Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Biography resources

As a new person to biographies (specifically coming from the LGBT WikiProject, I was wondering if there were a list of basic resources for finding such simple information as birth and death dates, birthplaces, pictures, etc - sort of a "getting started finding out about your person" list? Many thanks, -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single useful source for all individuals, as such a source would be by definition huge. However, you might find some generally useful biographical dictionaries in the reference section of your local public or college or university library. Many of the more notable persons will be listed in one or more of them. And welcome to the project. If you should ever have any other questions please feel free to post them here or, if you would prefer, to contact me directly. Welcome again! Badbilltucker 16:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is NNDB considered a reliable source? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jazz#Possible sources for authors/editors there are a few links to musicians' birthdays databases (where I did at least find Annie Whitehead's date of birth). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BNutzer (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin needs reviewers over at FAC

Hello, I have self-nominated the Aaron Sorkin article over at FAC and would appreciate if y'all could review the article. It chronicles the rise of a Screenwriter, and how Screenwriters collaborate with filmmakers, and it's about one of the more popular Screenwriters of our day: Aaron Sorkin. Let me know what you guys think. I would appreciate it.-BiancaOfHell 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Congressman Leo J. Ryan

• I have been doing some work to attempt to improve the classification status of the article on the only Congressman to die in the line of duty, Congressman Leo J. Ryan. He posthumously received the Congressional Gold Medal. He represented California's 11th congressional district. Please let me know what you think, at Talk:Leo Ryan/Comments. Thank you for your time. Smee 07:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

DEFAULTSORT and bio-stubs

There's been some discussion at WT:CAT and at WT:WSS about using DEFAULTSORT to "fix" the alpha-sorting of stub categories, which normally happens by first name (or more precisely, by whatever portion of the article title occurs first). This hasn't been changed prior to this, despite some suggestions to that effect, since it would require parameterising the stub template on every single conclusion, which for a theoretically 'temporary' tag would be a painful use of everyone's time. The trouble with using DEFAULTSORT for this, however, is while it'll happen anyway, as people add the magic word for the benefit of permanent categories, it's inevitably going to cause a jumble in the stub-cats as some start to use "Last name, first name", and others continue to use the (original) default of "First name last name".

I can think of two possible fixes for this. Firstly, the stub templates can be recoded to override the default sort, and always use the article title. (Effectively the status quo ante DEFAULTSORT.) Secondly, a 'bot could, for all bio-stubs with exactly two words in the article title, and no existing DEFAULTSORT instance, add {{DEFAULTSORT:Second word, first word}}. (Lot of edits, but simple enough in principle.) A third option, coding a different behaviour into the stub template, trying to make an educated guess as to what the last name is, doesn't seem workable, as it would require parser functions not currently available at en:, and because it would override add DEFAULTSORT itself, which would then have to be be overridden in turn by a sort parameter, defeating the whole purpose. The forth option is of course just not to worry about sort order, on the basis that stub categories are just supposed to be sets of unfinished articles on a given topic, rather than an indexing service... Alai 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If a bot resort is to be done, I'd be very, very careful about it. Even in the U.S. bio stub categories that simple rule can cause errors for indigenous persons. Not knowing a lot about bots, would it be possible to program a bot to detect explicit sorts in the directly applied categories and then if they all use the same sort key replace them with the use of DEFAULTSORT? That should be a safe starting point and could even be done for non-stub bios, if for no other purpose than to reduce article size. Caerwine Caer’s whines 07:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of those. (The scope for foul-ups with middle names, "embedded space" double-barrelled surnames, post-nominals, titles, and what-not is why I was avoiding any ambitions beyond two-word names). And yes, the additional test you suggest would be fairly easy to do by bot. That'd still give a fair number of mis-sorts, I imagine, but fewer, and make it less likely for that to re-occur. Or did you mean, to apply the magic word only if there's an explicit category, with a supplied sort key? Alai 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd meant only if there is a supplied sort key, at least for the first step of sorting. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The fourth option, not worrying about it, is actually pretty appealing. Trawling stub categories for obviously missorted bios and adding a DEFAULTSORT (and likely, some categories) to them seems like it's a worthwhile option, and will help maintain the categorization of stub articles in the permanent tree as well as the stub tree, which can only be a good thing. I really like Caerwine's suggestion of a major bot or semi-bot operation to implement DEFAULTSORT on all articles currently manually sortkeyed. —CComMack (t–c) 14:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandy Koufax FAR

