Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClaretAsh (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 21 December 2011 (→Request for third opinion: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.[1]

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.

Proposed deletion of Paulette Jiles

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.

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.

Dr Samuel Fuller

I am a direct decendant, I can trace everything back to Benjamin Fuller. 1810. we lost papers before & need help. Dr Samuel Fuller was the first to reach the americas. His wife came on the 2nd Mayflower. The last of our name was my grandmother, Mary Ann Elizabeth Fuller. Please help me to find my folks prior to 1800. We have some second hand reports by fellow shipmates, but would like any other that you have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.89.225 (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that Samuel Fuller (Mayflower physician) is your Great Great Grandfather. Well the page 'Fuller (surname)' lists all people called 'Fuller' that have an article on Wikipedia. You may want to go there if you haven't already. I'm afraid that's all i can do. Check out the Wikipedia Reference Desk. - Benzband (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox sportsperson: generic biography fields

Should we add generic biography fields to {{Infobox sportsperson}}? Your comments are invited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selena

Selena Quintanilla Perez was shot on March 31, 1995, but, upon arrival at the hospital, was not given a blood transfusion, as her religious belief was Jehovah's Witness. It is against a Jehovah's Witness' belief to introduce anything foreign into the body, regardless of whether or not it is a lifesaving measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.194.237 (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article about her already Selena. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review for Rosa Parks

I have nominated Rosa Parks for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox of people born on the island of Ireland, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

