Talk:Mara Rockliff

Date of Birth

@Jchthys and @[[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)]": There has been a difference of opinion as to whether or not it is permissable to calculate a year of birth from a source where the person states their age. Firstly, the source used was not a primary source; this info came from an ariticle, not public records. However, its looks like Rachel Helps removed all the sources when she made an edit to the sentencce of the article. (Those or other sources need to be included to back the claim that this person is a author, not just the birth date). Secondly, this specific scenario is disussed in WP:BLPPRIVACY WP:DOB, and clearly allows for both the date caluculation from age and from the person stating their age. In fact, this policy even allows age collection from social media, giving a much lower threshhold than the source I used. Please review the MOS section I am citing and restore the missing content. I will track down the missing sources. Rublamb (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, can you please track down the missing sources? I want to note the following points from the pages you cite: "the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified"; "[o]riginal research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth". I don't see anything that suggests personal information of this sort should be inferred and included, especially if it doesn't exist in "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". A social media post is a very situation, as in that case the subject is actively making that information public. I hope you understand erring on the side of caution (WP:BLP) until there is consensus both on the source in question as well as the MOS on the topic of inferred dates for living individuals.—Jchthys 00:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I consider myself pretty strict on the privacy issue and have removed DOB from dozens of articles. In this case, the author states her age in a published interview—meeting the requirement in WP:DOB. The source is now restored for your consideration. (I also updated the lede to reflect the source rather than the other editor's opinion). However, there is another privacy issue with this article that I could use some help with. At one point, the early life and personal life sections were removed by another editor, indicating that this was the author's wish. These were really short sections, maybe two sentences each. One data point was that the author went to Brown. Another was that she lives in Pennsylvania with her family. Oh, and that she is Jewish. I don't know the relation of the person who removed the content to the subject of the article, but have added back some of that content in a Personal life section because it is backed by several sources, including her publisher and her general bio for public appearances. However, maybe I should remove the reference to her membership to the literary fraternity as that was only found in a fraternity magazine? Thoughts? Note that she is included in List of St. Anthony Hall members which is how I first discovered that she lacked an article. Rublamb (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the source—I think "born 1969 or 1970" might be better based on that? On the other privacy question, my thoughts are that content from the publisher and general bio make those both worthy of inclusion and in line with privacy guidelines. For the literary fraternity: I think it's better left out—a fraternity magazine isn't a third-party source, so I would argue this fact doesn't meet the standard of having an independent source demonstrating that it's worth including for a general audience. The privacy concern is also relevant; I think WP:NPF speaks to cases like this.—Jchthys 10:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I do actually have one more question about the birth year. Do we know that the interview was published right after the interview took place? If not, that involves another assumption about the accuracy of that information. Because the age given in that interview is an aside, not core to the reporting, would it be correct to say it's less relevant and reliable than it might have been from, say, a publisher bio giving year of birth?—Jchthys

Good question with regards to the interview date. Local newspapers don't hold articles for long periods, unlike magazines. So there is no reason to believe that it is more than a month out from publication. Regardless, it is safe to say that the interview took place between January (when the book was published) and July (when the article was published). Also, the editor claiming to represent the author did not remove the birthdate which is a tacit confirmation. I recall also finding Rockliff's age mentioned in interviews on blogs, which are not usable for Wikipedia but are liked on the author's website. Of course, the guideline is to remove/leave out if in doubt. I just felt pretty good about this one based on the cited source. Also, thanks for looking at the personal info. I will remove the St. A reference unless another source is identified. Rublamb (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)