Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

Viktor Berthold

This was in Viktor Berthold, but is actually about Marcel Bertholds: He was born in Riga to a Livonian family. Before the outbreak of World War II he moved to Argentina, where he studied at the University of Buenos Aires to become a doctor. He graduated and moved to the United States where he worked as a doctor and scientist. After that, he moved to Sweden and eventually to Switzerland where he died in the city of Lugano.

Berthold was active in Livonian cultural organizations, and visited Latvia multiple times before his death.

Also Viktor Berthold was not the last speaker of Livonian, there is one still living in Canada: articles about her in Latvian, Finnish and Estonian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metsavend (talk • contribs) 15:54, September 21, 2010‎ (UTC)

Santiago de Liniers

Complements and correction have been done on the English version of article about Santiago de Liniers. Identity, his name is Jacques de Liniers not Jacques Marie Antoin who is his brother. A lot of addition come either from the French version of the article which is more completed and sourced by the website http://jacques-de-liniers.wifeo.com/ which assembles many historical elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.85.212.184 (talk) 12:59, January 26, 2011‎ (UTC)

Mistake in the biography of Salomon Dykman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_Dykman

"Dykman was born in 1917 in Warsaw, Poland. He attended school at the "Hinuch" Hebrew Gymnasium, and then studied the classics at the Institute of Jewish Studies at Warsaw University."

the Institute of Classic at Warsaw University has never been a part of Institute of Jewish Studies (which, most probably, didn't even exist before the war). Please, correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.196.0.22 (talk) 19:26, June 26, 2011‎ (UTC)

Request for deletion of page Rehmat Khan Bhatti

Dear all, this page does not seem to me at all to meet Wiki notability and/or general quality standards; rather, its been put up by someone to simply aggrandize a family member and/or tribal elder etc. I would very strongly recommend that the page be deleted/removed, please. Thank you --Khani100 —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, November 22, 2011‎ (UTC).

Peer review of William Bliss Baker

Please come participate: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/William Bliss Baker. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible expansion of core biographies list

I would appreciate any input you might have at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies#Proposed expansion of list. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment at Fandi Ahmad's ongoing peer review!

Fellow Wikipedians, I humbly present my latest contribution to Wikipedia and this WikiProject, an article about Singaporean football legend Fandi Ahmad, which I am trying to get to GA status! Start 2012 by supporting the quest to counter systemic bias, by commenting at the ongoing peer review of this short, but interesting, article, which I hope you enjoy reviewing as much as I enjoyed writing it! Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it OK to to edit a BLP to always slant it in a negative way?

Is it OK for someone to edit a BLP and to only add something negative, or to take out something positive, or to otherwise always slant it in a negative way? Yesterday, I reverted someone because, not for the first time, all his edits were designed to make the person look bad. I don't think this is good faith editing. Someone else put back the edits apparently because he believes it is OK for someone to edit to only make a person look bad. Who is right? FurrySings (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are. Living or dead, bio or otherwise, neutrality is the rule. A slanted article violates NPOV. Rv, & report it if necessary. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it OK for a person to always only add negative stuff and remove positive stuff, if right now, the BLP is slanted positively so that the last edit doesn't make the article slanted? I want to ask, is it OK for someone to be a single sided warrior on a BLP regardless of neutrality? If it's not OK, how should I stop this person? FurrySings (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No its not ok and you should report it to ANI. --Kumioko (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The aim is balance & neutral POV. If it's not neutral, & it keeps happening, Kumioko's entirely right. Report it. And keep rv'g. (Do beware 3RR, tho.) What's the page? With a few other interested editors, you can keep the editor's bias out without getting in trouble. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, FurrySings has a "creative" definition of what constitutes negative slanting. For example, an IP added an unsourced statement, and another editor reverted it. FurrySings reverted the reversion, without any rationale other than the complaint that the reversion was slanted negative.

I've posted every edit in question on the talk page of the article, and asked all editors to weigh in. So far FurrySings has contributed nothing to the discussion, and continues to revert, presumably thinking that this is following advice given here. I agree with Trekphiler that the proper sequence is rv, and report if necessary, what is missed is that we are already at the revert stage, and FurrySings is trying to revert unsourced material back into the article.