Sandy Koufax has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Husein Gradaščević FAR

Husein Gradaščević has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 22:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Manuel I Komnenos FAR

I have nominated Manuel I Komnenos for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Todor→Bozhinov 11:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mariah Carey FAR

Mariah Carey has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

Is it of any irritation/preference to WP:WPBIO if Talk pages have a {{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Given Names}} in them? I notice that you use your WikiProject talk page banner as a category sorter for articles (status/rating, etc.) If it does bug you, please let me know on my talk page; I already know a workaround that will let WP:CUE DEFAULTSORT by surname without making WPBIO do it too. If you don't actually care, I'd really rather not have to bother with it, though. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking dead silence as assent and proceeding. If it later turns out that this defaultsorting is doing something WPBIO doesn't like, you can fix it easily by changing:

{{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Given Names}}
{{Cue sports project}}
{{Snooker project}}
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}}

to

{{DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Given Names}}
{{Cue sports project}}
{{Snooker project}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:}}
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}}

(as an example; both the snooker and cue sports tag might not be present on all relevant articles; the bio tag might be living=no, etc.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Need imput from seasoned WP:BIO members..

There is a CfD debate here that could use some imput from folks that are familiar with the 'pedia's policies regarding libel. This should not be seen as an attempt to solicit or campaign for votes. I do not care if you agree with my opinion on the topic or not; this is just a good-faith effort to clear up a gray area with input from some experts. Thanks for any help. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

New condensed banner idea affecting BLP warning

Over at Talk:Angelina Jolie (and probably other pages) a new banner stating "This article falls under multiple wikiprojects" has been added. Then the user has to click on "show" in order to actually see what Wikiprojects include the article. That's all fine and good but as a result the BLP warning banner is no longer immediately visible -- only if someone thinKs or knows to click on the Show link. This could be an issue given the imporance of the banner. 23skidoo 16:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the new banner is a very good idea generally, but, I quite agree, the BLP warning shouldn't be hidden inside it. Andrew Dalby 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The BLP warning is a sprawling ugly affair and if you're going to insist on inflicting it on readers, putting some work into making it smaller and less verbose would be kind. Zora 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

moved from top of page

Bold textCould Someone Explain why "Biography" is Masculinized through stereotypical MALE TIE AND SHIRT? This seems quite excessively gendered for a category that includes BOTH SEXES ~~Meredith Gallagher (moved by --Vbd 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

TfD nomination of Template:Death date and age

Template:Death date and age has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --PhantomS 20:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Was it nominated before or after an attempt to orphan it was made by mass removal? — J Greb 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I replaced it with the equivalent text for some of the more prominent articles. I admit that some less prominent figures did get in that list. If you check the links, there are over 500 articles that use it to date. Nothing, except a bot, would be able to convert those efficiently. In many of those cases, the equivalent text was previously exchanged with the template. I believe that showing a prominent TfD notice in the infoboxes of articles for Voltaire, etc. would not be for anyone's benefit. However, I do agree that it doesn't follow convention. --PhantomS 21:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable Roles disputes in Infoboxes

Hello, I'd like to engage in a discussion about determining the inclusions of "notable roles" in Infoboxes. Since the Project Page sidebars link to the Infobox pages I assume that this is the correct place to discuss this but I'm not sure. Anyhow I'd like there to be a deep and meaningful discussion about how to objectively include "notable roles" within the infobox of actor articles. This relates to some minor disputes going on at Talk:Shilpa_Shetty#Notable_roles and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_cinema#Notable_roles, but the problem really affects all WP:BLP articles that are also overseen by WP:INCINE.

