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 Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia 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.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia articles
Latest comment: 9 months ago15 comments5 people in discussion
Twice I've placed "born" into the intro of this BLP & both times been reverted. WP:BIRTHDATE appears to suggest that "born" should be added to the intro. Looking at hundreds of other BLPs, that seems to be the practice. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Those are all examples, and though you may argue for precedent, it's not clear to me how prevalent it is, and I still haven't seen any explicit guideline on the issue in the MOS. My main point is that "née" and "born" both mean the same thing (though granted, not every English speaker may be aware of this), so it is a form of duplication. Why do you insist on it? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@GoodDay, I'm trying to wrap my head around your motive in this discussion. Firstly, you haven't made it clear why you insist that both "née" and "born" be included. Second, the way you initially presented the issue at WP:BLP was somewhat disingenuous, as you made it about the inclusion of the word "born" in the lede, without properly specifying that the real issue is the duplication of "née" and "born". Lastly, you are (erroneously) arguing about the definition of a French word with a native French speaker, something you clearly are not. I'm hoping you can provide some clarification. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand your position either. I'm certain if you were to delete "born" from hundreds of BLPs, just because "née" (which re-directs to Birth name & not Birth) was in them. You'd be reverted across the board, by multiple editors. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
But my position is simple, and quite clear: as I've explained before, I feel that "née" and "born" are a duplication of the same word. How much more clear could I possibly make my position? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
They're not the same thing. Again, if you want to make changes to hundreds of BLPs as I said, with the argument you're repeating? Then do so & let me know how it turns out. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
The examples in MOS:NEE make it clear that, according to our MOS, we use "born" for the birthdate even when we use "née" or "né" for the birth name. I can argue why it's a good convention (because we are writing in English here, not French, and even though "née" literally means "born" in French its English meaning is more specifically only about names) but individual articles are not the place for that; we should follow the MOS or change the MOS, not make exceptions for argumentative editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@David Eppstein, appreciate the feedback, and will make the change accordingly. Btw, no need for name calling ("argumentative" editors). I wasn't being merely argumentative; I didn't like the change and wanted a good reason to adopt it.