I hope someone will look at the actual issue, and give more specific advice to FurrySings, because I think FurrySings is continuing to revert based upon a misunderstanding. Of course, if FurrySings reports the issue to ANI, FurrySings will learn the meaning of WP:Boomerang--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at the history of the Krugman page. Look at every edit Vision Thing made to the article. Every single one is to make the article more negative or less positive. Every. Single. One. FurrySings (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

♠"Look at the history of the Krugman page. Look at every edit Vision Thing made to the article. Every single one is to make the article more negative or less positive." Bias by omission is still bias. If the cited sources don't support the claims, or if the sources aren't reliable, then yes, take it out. Taking something out just because it's negative is just as wrong, however: a favorable slant is no more NPOV than a negative one.

♠That said, I did, do, & shall stand by the proposition rv & discuss should be the approach. It also appears from the talk page there Krugman has been a controversial figure on WP for some while... It appears the cites are quoting sources whose own political views conflict with Krugman's, & it's bleeding through to the page.

♠Can I suggest both sides step back from the page a day or so? Let things cool off, then discuss there? Rather than go nuclear? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, FurrySings is reverting based upon advice from you. "Everyone back off" may sound good, but could you at least retract the earlier advice, because FurrySings is claiming the right to revert (and not contributing to the talk page discussion) based upon advice from you.(or, if you don't think you gave such advice, make it clear, because FS is citing this board as rationale for reversion.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

{{od]] Don't go making out like I have any part of his behavior. Or yours. On the principle, it is rv & discuss, & that hasn't changed. Nor has my position changed: that is the right course. If there's no discussion, I disclaim any responsibility for advising based on the facts as originally presented. Nor do I accept any for the facts not being as presented. As said, I am regretting ever becoming involved in this fracas. AGF? My mistake. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for much. FurrySings asked who was right. You said and I quote "You [FurrySings] are". All you have to do is clarify that your answer was contingent on a truthful presentation of the facts. I won't even ask you to check into the facts, although one might think that's the point of this forum All I ask is that you tell FurrySings that one don't have carte blanche to revert if one lies about the situation. You may regret being involved, but your advice is the main fuel keeping this going. Choke off your fuel and the flaming stops.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

♠"your answer was contingent on a truthful presentation of the facts" Of course. If someone uses it as an excuse, however, I disclaim any responsibility for it or, indeed, any ability to do anything about it.

♠"I won't even ask you to check into the facts" Had the page in question been linked to in the first place, I would not have given the blanket statement I did; having looked at the edits in question, I wouldn't have necessarily agreed. Which is why I say POV is inappropriate for both sides, here. I get the sense the sources have a strong POV, & people are using that to introduce a POV: "The source says it, we can put it in." Well, no. Sourced bias is still bias, & negative commentary isn't necessarily grounds for deletion.

♠As said, neutrality is, must be, the goal. Take a hypothetical: Would we include an accusation Lloyd George is a baby-killer, even if it was sourced & from a reputable paper? (In Berlin. In 1916...) I think not. Would we delete mention that Hitler arranged the mass murder of Jews? I think not. Is this case that simple or clear? No. My brief glance at the sources does seem to suggest this is akin to what's happening. The result isn't entirely neutral on either side. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Visionthing has been edit warring to do this[1]. Can anyone look at this and say that he is not motivated by the intention to make Krugman look bad? FurrySings (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Serious amount of unknown importance articles

I've been doing some poking around from the military biography task force and discovered that you guys have over 350,000 articles of unknown importance total for your wikiproject (almost 30,000 from the military section alone). I think there is a serious backlog here. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Does'nt anyone else think this is serious? 76.7.231.130 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not really. I think we have more important things to do for the moment, like improving existing bios (and rating them once done), or creating one of the myriad ones that are still missing (and rate them once created... :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just seems to me like it shouldn't take too much time to give an importance rating to an article that one is working on. (I also just discovered that there are over 118,000 articles in this project which lack an assessment. In case someone thought this constitutes a backlog as well). 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, what's the point of having an importance rating in the first place if its not used? Either this backlog of unrated importance articles should be taken care of or the importance tag should be gotten rid of. (No point in having it if its not used.) 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If this bothers you then start clearing out the backlog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.145.244 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize how long it would take one person to do over a quater million articles? I was hoping to get at least a few others in this project interested in this problem. Besides there are thirty five people in this project and they could pitch in a bit, since this is supposed to be their project. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so nobody cares. So I guess I won't either. Since I'm leaving Wikipedia it won't matter. 76.7.231.130 (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Typo in the article on Ruy Diaz Melgarejo

"In 1855, Melgarejo returned to Asunción ..." - This date seem highly unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.218.199.93 (talk) 16:02, January 1, 2012‎ (UTC)

Too much info?