As far as I have seen, several editors disagree with the inclusion of notable roles with the sole basis that it is "personal opinion" about which roles are actually notable. On the relevant talk-pages I have disputed this with some common-sense rationales and outlined my points coherently so I will not bother repeating myself here. I request editors to take a quick look at Talk:Shilpa_Shetty#Notable_roles and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_cinema#Notable_roles, and then we can carry on from there here with a wider range of participating editors. Thank you. Ekantik ^talk 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand why people like to know "notable roles" as I like to know them too, but when it's used in the infobox, it crosses the wrong side of the NPOV line. In the articles, there will be a degree of POV as editors choose which roles to discuss but there is always some degree of context, so the reader will know why the role is being mentioned. If the article is correctly written and reputable sources are provided, this is ideal. The infobox is different in that it contains basic data - several key, factual points about the subject, without context or explanation. Unlike the lead paragraph, I don't think the infobox should attempt to summarize the article, just give bald facts. Anything that goes into the infobox, should be definitive and unquestionable. "Notable roles" (a term that we do not actually have a definition for) are determined by interpretation of facts (veering into original research) and opinions. Some "notable roles" are incredibly obvious and common sense would clearly identify them, but even so, it is more of an opinion or an interpretation than a fact. Regardless of how well informed or widely held the opinion is, it is still an opinion. Even if the conclusion was sourced to a particular critic, it is still possible for bias to creep in. ie it would be easy to find one critic that supports a viewpoint and ignore others that don't, simply to support inclusion in the infobox. I strongly feel that we should be presenting information and facts for people to read but that we should leave it to them to draw their own conclusions. Let them read the article and they will get a good sense, not only of what roles were perhaps "notable" but more importantly, why they were. By putting the notable roles in the infobox, we are drawing the conclusion for them, and presenting it as a fact.

I've read through your comments on Talk:Shilpa Shetty and I agree with most of your comments, although most of the discussion is not about notable roles in the infobox. I don't dispute the notion of discussing notable roles in the article. In fact, I think it's essential to do so, but I disagree with your view that it's appropriate to use the infobox for that purpose. Rossrs 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with all you have said and I admire the way you have shown your reasoning. I suppose then that we should think seriously if the "notable roles" part should remain in the infobox template if there are serious POV/NPOV issues to consider. One of the main problems is that for articles connected with WP:INCINE, very few Indian actors have received Academy Award nominations, Emmys and such that are all too typical of "Western" actors, as Indian actors usually receive "Filmfare" and "IIFA" awards which are rather prestigious in India at least. So when it is near impossible to input information about awards and other stuff, the infobox on such pages becomes rather pointless and only contains a birthdate and birthplace information.

This is why I have also suggested that WP:INCINE should relinguish the use of infoboxes altogether if certain editors insist that notable roles (the inclusion of which would certainly bulk up the infobox nicely) should be removed, as there is not much point keeping them without information. See Rani Mukherjee for example, there is no picture, and the Table Of Contents is horribly long and makes the whole article look untidy. As you have kindly taken the trouble to read through my views on the subject, I'd like to ask you what you think about editors teaming up to decide sensibly what criteria should be used in determining which roles are notable. As you have shown some of your reasoning above, I have also proposed that reliable sources should be used to determine the 'notability' of a role, as I personally follow the rationale that the numbe rof awards won for a aprticular role determines it's notability. What do you think of that?

