremendous amount of information in NNDB that is not present in Wikipedia. Remove the Turing entry if appropriate, but it would not be appropriate to go haphazardly undoing other people's work.

There is also value in interconnecting the various important data stores on the net, even if they are NOT used as sources. See Semantic Web. If I could snap my fingers and have every Encyclopedia Britannica article cross-connected with Wikipedia, and every IMDB entry, and every NNDB entry, every Namebase entry, every Allmusic entry, I don't think I would hesitate to do so.

Quatloo 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There should be transparency in who a biographical compilation is being created. NNDB lacks this. NNDB is not being updated in most cases that I have examined. The correlation of additions to NNDB from IMDB can't be ignored even if you want to argue more about it. Personally, if there's a NNDB entry that's reasonably accurate because it's been added to NNDB recently, then I'd leave it alone, if it's incorrect, then remove it. It would be be bizarre to find that robots are taking entries and entry content from the Wikipedia and then later returning to the Wikipedia to link from here to their aggregated content. patsw 18:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

As discussed earlier, there are no such robots, and such "mass linking" is not happening, so it's a moot point. Quatloo 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A scientist article, George Gabriel Stokes, which I checked in NNDB was a straight copy and paste from 1911 Britannica, so that is OK. Curiously the one bit that was wrong was added by the editor classifying him as English, when the article clearly indicates an Irish birth and home. I also happen to know he had a strong Irish accent. This does not say much for the editorial process! As well as lack of transparency (good point) the site may be unreliable. -- Op. Deo 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Stoke's accomplishments occurred entirely in England, so calling his nationality English is entirely appropriate. Quatloo 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

That will upset the Irish :) . What I regard as the best website on him [1], written by an academic who lectures on him, claims him as an Irish mathematical physicist! Also he married an Irish girl and he visited Ireland during the holidays each summer. Until he died, he remained an Irishman working in England. Incidentally checking another article on John Harington, which in NNDB is again a copy and paste from Britannica, it has the same image of an incorrect John Harington, that WP carries, and which I have commented on the WP caption. Anyway, I had better not waste more time on NNDB when there is WP work to do. -- Op. Deo 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's a judgement call. Quatloo 19:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

How NNDB defines notable

The 98 out of 100 entries fact is sourced from NNDB itself. If it is 97 out of 100, or 99 out of 100 the article can be corrected. If NNDB's inclusion policies change to no longer reflect an entertainment industry bias, then the article can be changed to reflect that it once had this bias and no longer does.

The information added later about the Wikipedia is irrelevant to the NNDB article , but a "See Also" entry could be added to point to an article that discusses biographical inclusion bias, if any, in the Wikipedia. patsw 18:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your paragraph is original research, and furthermore contains fallacious reasoning. I shall dissect:

NNDB's definition of notable is different from more common definitions of the word.

No example is provided of any "non-notable" name.

In the 100 "recently added entries" in one period, 98 of the entries also had biographies in IMDB, the Internet Movie Database, suggesting a bias in coverage overlapping IMDB.

Fallacy: Hasty generalization (based on a poorly chosen random sample). Additional fallacy, faulty cause, even if true, this does nothing to prove your point that names are somehow not notable. Other "random samples" [[2] suggest a bias toward physicists, baseball players, or whatever stream of names happens to have been in that wave of additions.

It includes as a notable name, the name of an actor with a single screen credit.

Irrelevant -- this is not evidence that any name is not notable. Furthermore it is anecdotal as that name is not given. Is that name present in Wikipedia? It almost certainly is. If so, did you call for its removal from Wikipedia as being non-notable? That is also a criterion for inclusion in this reference.

Example: Is the author of Gone With the Wind not notable because she is a novelist with a single book credit?

On the other hand, as of January 1, 2006, Whittaker Chambers, one of the most notable political figures of the late 1940's and early 1950's, and a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, did not have an entry in NNDB.

