Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:Charles Lindbergh

Do the connotations of the word "serendipitously" make it inappropriate in this context? Stihdjia (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates

Should the lede section of this article include an explanation of the criteria used to determine inclusion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Gina Rinehart

This is about phrasing the 'Political activities' section of the article where there is a disagreement as detailed in the section just above this. Should describing Monckton as a climate change denier be changed to sceptic? Should we remove mention of Plimer? Dmcq (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ron Paul

'Newsletter Controversy' occupies an exorbitantly large percentage of overall content, is covered in at least two sections of the overall wiki, and is the final significant section of the article, providing the final statement and affect to the reader. This indicates absolute bias. Could an Admin please look at the way this article has been constructed (preferably an Admin without political interest). Thank you Frederich12 (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Deaths of Lawrence and Glenna Shapiro

There is much explicit detail given of the criminal history of those charged. I am mindful of WP:BLPCRIME which states "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime when the person has not yet been convicted." In what way is Wikipedia enhanced by such explicit detail at this stage of criminal proceedings? I am interested in the opinion of other editors. WWGB (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lisa Dewey

This article was marked with a tag saying that the article doesn't meet quality standards, but there is no note on what needs to be changed. Any insights would be appreciated! Prodoom (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Thor Heyerdahl

Although this is cited from a book, it is rhetorical, ad hominem and defamatory in its obvious assertion that Mr. Heyerdahl was some sort of nazi sympathizer. A true criticism would have elements of critical thinking and reasonable parsing of facts (i.e. the date of Feb. 1938 would be an important factor etc..) and not "lack of objections to national socialism..." This citation should be removed or placed under an "Opinions" category at best. DixieDear (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dmitry Kuzmin

I see that User:Badvibes101 used to delete some information from this article with kind of misleading comments: see this deletion (why the removed quotations are described as unencyclopaedic and doesn't add anything to the article??), then this one (isn't it against of WP:WEASEL guideline?), this one (described as wikifying though in fact it is un-wikifying) and finally this one. Possibly these edits reflect some attitude towards the person in question as far as this figure seems to be rather controversial in Russia, especially as a LGBT person. One can see that this article has been proposed for deletion twice (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Kuzmin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Kuzmin (2nd nomination)) and was succesfully kept but in the latter discussion there is the vote of User:Badvibes101 with Strong delete. I think it is not mere chance that the same user is cutting the article after it had been kept. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mitt Romney

His father was born in Mexico to an over-two-decades-long resident of that country. Before the Mexican Revolution, European and North American immigrants to Mexico and their children tended to opt to retain a status of their being foreign nationals and to emphasize their non-Mexican origins; nonetheless, descendents of such long-term Mexican residents--many of which "foreign nationals in Mexico" were actually born there--IMO ought to be categorized on Wikipedia as descendents of "Mexicans" as the catch-all, rather than subclassed as e/g "descendents of German nationals in Mexico," ad infinitum.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dovid Katz

Dovid Katz spoke at a conference of World Without Nazism, and he was subsequently wrongly reported by Russia Today as being a member of World Without Nazism. He has never been a member of World Without Nazism, opposed their stance on Soviet crimes when speaking at the conference, and Russia Today is the only source of his "membership". This citation is now being used as an attempt to defame him on his Wikipedia page. An edit war is starting and I would appreciate comment. As far as I can see, one source is not sufficient for adding a controversial and potentially defaming "fact" to a biography of a living person.Spitfire3000 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Rinat Akhmetov