Otherwise, judging by the pretty fanatical behaviour of certain editors who insist on removing "POV" information at all costs (I admire NPOV greatly, by the way), I fear that such strongly-held opinions will cause a lot of articles to pay a huge price. Ekantik ^talk 23:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the POV issue is important, and definitely more important than any perceived advantage in using the field. I've believed for a long time that the "notable roles" field should be removed, and I will continue to believe this until someone convinces me otherwise, but I doubt that the field will be removed as its supporters have ignored the POV issue in the past, and I suspect will again in the future. They may not be aware of this discussion, but delete the field and I'm sure we'll hear from them very quickly!  :-) Counting the number of awards won for a particular role seems to be a reasonable approach though. Probably not the only thing to be considered, but certainly one of the more important considerations, I agree. You raise a very interesting point about awards and I feel that the inclusion of the Academy Awards, Emmy Awards and Tony Awards is a form of cultural bias. I am Australian, and very few Australian actors will win these awards, but many of them will win Australian Film Institute awards, and they will be delighted because the award is very prestigous in Australia. For many it will be the pinnacle of their career. Likewise, British cinema honours itself with BAFTA awards - also highly prestigous for a British actor. Name any country you like and there will be at least one important award - you've already mentioned that Indian actors will aspire to win "Filmfare" and "IIFA" awards. I think that the awards contained in the infobox are heavily slanted towards the American entertainment industry but it's also true to say that those awards are highly recognised throughout the world. I think the answer would be to also have a generic "Awards" field that would allow for the significant awards of other countries to be recognised. Otherwise, Rani Mukherjee will have to set her sights upon winning an Oscar. (I think the difference between an award field and a notable role field is that the award is a "fact". Nobody can deny that Katharine Hepburn won 4 Academy Awards, but we could spend weeks arguing about what her 3 notable roles were - and still not satisfy everyone.) The list of awards in the Rani Mukherjee article seems excessive to me. To reply to your question : if we are to keep the notable roles field, we need to have some kind of guide or checklist to determine what makes a role notable. I would agree that a number of like-minded people should be able to come up with something. I would also suggest that if such a formula is agreed upon, that it be included into the template page for the infobox so that future editors can refer to it. Rossrs 15:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to discuss notable roles in the article itself, just by quoting critics. Then there's no question of POV. We can just say that critic X said "Best acting she's ever done!" and that quote is a fact. We can quote several critics, who may have different views. The problem is putting it into an infobox, where you can't have quotes, or conflicting views.

Going by awards is also difficult, as several other editors have mentioned. Different film industries have different award ceremonies. Nor is it clear which awards are notable. For the Indian film industry in particular, there are way too many tiny outfits that put on stage shows and call them awards, hoping to sell tickets.

Going by boxoffice isn't straightforward either. I once suggested "Five top-grossing films in career" but that's a lot of work and people don't want to do it. Plus you'd have to figure out whether or not you wanted this to apply to all actors (supporting actors? extras?) or just leads, and then you'd have to define lead. Appearance in one of top five films in box office in year it was released? Box office in what country? Any role or just lead?

A actor's career just doesn't lend itself to baseball card stats, which is what the infoboxes seem to be. I would be perfectly happy NOT to have actor infoboxes. We got along fine without them before someone introduced them. Zora 19:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, "comments" or "reviews" from film critics are not a reliable indicator of a film or actor's performance as the issue came up in both WP:RS and Village Pump recently, because the opinion of a film critic is exactly that: an opinion = POV. Their comments may be acceptable within the article mainspace (especially if they are well-known and renowned critics, not just any Tom Dick or Harry with an opinion on TV) but are not suitable to indicate a notability of a film/role. Box-office records are also next-to-useless in determining notability for an actor.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that taking a note of prestigious awards gained is a way of determining notability. It is a well-known fact that the Oscars, Emmys and so forth are judged by a panel of "experts" and film "scholars" as well as other industry specialists, so we can take it for granted that an Oscar-nominated or awarded film is "notable".

