Raymond Antrobus' date of birth

Having demolished @Seasider53:'s argument he comes up with another one, equally fallacious. He claims the page you linked to contains addresses. I looked at it a few moments ago and see no address at all, let alone a plurality of them. @Escape Orbit:, as you have encountered Seasider53 at Michael J. Fox, where he listed the children's genders, and also at Paul Young, where he deliberately hid the fact that the subject has two daughters, although that was clearly stated in the article, would you like to comment? 156.61.250.249 (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Paul Young, you repeatedly inserted the wrong claim that he had two sons and one daughter[1]. I don't think you should try to put blame on other editors when your WP:OR (see your edit summary) is removed, and even less when your edit turns out to be incorrect. Please find some other articles where you can add more important things, with good sources, and while following WP:BLP. Fram (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your chosen cite indicates that someone, a poet, called "Raymond Antrobus", was born on a certain date. Is it the same person as the subject of this article? Well, most probably, but not for definite. There's a tad too much research going on there for my comfort. For one, there is nothing in the article about his association with this company. (Other than being recipient of an award.) I'd much prefer a published source that clearly identifies who it is talking about, and it is information that the subject has chosen to be public about, rather than having no option on official documents. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at an article in Hackney People, February 2022, published by Hackney Council, headed 'No-one knew what I was missing' (page 13). I'm comparing what is written there with the article. Reading through it, everything said there is to be found in the article or the cited sources, with some additional information:
  • In January 2022 the Government backed a Bill to declare British Sign Language a legally recognised language. Raymond commented:

The country should be embarrassed by how long it's taken to get this far...I would go as far to call it a human rights issue.

  • A teacher for the deaf caught Raymond stealing exercise books from the English teacher's cupboard. On discovering he was writing poems and stories in them she encouraged him and he became known as the 'kid with the big red book'.
  • His mother would show him a William Blake poem and take him to places mentioned in his poems.

Raymond himself says in his BBC interview (cite 1) that he was born in 1986. Under "Curriculum Vitae: Raymond Antrobus" the article says:

1986 Born in Hackney

I'd have no problem with 1986. Both cites 1 and 2 say this. Cite 1 says he's from Hackney, cite 2 says born in East London. But neither say he was born in Hackney. Where is this "Curriculum Vitae: Raymond Antrobus"? I don't see it. Thanks.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article has said this for many years - presumably it is in the sources somewhere. The Curriculum Vitae is from the Hackney People article. As the article is by Hackney Council, which holds the registers for people born in Hackney in 1986, we can take it that the information that Antrobus was born in Hackney has been fact-checked and is true. Regards, 156.61.250.249 (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, checking the article, the "born in Hackney" statement is supported by inline citations [7] and [8]. Clicking on the first of those, it does indeed confirm that Antrobus was born in Hackney, as well as growing up there. This is only to be expected, given that expectant mothers resident in Hackney use the maternity ward at Homerton Hospital, which despite being managed by the City and Hackney Health Authority is within the borough of Hackney. The only hospital within the City of London is St Bartholomew's Hospital. Regards, 156.61.250.249 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The raymondantrobus.com reference is a regurgitation of how his Wikipedia article used to look (I chose December 19, 2022, randomly). I suppose I can dig deeper and see when the source was added to the article. Seasider53 (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the raymondantrobus.com was included at point of the article's creation. While it doesn't mean that all of the information was on said article at that point in time, I don't see a reason it can't be relied upon. Seasider53 (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Of course, it's not that simple. Maternity services at the Mothers' Hospital, Lower Clapton Road, were transferred in 1986 to the Homerton Hospital which opened on 5 July, but I have been unable to establish the precise date when the last patients left the Mothers'. The Mothers' Hospital is also in Hackney. I will now turn to the information provided by Seasider53 above to see how this affects the sourcing (if at all). 156.61.250.249 (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to work this hard to establish the date or month of birth of a BLP, and this information has no real value otherwise, then it should be left out. It's not Wikipedia's job to extract such information from primary sources just because we can. Fram (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Scrolling through the references, I see that "raymondantrobus.com" is inline citation [7]. Seasider53 says it is "a regurgitation of how this Wikipedia article used to look". The source was cited in the original version of the article to verify the statement that Antrobus was born in Hackney, so Seasider53 has this exactly the wrong way round. This is not the first time he has done this. On Wednesday he alleged that, at the time Paul Young's official website was used as a source for his Wikipedia article, it might not have been his official website but a fansite, despite the URL remaining unchanged. An editor with 12 years' administrator experience asked him if he had any evidence that this was the case. He has yet to respond. 156.61.250.249 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you hadn't removed my comment, maybe you'd have seen my comment. Would you still like me to assume good faith with your edits, regardless of your insults? Seasider53 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this boils down to "Is the date of birth of a famous person notable"? Does the GNG offer any guidance on this? 156.61.250.249 (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GNG deals with article topics as a whole, not aspects within an article. WP:BLPPRIVACY is the policy you are looking for: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. 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." and "See § Avoid misuse of primary sources regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects." That section, part of the same policy, says "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Fram (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry. This was an edit conflict situation. I did not know this had happened till Seasider53 pointed it out. Now looking at Fram's policy statement. 156.61.250.249 (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I touched on this issue in the summary to my edit to the article of 16:37, 21 January 2025, which reads: Per WP:BLP:with identity theft a serious ongoing concern,many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private.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...be inferred that the subject does not object to...details being...public.If a subject complains about...inclusion of their date of birth, or...is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. The government has clamped down on this. In days gone by, there was a "Family Records Centre" in Myddleton Street, Clerkenwell. It housed all the index volumes to the General Register Office's birth, marriage and death certificates. Anybody could walk in, select anybody's index entry, transcribe the details onto an application form for a copy of the person's birth certificate, pay a fee, hand the form in at the counter and, hey presto! a certified copy of that person's birth certificate good for any purpose whatsoever would arrive on the doormat a few days later. In those days, fraud wasn't endemic like it is now. The Family Records Centre was closed. Recognising this, policy states that a BLP subject's exact date of birth must not be included unless in some manner the subject has indicated that (s)he has no objection to this being done. In the case of Raymond Antrobus, it appears that his date of birth is known only to himself and the General Register Office, and nobody here has suggested that that situation should change. If someone wanted to change that situation they would be unable to do it until the information became publicly available, and there is no indication at present that the information will ever become publicly available. 156.61.250.249 (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In short: "time to let it go"? Seasider53 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raymond_Antrobus
No tags for this post.