Interested users are welcome to have a look at the article and see if there's a real necessity in pushing the assumptions on criminal past of Rinat Akhmetov as it is done by Львівське in every paragraph of the article. Allegations must be referred to as allegations unless properly sourced. --Orekhova (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Following a very long discussion (and straw poll) above, the question here is whether to include Dan Savage's "Spreading santorum" website at www.spreadingsantorum.com as an external link for this page. Some people believe that it is a BLP violation, while others reject that view and believe that it is a proper EL and even belongs here per WP:ELOFFICIAL. The following represents a summation of the opposing views... Argument for inclusion: The site is the official site of the subject of the article (the campaign) and is discussed in the text as central to the article's subject. A reader of the article is likely to seek out the site as a further method of inquiry, which is the purpose of including an external link. While WP:BLP applies to some extent, it is not a justification for removing or curtailing coverage of well-sourced, notable, neutrally-presented criticism of a public figure. Our obligation to consider harm extends only to making sure the article is fair and neutral, not to abandon WP:NPOV by adopting Santorum's interests as our own. Our personal opinion of the campaign is not relevant; we provide external links to many other sites that we would never "promote" and are deeply offensive to many, including ones which feature personal attacks. Our NOFOLLOW tags in outgoing links mean our inclusion will not affect page ranking, and what other sites that mirror our content choose to do is not within our control. Argument against inclusion: WP:BLP requires us to consider the harm done to living persons by the content of Wikipedia. In this case, providing a link is inherently non-neutral because it involves participation in a campaign to attack an individual. We are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, and the consequence of including the link is to increase both traffic to the site and possibly to keep it on top of search engine rankings for a longer time, because we know our mirrors do not necessarily use NOFOLLOW. We can not claim neutrality while deliberately abetting Savage's personal campaign against Santorum. In comparison to this significant harm, including the link would result in only trivial benefit to the article at best. A reader interested in visiting the site is easily capable of copying the already incorporated but non-hyperlinked URL or searching for it in Google. The site itself is merely vulgar insult and personal opinion, and therefore not an important information resource. It is its existence, rather than its content, that is important to the article. 04:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Chariots of the Gods?

There is a consensus that the lede should state that the book was "rewritten by the editor Utz Utermann." Should this consensus be considered to extend to the body where the sentence reads "heavily rewritten by German screenwriter Wilhelm Roggersdorf"? Collect (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Kat Von D

Request comment on Kat Von D's real name. In her official biography she is not called once "Katherine Drachenberg", however several major secondary sources give her name as "Katherine von Drachenberg".IIIraute (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Kat Von D

Request comment on the last name of Kat Von D's father, which Kat Von D's official biography gives as "Drachenberg," with no "von."--Tenebrae (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of unusual deaths

This whole page is entirely subjective, suffers from ineradicable POV problems, and appears set to expand to an unmanageable size. Must there be a "list of unusual deaths", or should they merely be mentioned on the articles about the persons involved? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

WP:SOVEREIGN says that royals should have their names in English or in the way most historians use. This rule led to situations where a list of monarchs is inconsistent, such as with German Emperors, where we can find William I, German Emperor and Wilhelm II, German Emperor. One name in English and the other in German. Another good example is John VI of Portugal (João VI), whose mother was Maria I (not Mary I) and whose children were Pedro I (not Peter I) and Miguel I (not Michael I). I've seen a few editors claim that anglicized names are preferred because they are easier to pronounce. This would make sense if everyone else, not just royals, had their names in English. We have a Kaiser William I among Albrecht von Roon, Karl Friedrich von Steinmetz and Helmuth von Moltke. Another example would be Charles IV of Spain (Carlos IV), surrounded by Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea, Francisco Javier de Balmis and José Moñino y Redondo. Thus, should royals have their names in their native tongues instead? Jean II of France, Nikolay II of Russia, Carlos III of Spain, Karl VI, Holy Roman Emperor, etc... I'd like to warn you all that I'm talking about royalty that uses the Latin Alphabet. This discussion does not involve Arab, Chinese, Indian and other royals. Also, in the case of Roman Emperors, names wouldn't be spelled as AVGVSTVS or VITELLIVS, but Augustus and Vitellius, respectively. As they already are, in fact. --Lecen (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Request board

This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every 30 minutes by RFC bot.