Fallacy: Red Herring. Absence of a name does not prove the other names are not notable. For instance Wikipedia lacks many notable names -- including Bill France Jr., but there are many other examples of highly important and well-known people absent from this reference. That does not mean that the names that are present are damned to the epithet "non-notable" just because Wikipedia happens to be a work-in-progress.

Quatloo 19:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research to show in the Wikipedia a significant, relevant fact about NNDB which NNDB itself shows on this page. NNDB links to the films of actors, but not to the research areas or discoveries of those physicists entered five months ago.

What would satisfy you, Quatloo, to demonstrate that there is a selection bias in NNDB or Wikipedia or any other DB? Or do you believe that such assertions can't be shown?

On hand an example is required, but if an example is offered it becomes original research A general statement is subject to the charge of generalization. A specific example becomes an annecdote. It seems to me you've rigged the game here. patsw 14:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There are problems both with using an example and with the particular choice of example that you used. You offered as an "example" an unnamed individual (therefore anecdotal) stating as evidence of lacking-noteworthiness the fact that the individual had a credit listed for only one movie. That is not sufficient to establish your predicate -- an individual actor can have a credit for a single movie and still be noteworthy. Just like an author such as Margaret Mitchell can have a credit for one novel and still be noteworthy. And furthermore the individual may be noteworthy for other reasons than those described in the profile. A personal lack of familiarity with the individual in question is no indication at all of noteworthiness or lack thereof.

On the other hand, you cannot use a single example to demonstrate by its absence that the rest of the names in the database are not notable. That would be a red herring and is a common tactic of those engaging in fallacious argument.

To demonstrate bias, it would be necessary to show that society's choice of who is notable -- and ultimately, it is society taken as a whole who is the only arbiter of unbiased "noteworthiness" -- differs substantially from NNDB's. And judging by the abundance of poets [3], historians [4], historical figures, etc. which are in NNDB and off the radar of much of society, that the truth may actually be the opposite of your contention: that NNDB actually may have a bias against figures from the entertainment industry.

Society has a great interest in entertainments, far more than that field probably deserves. But that is not the issue here. What the issue would be is any statistical variation between society's determinations and NNDB's. I do not know what the bias in NNDB is and the deleted assertation was flawed by its extensive (and in fact, exclusive) use of fallacious argument and also by lack of attributions, and may indeed be (and the more I think about it, most probably is) incorrect.

Quatloo 02:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. If I understand your argument correctly, then a 0.999 or 0.9999 correlation of the names added to IMDB and NNDB is merely that while IMDB explicitly deals with the entertainment world, NNDB deals with the entertainment-obsessed society at large who confers notability on the one screen credit actor. If IMDB ever tracks who goes to the auditions, perhaps that will be of interest to society and well and be a source of notable names in NNDB. patsw 20:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I already discussed this, but I will say it again: You are taking a sample that is not representative of the data as a whole and then trying to apply its properties to the whole. This is a fallacy known as a hasty generalization. The only thing which that demonstrates is that names are apparently added in batches by occupation (and perhaps by other criteria). By taking an earlier batch, one can assume that all of NNDB consists of physicists -- in fact I showed you two earlier batches, one consisting largely of physicists and another consisting largely of playwrights. You can see that by selectively choosing which batches to examine, you can often manipulate the data to draw whatever conclusions you desire. Thus any conclusion based on this type of data analysis is suspect, and often such conclusions are (deliberately) false.

Discussion of the predilections that are society's interests, that isn't a subject for this article but some other article. But it would perhaps be very interesting.