(Interruption of Ekantik's comment by Zora) Um, no. Awards are popularity contests. They heavily reflect the prejudices of the voters, who aren't necessarily experts. In the case of the Oscars, members of the various unions (electricians, carpenters) get to vote, and it's their sentiments that rule. Discussions of the Oscars often involve close analysis of this population's makeup and preferences. Zora 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Zora) Often these awards are popularity contests. The award may confer a level of notability that is not deserved (and that's another discussion entirely), but it's hard to deny that a high profile award confers notability. Notability can be manufactured just as easily as it can be earned, but that does not diminish its notability. Rossrs 08:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(Response to interrupted comment) This is getting silly. Doh, of course "sentiments rule" which is why people might vote Leonardo DiCaprio (Check out his list of notable roles by the way!) as "Best Actor" for his role in Titanic and maybe also as "Maxim Magazine's Sexiest Man of the Year", despite an objectively ambiguous definition of "sexiness". It's pretty clear that the Oscars, Golden Globes, Emmys, etc are prestigious enough to be notable and seem to be more informative than critical reviews, which are certainly coloured by the critic's prejudices.

This is just going to go on and on and on... Ekantik ^talk 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And of course this applies for prestigious awards, not rubbish like "Maxim Magazine's Sexiest Man/Woman of the Year Award", obviously non-notable. However there is a potential problem: What exactly is being awarded?

Citing a particular example, if Goodfellas wins a "Best Film" Oscar then which actor should be credited for it as a "notable role"? Robert De Niro? Joe Pesci? Ray Liotta? All of them, since they were all main characters in the movie? Check out the honours/nominations it did get. Only Joe Pesci got an actual award for a supporting role, so we could say his character in Goodfellas was a "notable role". How about De Niro and Liotta? Strictly speaking, should Goodfellas be "notable roles" for them? It is certainly a milestone movie in their respective careers even if they didn't get any awards for it. What about those other fellas in the "nominated" category on the page, Lorraine Bracco, Martin Scorsese, etc.? Is Goodfellas "notable" for them? So this is mixture of both awards won and "public perception" which is POV to a certain degree. Maybe I'm just willing to assume good faith and expect editors working on a particular article to sensibly discuss these things through. Marlon Brando could be credited for his "notable roles" in "The Wild One" and "The Godfather", but no one would seriously suggest that his role as Jor-El in Superman (1978) was notable! :) Have a look at Marlon Brando by the way, he's won enough awards so that there is no need for a "notable roles" section! So perhaps if an actor has enough awards listed then this makes notable roles redundant, but perhaps we could decide to keep notable roles for actors in the absence of any notable awards won?

Rossr brings up a good point about Australian prestigious awards. If people can agree that awards could be used as a determinant for notable roles (with other critical evaluations), it could be possible to insert more fields into the template to allow for Filmfare, Australian National Institute, and so on to cater for country-specific prestigious awards. How about that? Ekantik ^talk 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think "notable roles" is a problematic field. I think that the inclusion of the awards field (fact) often makes the notable roles (opinion) redundant. Perhaps we should have a "notable roles" field that we only use for actors who have not won awards. For actors who have won awards perhaps we could use a differently named field "other notable roles" and have it display below the awards field, to prevent the redundancy of the same film appearing in both fields. "Other" makes it pretty clear that repetition is not needed. This may offer a compromise for those performers who are strongly remembered for a particular role that has stood the test of time better than their award winning role. Rossrs 08:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a similar concern to that expressed over at Template talk:Infobox Writer about having "magnum opus" in the infobox for writers. The concept of a magnum opus, though clear in some cases, is often unclear in many other cases, and is nearly always subjective and difficult to source. Thus 'magnum opus' was rejected as a parameter for that infobox. Similarly, I'd agree that 'notable role' should not be used in actor infoboxes. Carcharoth 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO magnum opus is that little bit tougher because an entry into a magnum opus field would require only one entry, and there are obvious problems when there are disputes over which work of an author can be considered their magnum opus. Whereas with films there are a wide selection to choose from. I appreciate the comparison nevertheless. Ekantik ^talk 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