I don't wanna be accused of owning an article, so I wondered if someone else would take a look at the edits made recently to Lowkey's page. To me the recent edits seem a bit too in depth but I don't have much experience editing biographies and musicians. Other opinions and edits are welcome. Tony2Times (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Mention of his "feuds" might be merited, but so much? Not from where I stand. And his views on everything from Zionism to Arab Spring? Seriously? If he was Kissinger or Madeleine Albright, maybe. Or even Bill Buckley or Walter Cronkite. Otherwise, really not. Junk it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Those additions are totally over the top. Go back to the much shorter version from 30 December. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate some of it, but trimmed it way down however an IP has reverted it. I just wanna double check I'm not being overzealous and also maybe have some help watching it or something, I don't wanna be caught acropper of three reversals and all. Tony2Times (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

John Beddington misrepresentation

Could somebody familiar with misrepresentation, libel, etc. comment at Talk:John Beddington#Fukushima incident please? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The name

HI to whoever writes these Hare played for the Pikiao Warriors not the Piako Warriors this has come to my attention as Hare is a wider family member and i also play for Pikiao so could you please correct this as Pikiao is also the name of our tribe thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikiao21 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please address this on the talk page of the specific article in question. Thank you.--JayJasper (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

David Gries, include picture? (CC-A 3.0 picture found)

David Gries does not carry a picture yet.

This search: [2] has revealed a picture that, according to the page legalese, is CC-by-A 3.0.

cite: Material on these pages developed by Owen Astrachan is ©Owen Astrachan, is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0722274, and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. We gratefully acknowledge additional funding from IBM via an IBM Faculty Award.

BTW, one level up there's a picture of him without that paint in his face :-)

--87.175.25.165 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dominic of Evesham and post-nominals

There's an interesting discussion here which relates to biographies. It would be great to have some wider input. Thanks for any attention you can give it. --John (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Pearce Robinson

Hi. I answered a help request at Talk:Pearce Robinson, and, in the process, I wondered about the notability of this article. I've not much experience of judging Bios for notability, so, since the talk page lists the article as a member of this project, I thought I'd ask for some feedback here. Sorry if my question sounds overly dumb for someone with as many edits as me, but this is outside my "comfort zone" for making snap judgements, so comments very welcome. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 04:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just adding a courtesy note so that people don't waste time on looking at this because I asked here - I decided to AFD. Hope I didn't miss something obvious. Begoon ^talk 09:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Stewart Woodman

The Stewart Woodman entry should have the following caveat removed, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". While I know Stewart personally, the posting is fact-based and written without bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlerman423 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please address this on the Stewart Woodman talk page first, per this page's guidelines (see top of page, 4th item). Thank you.--JayJasper (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

William S. Clark

Hello, I wanted to drop a note here to let people involved in this project know about an open FA nomination for William S. Clark. The article is a part of WikiProject Biography. Clark was an American educator who helped establish Hokkaido University. His significance to East/West international relations of that period would, I think, make him a good FA candidate. So far, the nomination has not attracted much attention and I hope that some folks from this project might be inclined to comment. The nomination can be found here. Thanks. Historical Perspective (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible deletion of article Jessica Ahlquist

Jessica Ahlquist is a 16-year old student recently controversial for having a religiously-oriented banner removed from her school.

Ms Ahlquist may be a "person notable for only one event" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:1E ) and thus fail notability ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE ).

Additionally, though I was not able to find any specific guidelines for this, as a 16-year-old minor, it may be appropriate to treat Ms Ahlquist differently than we would an adult.

-- 186.221.134.210 (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Carlo Buti

You know so little about Carlo Buti. He sang and recorded 1574 songs, but he was better then Bing Crosby the wife and child beater. And Frank Sinatra? Ha, ha, ha. No he didn’t belong to any Mafia gang. Elvis the druggie? Not to mention that Carlo could out sing them with two tonsils tied behind his back. The comparison is an insult. To any true Italian of that time you mock and show ignorance. you don't even know Reno Savagli and his manolin. You don't know Aureilo Fierrio.And Richard Tucker could outsing Pavoroti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.228.162 (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments regarding that particular article need to be addressed at Talk:Carlo Buti. Please note that talk pages are not a forum for discussion of the subject, but rather are intended for discussion on encyclopedic improvements to the article. Thank you.--JayJasper (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Help needed about the personal life of Thore Schölermann

I raised the issue two months ago on the article talk page, but haven't got any answer to date, so I thought I should ask for help here.