Quatloo 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Should some of NNDb's factual inaccuracies be included? Being someone who is nitpicky about having correct dates of birth, I noticed that NNDB has incorrect listings for Jennifer Lopez, Joseph Stalin, Whoopi Goldberg, and Paulette Goddard (to only name a few). Not to mention they rarely (if ever) update their pages when corrections are submitted, even when extensive documentation including voting and residence records are found.--Fallout boy 22:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some of your "facts" are wrong. I did a check, and Joseph Stalin's NNDB birthdate matches that given in Encyclopedia Britannica. I believe there is confusion as to Old Style and New Style, and the date given there is New Style. Which is fine. And there is a debate as to Whoopi Goldberg's actual birthdate. Hollywood actors and actresses lie about their ages, so choosing one of them is more art than fact, and in some cases even records are forged for this purpose. But even more so, this kind of debate amounts to original research, WP:NOR. Poledancer 23:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I know when it comes to things like disputed dates of birth, there are no "facts", just which one is more likely. I know exactly how NS and OS dates work, and they vary by the day of the year (ie. December 9 or December 21). The dispute with Stalin is over the year (1878 or 1879). The date you saw in Britannica was what he claimed, everything else says he is a year older. I also never use one site as a source (particularly Britannica) since all can be fallible, so I always coss check with records, school graduation years, etc. Even though Whoopi Goldberg says she was born in 1955, I never believe claims solely by face value since 99.9% of the time ages are lowered, so I checked her birth certificate from ancestry.com and voting records from ussearch and both say 1955. As for the paranoia that all of it could be forged, it is a slight possibility, but as I stated before there are no "facts". And this debate does not amount to original research since dates are verifiable and all this information has been previously published. It also says right on WP:NOR: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged ... This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."--Fallout boy 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This controversy was pointed out to me. I can shed some light on this. Submissions go into a hopper where an administrator may look them over and apply any corrections or additions. MANY birthdate changes come in. Most of them are wrong. The general public seems to think that if a birthdate is published as X somewhere, it must be right, and NNDB is wrong. Before a birthdate is *changed* because of a user submission, it must be sourced to an acceptable place, but this takes time, and there are many submissions. Wikipedia citations as source must be looked at skeptically -- there have been cases of people editing Wikipedia with the intent to get an NNDB record changed. We also have added a footnoting mechanism by which disputed dates may be discussed. On the whole the birthdates are as accurate or perhaps more accurate than Wikipedia dates, and definitely more accurate than Britannica dates. Nndb 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not mad at NNDB, just nitpicky as I mentioned before. I have to give them kudos that they changed 50 Cent's birthdate after I submitted an update for how they could find it on his inmate records, whereas most other sources (*cough*) have never gotten around to it.--Fallout boy 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that alot of NNBD (at least from what I've seen) are inaccurate. They are also lacking sources, which I think is important. I mean COME ON!! If they don't know whether the celebrity is gay or not, do they just assume?? *shrugs* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.104.167 (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity

For what it's worth, the NNDB site is far from objective. I don't know if its developers claim or intend it to be. For one of many examples, check the entry on Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

Wikipedia claims objectivity but is far from objective. Dr. Laura, on the other hand, is a sleazy opportunist and a proven liar. Quatloo 05:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Mother Teresa, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore and others have slanted entries as well. Links to Rotten Library pages, often vicious themselves, are provided for many.

The NNDB is itself a POV (if not partisan) rant. Why is its objectivity not a primary topic within the article? Someone write into the article how academically senseless and non-transparent it is! Dr. Laura really is the perfect example--the article cites nothing but adjectives and unprovables. --Mrcolj 20:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've wasted the last hour playing on the NNDB. It is a fun site. cf. however, here: "[Tom] Cruise's fans and detractors have long wondered what engorges his member. Cruise is rumored to be as in-the-closet as a winter jacket in July" Wow, I guess those who didn't finish high school would see that as an academically sound sentence. --Mrcolj 21:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's page—"Executive summary (sic): Lover of children everywhere"[5] Wow. Quadzilla99 06:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

good quality

keep I have looked at a dozen history articles and they are of good quality--often as good or better than Wiki. The criteria for deletion is not whether a source contains some mistakes. If so we wouldn't have Wiki. Rjensen 04:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

seriously? --another R. Jensen Mrcolj 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Source

