Senior staff. Please restore the facility for birth-dates to be accepted and published with the appropriate source.

Will somebody please answer this and allow the site to be fully functioning with all details supplied.

The system still allows "birth-dates to be accepted and published with the appropriate source."

All that has changed is the definition of 'appropriate source'.  Too often internet sites are inaccurate, having picked up the data from another inaccurate site.

Even the actor's official site is not accepted because too often actors (and more often actresses) 'adjust' the birthdate to one they feel would be better for their career.

Now IMDb requires authoritative sources, such as government information, or birth announcements.

Yet no provenance is required for mini-biographies or plot summaries. I wanted efficiency rather than excuses so would you be so good as to tell me EXACTLY which sources are accepted, rather than 'such as'. This still does not address the removal of dobs already on the site and sadly allows the dob lot to draw money for not doing very much. Whilst we are at it I have identified several instances where a player who is clearly an actress (from the roles they play) is credited as an actor and remains so even after I have pointed this out. As a mainstay of your site in providing the new UK shows as they come up on British TV I find your attitude extremely disappointing in its failure to restore its old glories.

Please note that David is a "Champion" which indicates he is a non-employee user who has considerable experience with the process and volunteers to assist here and on IMDb itself. He, and other "Champions" simply try to assist others with problems.

I agree that the Submission Guide for DOB and DOD needs to be updated to be more specific as it relates to acceptable sources. David is correct in that "authoritative sources" previously accepted by IMDb proved to be less than accurate. Then once IMDb utilized an inaccurate source and published the information, that inaccurate information propagated across the internet, creating "validity" for incorrect info. As someone who has researched and corrected numerous erroneous DOD and DOB, I am personally very happy to see greater restriction on sources.

I have successfully utilized the SSDI for official birth and death dates, official records available from a subscription site (such as Ancestry), historical news sources such as Newspaper Archive, or other such on-line sources. I have even written to libraries, local newspapers, and family researchers to obtain substantiating information. All of this works particularly well for individuals from, or who live in, the US and Great Britan.

And one final point, if you will; that data manager who focuses on DOB, DOD, also has other data under their control as well. Rather presumptuous to assume they are "drawing money for not doing much".

I'm still not totally satisfied as to why other websites, especially those of the subject themselves, are invalid. In the past I have provided well over 3,000 dobs from other sites and only three were ever questioned. I wonder to what extent fear of litigation may be involved, in view of recent cases, though I have never encountered this. The question of removing birth dates, which is supposedly against the rules,  was not successfully answered - I got them to put back Milena Canonero and Mona Hammond though Eoin Macken is still missing. Likewise the fact that when a player is clearly an actress as they are playing characters with female names they are given as being actors. I have tried to correct many of these and advised to staff to be more careful but am not sure how many were corrected. As stated I know it's not the end of the world but am saddened that a site for which I have much enthusiasm and commitment is being overly selective and losing out thereby.  I assume then that no other entertainment websites are considered appropriate. . And one final point the dod staff are great,