I tried to include information about his relationship with actress Jana Julie Kilka. It was deleted by an user who qualified it as "gossip". I found a new, better source (which has the only problem that it's in German, something that seems inevitable if we're talking about a not so widely known German actor) and included it again. And it was deleted again without explanation, so I've started to wonder if I did anything wrong.

Could somebody help me on what should I do?

(The "Personal life" section on the article right now includes information about his language skills and childhood pets, with Youtube videos as sources.)

Thanks Not A Superhero (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Erich Maria Remarque

Hello, I am not a scholar. I am just somoene looking for clarification and perhaps offering a small morsel of information. I have come into posession of a geneology written by my grandmother in 1996. She lists on it Eric Remarque. She lists on it that Maria, a daughter of Heinreich Poppinghaus, married him and they had children; Gertrude, and Stella. If you could clarify this for me I would greatly appreciate this. Perhaps this would also help you in your research. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me via 1mkenc@earthlink.net Sincerely, Mark A. Kenchel --75.216.132.106 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate list?

Does a list like this belong in a person's article? I'm asking because this editor has added lists like this to a few different bio articles, and there is no explanation of the relevance or significance of the list, which leads me to conclude that they are WP:OR. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

looks like it was done by some one who does not understand what categories are for.--Traveler100 (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably true. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Abraham Lincoln proposal

Hello. To editors interested in Abraham Lincoln, I just created a proposal for a new WikiProject with a focus on Lincoln, similar to the WikiProject that exists for Barack Obama. Please feel free to comment on my proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Abraham Lincoln‎. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Objection to Deletion of Keith Perron Bio Wiki Page

Keith Perron is absolutely a real, living, breathing person who heads up PCJ Radio / PCJ Media and he is indeed on working in bringing a new Shortwave Broadcast world Service to reality. Deleting Keith's wiki bio page would be tantamount to dismissing one of the most important, visionary people in the international broadcasting world. Keith has discovered some of the world's greatest radio talent in recent history such as Paulette MacQuarrie who heads up the Nash Holos radio program, and Dan Hensley who heads up the popular radio show, Shortwave America found at http://thelook247.com/staff and Dan is also the Radio Propagation editor for Media Network Plus, a weekly and monthly show about the world of international shortwave broadcasting. The Media Network Plus show is the brain child of Keith Perron.

Due to the world economy being in the slump it is in, and the fading away of several Shortwave Stations over the years, it is hard to source and completely document the people who work in the industry because the stations do not leave much if anything behind about th etalent who once worked for them. Those stations who are still in operation have buried their past talent files, and so the best sources out here are the listeners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.168.240 (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer needed for W. E. B. Du Bois Featured article status

The project has an opportunity to have another Featured Article: W. E. B. Du Bois is up for FA review, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. E. B. Du Bois/archive1. It has two reviewers, but needs a third to be ratified. If you want to review it, make sure you are familiar with the criteria at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, and dont be afraid to suggest improvements. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Asking again: Is editing BLPs with a political bias breaking Wikipedia policy?

Look at these two edits. Firstly to Friedrich Hayek,[3] and secondly to Paul Krugman.[4] Vision Thing is editing right wing BLPs to puff them up, and editing left-wing BLPs to blacken their names, giving very flimsy reasons for his edits. I have looked at his history, and it looks like he comes to Wikipedia to push a political point of view. I feel that this is wrong and that there should be some rule against doing this. Is there? FurrySings (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have not really looked at those articles, but in general (not just on bios), edits need to conform to the requirements of WP:NPOV. If somebody is pushing a certain POV and not willing to discuss/compromise, you might consider taking it to the appropriate noticeboard. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have followed your suggestion and posted to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. FurrySings (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ben Vereen's traffic accidents and aftermath