Do we really have to have the "source" tag here? If so, then we need one for "1911 EB" as well. This is self-sourced, as is IMDb, and as Wikipedia is not supposed to be. This seems to me to be a placating of a disappointed loser in the deletion debate. NNDB is a most imperfect source, as are all sources. As we have recently seen incessantly, the fact that something is published anywhere, including The New York Times, doesn't necessarily mean that it is true, but just that it has been published in The New York Times, which is still superior to citing its publication in the National Enquirer, Weekly World News, The Sun, or The New York Post. Rlquall 12:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This website is obviously not reliable and shouldn't be used as a source for Wikipedia articles. However, there definitely needs to be an article on the NNDB in Wikipedia - regardless of how reliable it may or may not be. NNDB, by the way, has based several of its newer articles directly on the content of Wikipedia articles. Which is, of course, part of the reason why they should never be used as a source here Mad Jack 02:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Care to cite examples? NNDB has never plagiarized Wikipedia, but the reverse is not true. Poledancer 05:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say "plagiarized" - they have a different format so they can't physically plagirize us. What I meant was they based info entirely on the Wikipedia entry. At some point, someone submitted the full names of several actors' parents to Wikipedia - off their birth records - so this info was available basically exclusively on Wikipedia. And then NNDB copied these names exactly [6] [7] when they created the entries - and later the names were copied elsewhere as well. Another one, an actress named Mara Wilson - our entry used to say her mother was "Jewish American" - and we were the only website to use that exact wording (i.e. "Jewish American" as opposed to just "Jewish"), and then the NNDB created a profile for her exactly matching that wording [8] - her mother's maiden name was also copied there - and it was also something that seemed to be posted exclusively on Wikipedia beforehand (the same wording is no longer on her Wikipedia entry) But this has nothing to do with why the NNDB is not reliable. The NNDB is not reliable because it is a second-hand source that does not, alas, for the most part, cite its sources. How do we know were they got their info from? If we're lucky, it was from a good source. If not, not. When we see something on the NNDB, if we want to include it, we need to find the actual first-hand source where it came from. Otherwise we're talking 50-50 in terms of it being reliable. Mad Jack 05:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't address the Sean Faris example, since IMDB also has same information. For Mara Wilson -- the NNDB entry contains a lot of information that was not present in the Wikipedia article [9] at the time the NNDB entry was created in 2005. Almost all of that information was added to Wikipedia later. You simply cannot say it was based on the Wikipedia entry -- "exclusively" as you claim. Incidentally NNDB does keep reference notes internally, and on average there are more sources cited than with Wikipedia articles. At some point some of this information will be systematically exposed, but this is still under development. Poledancer 06:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Sean Faris information was not on the IMDB until after it was on Wikipedia. The NNDB either got it from IMDB or Wikipedia - and neither is a reliable source (unless we cite our sources). Internal reference notes don't help people who need to verify if the information is correct or not. What NNDB needs to do in order to be reliable is to actually cite the sources so people can see - so we know what is cited and what isn't - because, obviously, not everything is cited. Without these sources, as I said, the NNDB is just a second-hand source like the IMDB and Wikipedia. And when second-hand sources start citing each other, they become third-hand sources. By the way, do you want more nuggets? Topher Grace's entry lists some women he has supposedly dated [10] - but Grace is notoriously private and does not talk about his private life - so what you're publishing is gossip elevated to fact. What I'd do on Wikipedia is say "Source B alleged that Grace dated person X" and cite the source. Or this one, for Richard Gere, which had me laughing for a long time [11] - says "Gere was born Jewish and raised Methodist". I guess the online rumors that Gere was Jewish were too much for the NNDB - and they caved in and combined all the second-rate stories on his background into one (they also have "Irish ancestry" there at the bottom). Well, Gere was not born Jewish - he was born, of Anglo-Irish descent (which is not the same as Irish) and indeed raised Methodist. I'm not saying Wikipedia doesn't have similar errors - but A. at least with the citations we have you can tell what is 100% reliable and what isn't and B. we don't cite ourselves. Citing NNDB would be like citing ourselves - i.e. quite potentially error-ridden Mad Jack 06:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not disputing that a fact might be occasionally be obtained from Wikipedia by NNDB, just as the reverse is true. Particularly for D-level celebrities such as the example of Mara Wilson. The claim made by "Mad Jack" above was that the article was "entirely based" on the Wikipedia entry, which is a demonstrably false statement. We are largely in agreement about citing sources. I will make two further observations, first, the average number of sources cited in a Wikipedia article is less than one, and probably alarmingly close to zero; and second, a sizable percentage of sources cited by Wikipedia articles do not fit the standards one would expect of a source. Many of them cite oddball things like Geocities pages, or agreggates of information that do not themselves contain citations (such as Encyclopedia Britannica, Almanacs, etc). Poledancer 07:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that certainly may well be true (although not for the pages I edit, natch :) ), but my whole point throughout this has been that NNDB can't be used as a source when citing facts on Wikipedia - for basically the same reason that (uncited) Wikipedia can't be used as a source. Mad Jack 07:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