George IV of the United Kingdom FAR

George IV of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 09:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I'm just curious: Why is Evan Wolfson only rated a B-Class article? I think it's an excellent article, very full, sourced, imaged, balanced, etc. --DavidShankBone 21:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be recommended for good article at least to go any higher on the scale. Mocko13 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Are there any guidelines about including a trivia section in a bio? --Vbd 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA should help. Ekantik ^talk 17:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That essay led me to WP:AVTRIV -- Wikipedia: Avoid trivia sections in articles -- which is actually an official guideline.--Vbd 03:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Stupidly enough, I never noticed that part where trivia is meant to be incorporated into the main article as time goes on (if it is notable enough), and I've been guilty of adding some (referenced) trivia to articles! Time to re-evaluate! :) Ekantik ^talk 16:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Coordination Council

I was bold about an assessment drive, which makes the previous comments I had here moot, so I dropped them. I think we do need to revive the (now archived) idea of some sort of coordination council like what WP:MilHist has. Although I would like to see us do a few things differently. For example, theirs is elected, which I don't like - there's more than enough work on the project to go around for interested volunteers. Also, I'm not really sure there needs to be a lead coordinator if there's a good group of dedicated people working together. Thoughts? Mocko13 02:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above approach. Unfortunately Plange remains inactive, despite her brief return on January 8, 2007. Something should be done here. We can start with the creation of a co-ordination group, and, during the course of this effort, we'll see if a chief coordinator is necessary. I also think that it wouldn't be ethically correct to appoint or elect a chief coordinator on Plange's absene; let's wait and see if she'll be back, and then we'll act accordingly. I believe that MILHIST should be used as a benchmark, and Kirill should be advized, in order to help us with his know-how. Personally, I'll be more active after Monday. I'll take a wikibreak on Friday, lasting 3 days.--Yannismarou 11:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wallenberg

Raoul Wallenberg is up for a featured article. Please read the article and leave critical comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Raoul Wallenberg. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"The late...

There's a discussion on the WP:WTA talk page about the use of "the late" in terms of the biographies of those who are no longer living. An editor is apparently replacing it in a lot of articles, and is encountering resistance. I've suggested to the disputing parties that they bring the discussion here. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here Dreadlocke. I've just read through the back discussion and I have to say I agree with the arguments for not using "the late...". So I'll just rehearse them here (and add my own if I can think of them):

• "the late..." seems to normally be used in English language prose to indicate someone who is recently deceased. Including this phrase in articles means that at somepoint its going to look odd at a later date when someone is no longer recently deceased and so introducing the flaw of presentism.
• The key way to indicate "the late" is by adding their death date to their article entry, or if they are merely referenced in someone else's article add them there (although if they're not notable to warrant an article of their own, does it matter if they're late or present?)
• Another argument is that the phrase is "unencylopaedic" but as WP:NOT and the AfD guidance states, this is never a very good argument as "Wikipedia is not a paper encylopaedia". What I think is meant is that using the "the late..." does not sound like the tone of an encyclopaedia - more like an obituary, or newspaper article.
• Argument from existing usage, I have to say I've rarely noticed the phrase used in Wikipedia, but then maybe I'm not observant enough, but generally I've not seen the phrase used widely.

Anyone else fancy a crack at this? Madmedea 10:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I will chime in both places as I do not know how the internal debate of moving will turn out. I think the suggestion given of putting the birth and death dates after the first mention of a name in an article would be a better idea then stating "the late", in as many letters we can achieve something much more informative and still maintain an encyclopedic style over editorial style. --NuclearZer0 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it before and I'll say it again, the dates really aren't needed. Not a terrible idea, but we need to keep things simple. I agree fully with Madmedea. Booshakla 06:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Rating requested

