This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
The original statement of Harrison's birthdate had to come from somewhere. This is frustrating. Perhaps a birth notice in a local newspaper?
Found reference in the World Heritage Encyclopedia. — Myk Streja(when?) 02:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many times personal statistics are taken from IMDb, which is extremely unreliable. The World Heritage Encyclopedia is a tertiary, aggregate source and doesn't meet the requirements of WP:DOB. In order for a date of birth to be included it must "widely published by reliable sources". Not only is the birth date not "widely published", not a single source meeting WP:RS has been found. Until it is verified in multiple reliable sources, per policy the date cannot be included.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the problems with the source I outlined above, a review of the specific archive link you added shows it is again pulling it's information from Wikipedia (as did the tvguide.co.uk source your previously suggested); it's literally a copy of an older version of our article! I know you're trying to help, but until begin to better understanding of what constitutes a reliable source it would be helpful if you would stop adding links until they're vetted as acceptable.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo Sir, that was a very condenscending thing to say. I have added many references that have passed muster, this particular instance was not good cause for your statement. I have made a good faith effort to find the information needed, your disparagement is uncalled for. All you needed to say was the source was tertiary. Period. — Myk Streja(when?) 21:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Asking an editor who is having difficulty in determining what constitutes a reliable source to refrain from adding material in violation of our policies is not condescending nor is it disparaging, it's how editors learn while at the same time protecting our BLP subjects. I specifically noted that your efforts were good faith ("I know you're trying to help"). Also, I'm not a "sir".--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