I proposed that such bios (people born on the island of Ireland, between 1801 & 1922) pipe-link United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as Ireland, within their infoboxes concerning birthplace & deathplace. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above is cross posted between here and and the WP:IMOS. I responded there before seeing this comment. Can we keep discussion in one place, please. --RA (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest moving things here. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is a question that affects more than just Ireland. I've closed the discussion at the IMOS. The substance of my comments there was that it is common practice is to give the place of birth of people born in the United Kingdom (1801—present) as England, Ireland (or Northern Ireland), Scotland or Wales and as being English, Irish (or Northern Irish), Scottish or Welsh. Similarly, it is common practice to give the birth place of people in the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707—1801) as England, Scotland or Wales and as being English, Scottish or Welsh.
You are certainly free to seek to change that consensus. However, the issue affects more than just Ireland. It affects the whole of the United Kingdom (and the Kingdom of Great Britain before it).
(Other may be interested in a previous related discussion.) --RA (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The practice on Wikipedia needs changing. Post-1922, needs to show United Kingdom & use British. 1800 to 1922, needs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland pipe-linked as Great Britain and Ireland & use British for those born on GB & Irish for those born on Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, many will chime in that we should go along with how these people self-indentified or self-indentify. However, if one self-indentifies as a martian or whatever, would we place that in the infobox & content? I hope not. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean. It's just not very common practice to say that Charles Dickens, for example, was British and was born in the United Kingdom. Usual practice, both on Wikipedia and off it, is to say he was born in England and was English. This is a particular idiosyncrasy of the United Kingdom but one that is understood throughout the English speaking world, particularly historically. --RA (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, my major concern is around the island of Ireland. Indeed, I won't put up much of a fight in the infoboxes, concerning usage of England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland. Afterall, we use Manitoba, Alberta, Prince Edward Island (for example) in the infoboxes of Canadians & Virgina, North Carolina, Texas etc in the American infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay , that hs come across as point blank POV , racist and discriminatory . I praised the editing you done yesterday but this is horrific . Surely if it goes for one in the greater view of Wiki , it should go for all , we cant pick and choose to ignore issues that are the same just because the involve different sub-entities .Murry1975 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland in the Infobox is acceptable. How can it be racist & discriminatory? GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay says he has no problem with this issue regarding England, Scotland and Wales but has a problem with Ireland, how pathetic is that. Snappy (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with Northern Ireland. But when dealing with before 1922, we enter muddier waters. PS: Please don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you're making such a flawed contribution is the problem, so I'll comment as I see fit. Snappy (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the British bios, it wouldn't hurt to have British in the lead & E/W/S/I in the infobox - with UK added (if you like). GoodDay (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then call me racist & discriminatory, too, 'cause if there's a division between "Ulster" & "Ireland" in Irish minds (not being from there, I don't see it), you may have a problem. As for the 1922 cutoff date, my Irish history isn't good enough to know what issue arises with it... I would sooner hear the reasoning than make accusations. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before partition, the whole island of Ireland & Great Britain were one country. GoodDay (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the dinosaur age, all pangaea was one country, including but not limited to: Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, Timbuktu and Antarctica. How simple it must have been for Wikipedians then! [sarcasm] - Benzband (talk :) 12:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GoodDay that Ireland was not partitioned at the time. I agree with myself that Ireland never should have been partitioned. I also think that seperating 'Ulster' people from 'Ireland' people in such a manner would not help to attain the goal of reunification we all hope for. Therefore, and thereafter, it should be Ireland. - Benzband (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Benzband the point GoodDay is making is the Ireland should not be used but instead a pipelink from Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as Ireland , even as a good portion of articles on Wiki bios dealing with the same time period show other parts of the United Kingdom as England , Scotland and Wales . As soon as it becomes apparent on an Ireland article people object . Thats why we are here . All we are trying to do is treat the subject the same as other parts of the United Kingdom at that time but some people are not letting eqaulity happen in this regards .Murry1975 (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example: If 'John Doe' was born in England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland in 1845, we could use British in the intro & the constituent country in the infobox accompanied by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland -pipelinked as UK. This can be done for post-partition, 'John Doe' was born in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland in 1923, we could use British in the intro & the constituent country in the infobox accompanied by the United Kingdom -pipelinked as UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing this [[1]] would be practically impossible . I could see nothing but edit wars and more discussions on it . I dont think that the definition of nation and soveriegn state are compatible , there were 4 nations making up a single soveriegn state all with recognised nationalities , which is the crux of the problem . Also if you do it for the UK , what about the multi-changed maps of European nations , The Holy Roman Empire being an example .Murry1975 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm focusing on the British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Burns situation, I'd recommend British in the lead & adding Kingdom of Great Britain to the infobox, pipe-linking as Great Britain or GB. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im focusing on Wiki , as editors I believe we are meant to do , to improve it. If we create more problems then we have failed in our actions , that is why we are here to gain what is needed for the bios so we dont create more inconsistency and still give a level of understanding to the readers .Murry1975 (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's already inconsistancies in the British & Irish bios. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you gauged any editors views on Burns? I will just throw a link uo on his talk page so they can have an imput here .Murry1975 (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. The more editors involved, the more input there'll be. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I threw it out over there , I dont know if many will come from it , but Burns as an example would give a strong Scottish nationalist feeling , is there an opposite that we can highlight it on thier talk page aswell , to keep it even?Murry1975 (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually better to link to related WikiProjects, rather then articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bang on there buddy then , we need to find out what editors think and what way we should go about this . As I have already expressed if we flip it up there is going to be a mess and Wiki will not be any better for it - which is a concern of mine.Murry1975 (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProjects for the United Kingdom, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland & England, would likely be the ones. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the proposal for that article , maybe you should outline them here in one place , so I dont misunderstand the way you discribe things.Murry1975 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the adjective "British" would be quite incorrect for Irish people, even if it were to be used for those from Britain, i.e. England Wales and Scotland. I oppose the broader proposal on the grounds that it is quite unnecessary and that to refer to people from Ireland as being from Ireland is just as accurate and more helpful, as well as less likely to look like it's making a political point. It's also, on principle, historically dubious to project our way of dealing with the modern era of nation states back to previous periods in a blanket manner. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this is a flawed nonsense proposal so full of holes that it isn't even funny. Question: when do we draw the line on wikipedia on trolling?. SFC9394 (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF, in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGF isn't inexhaustible, so I shall hold my own prerogative, thanks very much. The question stands. SFC9394 (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please AGF, SFC9394. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would class all born in Ireland as Irish. i.e. Duke of Wellington was born in Ireland in 1769 when it was part of the Kingdom of Ireland. Or Ian Paisley was born in Northern Ireland in 1926. But I would still say that Ian Paisley is Irish, born in Ireland. Northern Ireland I grant you, but Ireland just the same. --BSTemple (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Duke of Wellington's infobox would have him born in the Kingdom of Ireland, pipelinked as Ireland. I'd have Paisley's infobox showing it as Northern Ireland, UK. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Attempting to impose uniformity where it is never, ever, going to work. This essay has sound advice on a very complex matter. It concludes that there is no "right" answer, and changing existing nationalities in an attempt to attain uniformity is futile and not sustainable. Self identification and usual association is far, far more indicative of how someone should be described. Concern about people self-identifying as "Martian" is a risible red-herring. If anyone chooses to identify themselves in a way that is totally at odds with the facts, then it can be addresses on a case by case basis. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, C. S. Lewis, the example given below, often refered to himself as Irish and not British. --BSTemple (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is the infobox. However these people are undisputedly British & so British should be used in the intros. Scotland hasn't been independant since 1707. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Example: Robert Burns, would have British in the intro & Scotland, GB or show as Great Britain in the infobox.