If this isn't NPOV, then this article is entirely written by people who really consider the NNDB a legitimate newssource. Of course this article is largely written by NNDB employees, for what that's worth... I tried to put in, as politely as I could, the line "Whereas these statistics are based solely on submitted information from anonymous readers, the information is largely unsourced and is often marketed toward those seeking entertaining gossip," and it was deleted with no discussion. The NNDB is a gossip site at best, with little to no sources or efforts thereto, and gaining spikes of popularity earlier this year entirely through writing sassy, shocking, sensationalist articles with no sources. That's not my opinion, that's just what they did. No one there is trying to be objective, so having an article that doesn't mention their most universally accepted attribute--their slant--is just a lame attempt at getting more backlinks from the wikipedia. --Mrcolj 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless what your intent was, you entered a false statement, and that is why I backed it out. You wrote that NNDB "statistics are based solely on submitted information." This is totally false. It is POSSIBLE for people to submit information to NNDB via a web form, that is correct. But that information is not the main or even a major source of NNDB data -- perhaps one tenth of one percent -- probably much, much less than that -- comes from there. NNDB maintains a large library of printed reference works from many fields with which to verify facts. The user submissions are mainly a way to detect errors that may have crept in, or suggest possible areas to expand (such as adding a new individual to the database). But even then a user suggestion is almost never applied without being checked by some other source, and even then it may be applied in a way the submitter did not anticipate. Also your claim that NNDB data is focused on gossip is also false. That information is there if you look for it (if you look up a "gossip" person, yes, that person will likely be there, but you found it because you looked for it.) Such individuals are a small percentage of the 20,000 profiles that exist in NNDB. Poledancer 00:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

NNDB is shabby

and should not be used as a definitive news source in Wikipedia bio pages. NNDB profiles are consistently plagued by one-off judgments about the lives and works of the "notable people" it features, and until the writing quality improves several times over it should not be linked to from Wikipedia. JDG 01:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, these links absolutely should not be used, as they do not meet the standard criteria under Wikipedia:External links (specifically on being an encyclopedic and valuable source, as well as avoiding linkspam/self-promotion, etc.). We can;t just institutionalize a massive googlebomb on this project anytime some idjit wants free publicity for a half-assed site. It's bad enough that Find a Grave is on so many pages, this site is just a Wikipedia Wannabe of no value. DreamGuy 16:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find the writing quality on NNDB far better than most of the articles on Wikipedia. I agree that it hasn't established itself as credible site to be used as a source (yet), but I fail to see the shabbiness that you speak of. Lcduke

Jimbo also slams NNDB, but only when used in a <ref>. There have been two attempts to delete Template:nndb name, but it was kept. So we are straddled for now. -- 70.231.154.13 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This site is nothing but god-awful spam

Seems to be an orchestrated effort by some loser to try to turn his or her site into a majpr net presense by spamming the hell out of it to this encyclopedia. It's upper crap, nonencyclopedic, and we don't need link to it when so much of them are jus pointless when there are already IMDB, etc. links. 216.165.158.7 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The site is full of POV statements and the "ethnicity" category leaves much to be desired. Instead of Irish, English, Spanish, Lebanese, etc., it just says "White". The same for other races. Very shoddy.

