Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fair use rationale for Image:Nonagaye.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nonagaye.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

It appears the uploader has been blocked.--Rockfang (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Something that may amuse ... or concern[edit]

Although I've often voiced my concerns about certain Wikpolicies and guidelines, BLP has my full support, so when I was visiting another Wiki and saw this, I cringed. I won't mention the wiki because I don't want to start a fight, but in a nutshell in a biographical article (on a person who is dead, but that doesn't matter), an editor basically refused to add information about the person based on the fact that a non-fiction work relating to the subject had just been published and he didn't want to impact sales of the book by including information from the new book! I have to admit I was really stunned by that. Once a book is released to the public, the information becomes fair game (assuming proper accreditation is given). Can you imagine if folks here suddenly decided that books (or at least recently published books) couldn't be used as sources for fear the writers might lose sales? We'd have a mess on our hands! Very strange indeed. 23skidoo (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The other guys are 100% wrong. Besides it could only help sales of the new book to have it cited. Redddogg (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Athanasius Kircher FAR[edit]

Athanasius Kircher 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. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


AfD: Admiral Jay DeLoach[edit]

Jay A. DeLoach. This B-rated article was listed for deletion. Please chime in on the Discussion page. -BizMgr, 06:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Lola Corwin[edit]

Article tagged for AfD unless someone disagrees. --BizMgr (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Wolsey[edit]

Thomas Wolsey - This article on Cardinal Wolsey (who hopefully you'll agree is a fairly high profile western historical figure) needs a massive amount of attention. It contains almost no references and an awful lot of opinion. I wanted to flag it up somewhere because it won't be a quick fix and might be a good candidate for a biography collab as its quite a poor article on such a significant figure. Cheers Sassf (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion item in info box[edit]

I was sent over here from the Hillary Clinton article after I changed her listed religion in the info box thing from "United Methodist" to "Christian (United Methodist)". Barack Obama lists his as "Christian (United Church of Christ)". I was told that it was a WP convention to give Christians' individual church denominations but not "Christian" itself in the info boxes. I personally think this is wrong and maybe even offensive to some people. If you asked a member of the United Methodist Church or the United Church of Christ what his or her religion was I am sure they would answer "Christian" and only give the name of the demonination if asked about that. I personally think it would be an improvement if the way WP does this were changed. Thanks. Please let me know if there is a better place to post this. Redddogg (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the right place to post it. And I acknowledge your point regarding what the subject themselves might say. However, as I'm sure you'd probably agree, it's generally assumed that, in like Hillary's case, the Christianity can be fairly easily assumed by most people based on the "United Methodist" info, and those who don't know it could easily follow the link to see what broader faith it belongs to. I note that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lists his religion as "Shi'a Islam", not "Islam", so I think the convention is to use the most precise reasonable term in the infobox as possible. For rather unusual religious affiliations, like say Majalli Wahabi, it would probably even make sense to list only the word "Druze" instead of "Islam - Druze" because of the potential dispute regarding whether the Druze are Islamic. Maybe it'd be clearer if the word "denomination" were used, but that word has its own problems. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Two new core biographies needing attention - IMMEDIATELY![edit]

Unhelpful thread removed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Close the assessment department?[edit]

Articles are no longer being assessed. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Close the assessment department? to discuss the issue. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Ataúlfo Argenta[edit]

I just came across this article which is definitely not in compliance with verifiability. It is full of original research and the repetition of rumours verging on slander. It has been the subject of persistent attempts by the single purpose account Tilleadh to revert the removal of the unsourced, unverifiable, and potentially biased information. The subject died 50 years ago (although his son is still alive) hence I'm assuming it's not suitable for the BLP noticeboard. If this is not the right page to bring this up, can let me know where I should post it? (I'm also notifying Wikipedia Project Spain.) Thanks Voceditenore (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wu Zetian[edit]

I've expanded Wu Zetian and requested a peer review of it. Any review by project members and further refining/expansion would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton at WP:GAR[edit]

Hillary Clinton has been at WP:GAR since Feb. 11.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

403 featured articles on people![edit]

Please see User:Carcharoth/Featured articles needing regular updates#Featured articles on people. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikhail Margelov[edit]

This is my first biographical article for Wikipedia. Could anyone give me feedback on style, content and ways to improve the article? Thank you.--Conjoiner (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara Feature article review notice[edit]

Che Guevara 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.

Louis XIV[edit]

Members of this project may be interested at a discussion going on at the Louis XIV talk page. If you have anything to add to this obscure discussion, additional opinions would be welcome. Coemgenus 16:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Being a rather long thread and, hence, more difficult to follow all the arguments on either side of the debate(s), these have been summarized on the next thread. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)