Example: C. S. Lewis, would have British in the intro & for his birth Ireland, UK in the infobox.
GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, may I observe that your position seems to have moved significantly compared to your OP. Pipelinking the word "Ireland" in an infobox to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland where arguably appropriate for historical reasons is worth discussing. But a proposal that would need community consensus for removing the words "Scottish", "Welsh", "Irish" from articles such as Robert Burns, Shirley Bassey and Éamon de Valera and substituting the word "British" should really be closed per WP:SNOW.
Why not instead look to explaining why your original proposal might be a good idea, notwithstanding anything else? --FormerIP (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I belive we need to show wich 'sovereign state' these individuals were born & died in, at the infobox. I accept that editors are going to oppose the intro proposal. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then what's the point in making it? --FormerIP (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the intro proposal, I assumed that consensus can change. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to show which 'sovereign state' these individuals were born & died in? Is the fact that Burns was born and died in the Kingdom of Great Britain significant? Can this not be determined, if the reader wishes, from the fact he was Scottish? The lead and the info box are all about hitting the most significant elements of a person's life and notability. I do not believe the 'sovereign state' is that important to most people, not nearly as significant as their identified nationality. And any attempt to cover such a complicated matter from both angles, in all articles, is bound to confuse and be disputed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I believe it is important to show their sovereign state of birth & death. These people are British, a fact that can't be retroactively denied. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the reason why this should be done is because you think it is important? Is that all you have to support your proposal? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, so we don't mislead readers into thinking England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales are sovereign states. Pluss we don't want to mislead readers into thinking that the island of Ireland was a sovereign state since 1801. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not mislead people into thinking that England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, & Wales are independent. just as you were told only a short time ago that the maps on those articles did not mislead them into thinking they were independent. Like Formerip, I too wonder why you raised this proposal when you confess that you knew that editors would disagree with it. Carson101 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There'll always be editors in disagreement on 'any' WikiProject discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. But, if I "knew" that a proposal of mine had no chance of consensus I wouldn't bother proposing it in the first place. It's like putting a bet on a horse that you knew for sure was not going to win. A bit pointless. Carson101 (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. Meanwhile, I've not attempted to impliment my proposals. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, very few bio articles have any relevance to sovereign states, do not discuss sovereign states, and can't be accused of leading the reader to any conclusion about sovereign states. What they do convey is the person's "nationality", which is a flexible term with some leeway. If the reader wishes to know about sovereign states then Biographies are not the place to find out about them on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would anybody object to Nationality being deleted from the intro & infoboxes of bio articles? GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a point, please make it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's of little importance to show where a person was born or died (in terms of their nationality), one may aswell not have any of it in the infobox or in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where a person was born or died does not determine their nationality. So I am at a loss to the relevance. And even more so as to what this has to do with sovereign states. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to avoid mis-representation in the intro & infoboxes. Readers could get the impression that England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & the whole island of Ireland are sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Show me what, in the introduction or infobox for Robert Burns would give people the impression that Scotland is, or was at his time, a sovereign state. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says he's a Scottish poet (in the intro) & was born & died in Scotland (in the infobox). In most other bios, we use Iranian/Iran, Japanese/Japan, Russian/Russia. But as I said before, I'm flexible with infobox concerning England, Scotland & Wales - due to provinces/territories & states being 'ony' used in many Canadian & American bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We also describe various people as Italian and German even though there wasn't an Italian or German state at the time. I don't see why Scotland, England or Ireland (and, to judge by your latest comment, particularly Ireland) should pose any greater problem. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only concentrating on the British Isles, now. If my proposals are passed - then I will check into the other cases. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other thoughts

The IMOS issue on what to state Ireland as pre-1922 has been bubbling under my skin for a while as it appears to be possibly politically motiviated. Here is the clause:

For people born before independence in 1922, describe their birthplace as simply Ireland (not Ireland). Similarly, for people born before 3 May 1921 in what today is Northern Ireland say Ireland, not Northern Ireland or Ireland, and do not describe them as Northern Irish.