A group of us are working to improve Paul Collingwood in time for the imminent Cricket World Cup. We're aiming for a speedy FA. It would be helpful to have your rating on the talk page and if any of you can contribute your expertise, that would be excellent. Thank you --Dweller 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Evan Wolfson

I'd also like Evan Wolfson assessed. It's currently B-class and deserves to be at GA (in my opinion). It's sourced, cited, imaged, categorized, balanced, and organized well. --DavidShankBone 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hello. Both of these requests have been added to the list at Requesting an assessment. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 02:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:PERSONDATA

can there be a rule for biographical feature article nominees to have persondata. 70.104.16.244 03:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a rule is necessary, you can go ahead and add persondata if you want and there shouldn't be much objection. Ekantik ^talk 05:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Celebrities dating

Copied from another talk page (for WP:BLP) where this didn't get any response.

I work on a lot of Bollywood actor/actress pages, and I see a great many edits concerning the stars' romantic lives. If the star is married and not known to be carrying on an immensely public affair, editors generally leave the star alone. We end up with "X married Y and they have two children." However, single stars are the subject of laser-like focus by gossip columnists, gossip which editors then insert in WP. It's the latest hottest stars who get this treatment; no one seems to care very much about the dalliances of Dilip Kumar. So we get statements like "X has had relationships with A, B, and C; X dumped B for C." Some of this is referenced to gossip columns and some of it is inserted without references and like kudzu, keeps re-appearing even after it has been weeded out.

A great many of the Indian editors seem to think that this is a proper use of WP and get irritated with me when I replace it with "X is single." Myself, I see it as a mis-use of WP. I don't think who dates who is at all notable, unless there's some huge controversy or the matter ends up in court. Or someone writes a tell-all roman à clef that becomes a best-seller. Retailing gossip is just so ... vulgar. So invasive. So unkind.

I should perhaps note that my position on this has changed over the years. When I first started editing here, I would let that sort of stuff pass, as long as it was referenced. Over time, it has come to seem more intrusive and more irritating.

I don't edit non-Bollywood star biographies, but I imagine that this happens in other places as well. (Not to all stars -- the Nathan Fillion article, which I do follow, is blessedly bereft of gossip.) Is there a policy that applies to salacious concentration on single stars' dating lives? Zora 10:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If a celebrity has died then it may be sufficient to mention their marriages (assuming they got married) but only if their extra/premarital relationships are notable for some reason (it caused a big scandal, etc) then it can be carefully included and properly referenced. In the case of a living person, we have to remember that Wikipedia is an ongoing project and is always being updated. A particular celebrity's relationship may turn into a marriage, and text about the relationship can be easily converted into information about the marriage, which allows Wikipedia to be a proper tracker of BLP.

The point is that it is upto editors to judiciously decide whether such information is appropriate for the article. If the celebrities are having relationships with other people then it is appropriate to record that fact and reference it without being salacious. "X has been in a relationship with Y for Z weeks/months/years" is quite appropriate, and nothing more should be written unless to cite some scandal or something. The important thing is that Wikipedia should be a resource for information that is reliable. If it's reliable, put it in and reference it (or improve the reference if necessary). If it's unreliable, take it out. Ekantik ^talk 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that we're supposedly writing an encyclopedia (although I'm beginning to doubt that's what we're actually writing) not a gossip column. Any edits which are more the latter than the former should be deleted, no question about it. Just use your discretion. --kingboyk 09:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what is being said, and how it's being presented. Is the information harmful, negative, potentially offensive? Does it imply something about the person? A hint of scandal or salaciousness? If it's sourced to a gossip site, it would be fair to say that it is not adequately or reputably sourced per WP:RS. Therefore, if it is not sourced, and is of even a vaguely negative nature, WP:BLP is justification for its removal. If it's just downright gossip, it has to go - we are not writing a gossip column or a collection of fansites. If the information is of a more benign nature and documents a relationship or situation that is also depicted by the more mainsteam media, you would need to use your judgement on a case-by-case basis, but it would almost certainly be ok, providing a reputable source is included. Rossrs 12:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