Well, I'm sorry to have to inform you about this, but someone at Wikipedia is clearly intentionally suppressing essential facts about Ben Vereen's life that they (for whatever bias or reason of their own) don't want the public to know about: I just now added some essential facts to the article whose omission cannot possibly be justified by Wikipedia, and literally before I could finish putting the source notation (part of which consisted of my own eye witness account, and part of which came from an online interview of Ben Vereen) in the appropriate box, had already been deleted--As the article stands right now, my source notation is there, but without the relevant (deleted) information in the text. For the editor to delete this information so quickly as he did without making any effort to check it out, or even to wait for me to finish the source notation, is clearly the deliberate and intentional suppression of factual information from the public--and I suppose it explains why the information (which involves an event in Mr. Vereen's life that was witnessed by many thousands of people in person, as well as untold others on national television) was not already in the article. This dishonest and bigoted practice can only be described as despicable, and I am without any doubt that Mr. Vereen himself will take the greatest possible exception to the suppression of truth about his life: I intend to contact Mr. Vereen personally and let him know the disgusting thing Wikipedia is doing (or allowing to be done) with his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmetom04 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's terribly innacurate biography page for Michelangelo

As my headline states, Wikipedia's non-editable "Michelangelo" biography page is (while admittedly very greatly improved now compared to how it was the last time I read it) still unacceptably inaccurate on some critical points:

Among other things, the page sites John Addington Symonds (universally recognized as the foremost scholar of Michelangelo studies) as being the person that revealed that previously censored sonnets written by Michelangelo to Tomaso Cavalieri had been written to a man, and seems to suggest that Symonds pioneered the idea that Michelangelo was a homosexual: as a matter of fact, Symonds in his biography of Michelangelo was adamant that Michelangelo was not a homosexual (as also were Michelangelo's biographers Ascanio Condivi and Giorgio Vasari, both of whom were close personal friends of the artist), and moreover he stressed that to interpret Michelangelo's art as evidence of homosexuality was to completely misunderstand his art--and this last point made by Michelangelo's foremost biographer is in direct contradiction to the position taken in the Wikipedia article.

Beyond this, your article incorrectly suggests that the series of epigrams that Michelangelo wrote honoring the memory of young Cecchino Bracci were poems written to a young man that seems to have been his lover (and your article on Bracci's uncle Luigi Riccio repeats this same error), when as a matter of fact Michelangelo hardly even knew Bracci, and wrote the epigrams on commission for Bracci's funeral, as on the same occasion he agreed to make a good sculpture of Bracci for the boy's uncle.

I will acknowledge here that the Michelangelo article has very greatly improved from the way it was when I saw it before, especially in its descriptions of what by all accounts were the two most notable relationships of Michelangelo's life: those with Tomaso Cavalieri and Vittoria Colonna. The last time I read this article, it very greatly minimized and downplayed his relationship with Colonna (who all that knew Michelangelo agreed was the great love of his life), and at the same time somewhat exaggerated and misconstrued his friendship with Cavalieri--but as I said that really egregious fault has now been largely corrected: I'm still not certain that every fact presented is correct in regard to those relationships, but definitely the stories as described now are in the right general ballpark of what we know to have happened, and that is a huge improvement from before and is very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmetom04 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum to my earlier post about Ben Vereen

Okay, I want to say now that at the moment that I made that post above about Ben Vereen I was very frustrated, because I had just been deleted in exactly the time and manner that I described, and also because this whole issue is frustrating to me, as obviously there are people out there (not just on Wikipedia) actively suppressing the information about the facts regarding Ben Vereen's traffic accident. So I want to apologize to anyone out there that might have been bothered by the tone of my original statement, and also I apologize to anyone that I might seem to have falsely accused of wrong doing: at the same time, though, I do still intend to let Mr. Vereen know what is happening with this, because this by far is not right. One of the problems with this whole situation is that it is hard to properly source what happened that night on the Benny Hinn t.v. show, because some unknown person(s) has assiduously removed all reference to the incident (that so many of us witnessed) from the internet--If it wouldn't have been for that, I could just google something like "Hinn Vereen" and it would bring up all kinds of copies of the television show that I could link.

And for anyone on here that is wondering what it is I keep talking about: after first being pronounced dead at the scene, and then (having recovered of course) told that he may never walk again and that he should give up his show business career, Vereen went on the Benny Hinn show and bowed his head while Hinn prayed over him, with famous boxer Evander Holyfield sharing the stage with him and surrounded by an audience of thousands (not to mention the national television audience): after a period of Hinn praying over him, Vereen announced that the process was complete, and then he stood up and happily danced all over the stage in front of the wildly cheering audience, as if he had never been injured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmetom04 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II article improvement

The Pope John Paul II article is on peer review. If anyone would like to help improve the article please pop by :-) -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata

The Persondata template has been listed for deletion or modification at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 30#Template:Persondata. As a project that would be affected if the template is deleted or modifed I am leaving this notice. --Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Leon Panetta as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate

