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
Ian Sloan (politician) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Why do we need to know the full DOB of this politician? This is a violation of WP:DOB. I am going to have to ask you to show that it is absolutely required, as per WP:ONUS. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is very clearly not a violation of WP:DOB, which clearly says full dates of birth can be included when either widely published 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". His date of birth is listed in his candidate profile on the CLP website, to which it is directly sourced. The two instances where a known date of birth might be excluded according to WP:DOB are where the subject is "borderline notable" (absolutely not the case here as a clear pass of WP:POLITICIAN) or has complained about their DOB, which Sloan has not. This is an utterly bizarre situation - it is completely standard to list MPs' DOBs where they are verifiably sourced. Frickeg (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the only argument you are presenting here is that other stuff exists. Can you explain what it is about his full date of birth that is so notable that it needs to be in the article, other than the fact that other articles about politicians have the DOB? Anyway, I have taken this to the BLP noticeboard for further wider review. If the consensus there is to keep, I will not attempt to remove the DOB again. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I quote WP:DOB: "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." Do you really intend to require WP:ONUS for every DOB on Wikipedia that meets these criteria? Because that would be an enormous waste of everyone's time. I have commented at BLPN again, but will not attempt to re-add until there is additional input; I would ask that you not attempt this with any similar pages until this is settled, though, as DOBs for politicians are (as I said) a standard thing that we include. Frickeg (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's not a bad idea, but I won't push it. As I said on the noticeboard, I only touched the articles I have been reading. We have BLP for a very good reason, to minimize any potential harm to the subjects we write about. I don't consider that to be a waste of time. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of that section that I have quoted twice now is to address that concern. If this had been dug out of some obscure, non-public source, then you might have a point, but this is on his candidate profile when (successfully!) running for office. It can "reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". Frickeg (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave it to discussion on the Noticeboard so we don't fragment this discussion. But if it is decided that it can be mentioned in only one reliable source then I guess we should ask to have the policy changed, which I'm happy to do. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works, because I have responded to this point on the noticeboard. Frickeg (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