War criminals, and those not formally accused

The List of war criminals and Category:War criminals are to be applied to those formally tried and convicted of war crimes. Yet there are many people who have been accused of war crimes and atrocities who have not been formally tried or convicted. There are also those who were tried but found innocent, or at least, charges not proven. How about List of individuals alleged to have committed war crimes and Category:Alleged war criminals, as well as List of individuals found innocent of war crimes, or Category:Found innocent of war crimes? These can be highly contentious, with passionate opinions held by various editors. What is the best way to identify by category, or to collect such lists, without harming the integrity of the list and category of those formally charged and convicted? It would also be helpful to formalize guidance as to when someone's name should be added, such as citation of a recommendation or allegation made by an international body, national government, or NGO, for the subject to be tried for war crimes, rather than simply the assertion of an individual author. Opinions? --Petercorless 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A single page such as War Crime Charges with multiple headings (tried, convicted, found inocent... etc.) would be the best way to integrate multiple figures which fall under many diffirent sub-categories. I am of the opinion that all names mentioned should exist as a result of formal declaration by a government or other international agency. Without exception, each name must have a cited reference or face immediate deletion. Names without references should be moved to a talk page for further research or discussion. Kugelmass 16:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So far, I have argued strenuously against putting on "Category:War criminals on any bio where someone was not formally charged or convicted. There are also those formally charged but not yet tried or convicted, and those for whom charges have not been filed though allegations have been made. I would be willing to defer to the community's collective thoughts on the subject, but I would like to reserve "War criminals" to those solely tried and convicted. --Petercorless 22:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Guideline for nationality of the subject of a biography?

A few months ago I created an article on the mathematician Leonidas Alaoglu, who spent most of his life in Los Angeles, and is recognized for the work that he did at American universities. The article also notes he was born in Canada and is of Greek descent. I put him in the Category:American mathematicians. Since then some other editors have also re-baptized him as both a Canadian mathematician and a Greek mathematician. He is currently in all three categories.

Is there any guideline I can quote to the other editors on this? There is some faint logic in having him be Canadian, but Greek seems off the wall. Was George Washington a British general, since he was descended from British immigrants? Your advice is welcome. EdJohnston 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist editors are gung-ho to claim famous people for boasting rights. The battle at Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī went on for months, between Arabs and Iranians, with Uzbeks popping up occasionally. The Iranians seem to have won, judging by the current state of the article.

Interesting that no one is fighting over who gets Attila the Hun. Saying "Attila the Hun was an X, just like me!" doesn't get you any reflected glory.

For recent biographies, I think that the WP guideline should be: however the subject self-identifies (if that is verifiable) and whatever the passport says. If a person has lived in several countries, then we shouldn't say, "He is a B", but say that X has lived in countries A, B, and C, currently resides in D, but carries a C passport.

If this guy hasn't said "I'm Greek" then it's not right to claim him as Greek.

For people in the past, we can say where they were born, lived, and died, and under what past regimes they lived. Al-Khwarizmi was possibly born in Khwarezm, and lived in Baghdad under the Abbasids. Trying to turn that into a current national identity is just plain stupid.

I should add that extending current national and ethnic identities into the past is common, but a distortion of history. See the Historiography and nationalism article for a start. After several hundred years of writing history as national chronicles, historians are starting to break out of it. WP, for the most part, is still doing it. Zora 03:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for thorough reply. One more question. In the case you describe, of a person living in countries A, B and C in different periods, and where we have no knowledge of his passport and no self-identification as a national of X, is it still correct for editors who assign categories to put the person in all three of those categories? (A, B, C,...) EdJohnston 16:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WorldCat Identities

People in this project might be interested in a proposed project to provide systematic linkage from Wikipedia biographical pages to WorldCat Identities: if you are, please do sign up at the project proposal page. Dsp13 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)