The site shouldn't be treated as a serious resource- NNDB Keanu Reeves article- "Executive summary: Dude". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it rather inconsitently categorizes Spanish people, even if wholly European, as "Hispanic." One curious exception if the Spanish royal family, they are listed as "white."129.108.27.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC).

Yoga?

Why does it have it as a risk factor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.118.88 (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume that, like homophobia, it isn't meant to be taken seriously. Toupée is on there too. --Mrdie (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlike homophobia and toupee which don't have any harmfulness to that person, yoga can in theory be harmful if you strain yourself too far and injure yourself or break your spine/neck going wild. 08:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmharding (talk • contribs)

Is NNDB run by a child?

NNDB has some strange issues with designating ethnicities for certain people. It notes Hispanic as a race, when it is not. I know this because when a person is of mixed Hispanic and non-hispanic white, they're listed as "multi-racial". Two examples of this are Freddie Prinze Jr and Christina Aguilera. But then when Cameron Diaz is listed, who is likewise half Hispanic, half non-hispanic white, she is listed as just being Hispanic. Another thing that is really stupid is that the site lists people from the middle east as being "Middle Eastern". What the heck is that? There is no race or ethnicity that says one is Middle Eastern. I mean this just reads like common man talk (Hispanic a race, this guys is Middle Eastern), not a well researched database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.29.249 (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You think that's strange: the individuals in charge think all heart-related deaths are by "heart failure". That's so mind-numbingly wrong and stupid that it's not much worse than calling every death from asthma "lung cancer". --NellieBly (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Of note, those are simply the racial classifications commonly used for census and labor statistics (Caucasian, Black/African-American, Asian, Hispanic, Pacific-Islander, "Other"). Sloppy, but hardly non-standard. 96.25.188.62 (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, aside from the fact that those standards do not reflect reallity, they apply their own standards unconsistently. I will give you some examples, all of them people born in Spain and with Spanish parents (one or both of them): Troquemada, Velázquez, Salvador Dalí, Joan Miró, the Prince of Asturias, the king, Ferdinand and Isabella Catholic Kings &c. are classified as "white". Antoni Gaudí, Goyta, Zurbarán, Penelope Cruz, Elsa Pataki (by the way her mother is Romanian), José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Fernando Alonso, &C., are classified as "Hispanic". That's not all. Ritha Hayworth, née Margarita Cansino, whose father was an Spanish dancer with whom she made her first performances is... "white". Martin Sheen, AKA Ramón Gerard Antonio Estevez, son of a Spanish inmigrant is... "white". Cameron Días, whose father was Cuban is "white", &c.. it is all ridiculous. The son of a "white" american and a "white" Spaniard, is mixed race? The son of an Italian and a Spaniard? Portuguesse/German/French/... and Spaniard? All of them are mixed race... I can believe such a nonsense is a "standard". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.6.242 (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That almost suggests they think Spain "used to be a white country" but along the way ceased to be so...129.108.27.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC).

Reliable source

Is NNDB a reliable source for a BLP?--Nowa (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also wondering this. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, it's not. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, definitely not -- it neither cites its sources nor has writers with reputations to protect in case of error. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Should We Remove Entries that cite NNDB as a source?

I've noticed that certain articles have sections that cite NNDB as a source. Should we remove claims that only cite NNDB as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandPhilosophe (talk • contribs) 01:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, GrandPhilosophe, NNDB is not a reliable source. If there is ever doubt about something like this, you can ask at WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard). -- Softlavender (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

13 years later

I was thinking to nominate this article for deletion, 13 years after its first such nomination, but I seem to be getting way too much template when I try to add it as a second nomination. Anyone like to jump in? (I noticed the page after a Roy Cohn edit by Ronz (talk · contribs)... perhaps you would look into it?) Lindenfall (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Glancing at the article, the ref from BBC The Guardian may be enough to meet the notability requirements to prevent deletion. As for the article itself, it's a soapbox that should be stubbed or rewritten from The Guardian ref. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)