Greetings, as a WikiProject that relates to this article, this notice was sent to let you know that the article, Leon Panetta, has been nominated to be a future Collaboration of the Month article. All editors interested in voting for or improving these article are encouraged to participate. You can cast your vote here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Biography will have interest in putting on events related to women's bios. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the deal with musical groups

I notice that a lot of bands have the WPBiography template added to their talk page. According to this project's scope groups are not to be included "unless a substantial section of the article is a biography of a person related to that organization or group". Sifting through the archives of this page I see a few related discussions however that seem to suggest that a less rigid stance is taken (example). Is there any consensus on how to approach this issue? __meco (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

John Charles McQuaid

The lead of this article needs drastic remodelling. At the moment the weight given to the abuse allegations and their refutation (which is so strenuous it looks like "protesting too much") has turned the lead into a classic example of WP:UNDUE. I know nothing about this man but even a brief skim through his biography tells me there's more to it than this. Britmax (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Biographical metadata and article statistics

I've mentioned this WikiProject at a proposal I made at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Biographical metadata. Please comment there if you would be interested in helping with that proposal or have ideas or suggestions, or know where such statistics are currently documented, if anywhere. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street reassessed to C class

Please comment on the talk page, or make a comment here.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Firestoned

Since IDK where to take this, let me make a request here to an Admin. User:AndrewFirestone777 has, to date, repeatedly added Diego Firestone to the Firestone dab page. He's done (literally) nothing else since June 2011. He's ignored repeated requests to stop, or create the actual page. IDK if this rises to vandalism, but advisorys or warnings appear futile. Can somebody do something? Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC) (FYI: not watching this page, & not looking for an answer here if action gets taken.)

[moved to WP:ANI ]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mike Baxter (baseball) Wrong Batting Average

I was watching Last Man Standing, and they mentioned Mike Baxter - I looked on WIkipedia, and although it was the wrong Mike Baxter, I noticed that the baseball players career average was off.

The main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Baxter_(baseball)

Currently it states the following:

Batting average .989

I am not a baseball fan and know little of the game, but even I know that a career average of 0.325 would be impressive. I sort of assume these numbers are feeds from some baseball stat site, but I don't know which one is the best. The link shows his average way below 0.989, but I did not want to correct this for two reasons:

1. I am not an expert on the subject, and 2. There may be a data feed problem (more global problem).

Thanks,

Dsmoya31410 (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The correction has been made. See Talk:Mike Baxter (baseball).--JayJasper (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Three articles on two people?

We have an article on Scott Nearing. We have one on Helen Nearing. Should we really have one on Helen and Scott Nearing? Dougweller (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, arguably yes; but the third article currently has the wrong title. In essence it seems to be me from a quick skim through that the third article is about about their joint lifestyle (the back-to-the-land thing), and that is the kernel of their notability - exactly as if they'd built something tangible such as Stephenson's Rocket - in their case their very way of life was notable. It is as deserving of an article as they are as individuals; and that thing - an exposition of their lifestyle - would arguably be lost in a biography. So the third article, in my head at least, has a title something like The back to the land lifestyle of Helen and Scott Nearing. Only shorter and more snappy. Helen and Scott Nearing's good life, for instance. (I could be wrong; but let's see what you think of it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me and would solve the problem. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Good Life would have been an idea, although as you can see that's taken. I wonder where the writers got the idea, though...?! Britmax (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Valeriu Boboc and BIO1E

There is a discussion at Talk:Death of Valeriu Boboc , as to whether this person is a BIO1E person, or whether he is well known enough to have a biography article, or whether there should a bio and a death article. The event this is related to is the 2009 Moldova civil unrest. Further input would be appreciated. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Obscure Old Fooians

Several biographical categories relating to the schools attended by people have been nominated for discussion and renaming to 'Category:People educated at Foo School'. The categories involved are: Category:Old Decanians, Category:Old Dolphins, Category:Old Foleyans, Category:Old Savilians, Category:Old Stopfordians, Category:Old Tridents, Category:Old Verlucians, Category:Old Vigornians, Category:Old Waconians, Category:Old Waynfletes, Category:Old Wulfrunians.

You are invited to add your comments at Obscure Old Fooians on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

PS There are are several related discussions at CfD 2012 February 11. See Old Queens, Old St Andrews, Old Ilkestonians, Old St Edwards, Old Buxtonians, Merchant Taylor's schools, where your comments will again be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced changes to footballers heights

I have to go out but there are some changes here that need watching. Britmax (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)