:Talk:Hannah Marks

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hannah Marks. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=807629807 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723135012/http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2009/12/15/the-runaways-to-be-released-march-19th.html to http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2009/12/15/the-runaways-to-be-released-march-19th.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The WP:BLPPRIMARY 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". Personal information such as full name and DOB drawn from public records, such as those published at the California Birth Index, are regularly removed and revision deleted under this policy, because it is almost never possible to verify that the public record is the subject of the article without secondary confirmation (and if you can, then you don't need the public records, see also WP:DOB). {{u|Tenebrae}}, what is your proof that the public record you are using verifiably identifies the subject of the BLP? Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

:In the spirit of collaboration, I offer [https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2018/04/todays_top_celebrity_birthdays_196.html] as an actual secondary source for the subject's birthday. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

::Thanks, Indignant Flamingo. That works — and thanks, too, for knowing that Cleveland.com is The Plain Dealer!

::I would just say again that the California Birth Index is, factually, not a primary source. It's an abstract taken from primary-source records, and so by definition a secondary source. I agree we have to make sure the individual identified is the article subject, which in this case comes from her independently verified place of birth and mother's maiden name. But all good! With best wishes, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)