Why must we link to a land mass rather than the state? Other bio's that have someone born in a former state, state it, not the land mass. Is it to cover-up the fact Ireland was part of the UK?

Regardless of that this isn't an issue for England, Scotland, or Wales as they are historical countries/states and are also regions of the UK with their own articles that can be easily linked to. There is no article that covers Ireland for this time period at this moment in time.

Thus my suggestion for amending this clause to bypass this discrepiency:

  1. For people born between 1800 and 1922 we use the following pipe-link: [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Ireland]]
  2. For people born between 1542 and 1800 we use the following pipe-link: [[Kingdom of Ireland|Ireland]]

That way we don't link to an island, but follow the style of other bio's and link to the actual state at the time, though we keep the link to just stating "Ireland". Also this point 1 would be a temporary measure until an article can be created that covers the island of Ireland during its stint as part of the UK, which we could then pipe-link to, i.e.: [[Ireland (1800-1921)|Ireland]]

Thoughts? Mabuska (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm suggesting, link to UKofGB&I (1801-1922) & KoI (1542-1800). GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To a degree, but you had other ideas you'd like implemented that'd be going a bit too far for some people. England/Scotland/Wales all have their own wiki-articles that can be linked to so they don't need piped. Ireland for its stint in the UK at present doesn't, and a more relevant link than just the island is needed. Mabuska (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wanna pipelink England, Scotland & Wales. I wanna have the United Kingdom, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or Kingdom of Great Britain, placed next to'em in the infobox, pipe-linked as UK, UKGBI & GB. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Ireland is perfectly relevant and quite adequate - just as plenty of articles about Italian people, for example, say they were born in Italy even if they were born before 1861. The only potentially more relevant alternative would be History_of_Ireland_(1801–1923), and it should be immediately obvious in fact that that article is likely to be far more relevant to any Irish person from that period - even if they emigrated to Britain! - than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which is essentially an article about the history of the legal union between Britain and Ireland. The history of Britain during that period, incidentally, is not covered in that article but in History of the United Kingdom. However, no-one was ever born in History of Ireland, and anyway, there's no need to change what isn't broken. The article about Ireland is an article about a country (albeit not a state), not just a land-mass. Land masses don't have distinct cultures, political histories, etc. I congratulate GoodDay, however, on a reasonably successful piece of provocation.
Neither, for that matter, do I see much basis for the argument that Ireland is in some way less suitable than England or Scotland as a link for these purposes. Yes, those articles state that those countries are part of the United Kingdom. But Ireland states that Ireland was part of the United Kingdom in the period in question, so this is hardly a problem. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike your comment "I congratulate GoodDay, however, on a reasonably successful piece of provocation" from your post. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You have succeeded in starting a whole new argument on a topic which you presumably knew would be controversial, since you had made the same proposal about this time last year and it was (a) controversial and (b) resoundingly defeated. I am commenting on it now because, unfortunately, in Wikipedia sometimes silence is indeed taken as consent. But my congratulations are sincere. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plese strike your comment "I congratulate GoodDay, however, on a reasonably successful pierce of provocation" from your post. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again I ask, why? ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're attacking my motives & thus breaching AGF. So again, would you please strike that comment. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I agree to strike my comments, will you agree to explain why it is necessary to resurrect a failed proposal on a controversial issue (without, incidentally, having mentioned that this was a second go)? That way, I will be assuming good faith, and you will be, per WP:DGF, be demonstrating good faith. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that consensus could change. Now, please strike your aforementioned comment. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I will strike it out of respect for your feelings on the matter, but I would suggest that you consider whether bringing the matter up was well-advised. I remain of the opinion that it is (and could have been predicted to be, given the failure of the same proposal last year) highly unlikely to change consensus, and it has clearly already succeeded in provoking controversy. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, controversy only exists when political sensativities aren't laid aside. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LAME suggests that while political sensitivities certainly help create controversy, they're by no means a necessary ingredient. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There already is an article covering Ireland during the relevant period, it can be found at Ireland. I will ask what people believe happened to Ireland when the Act of Union occurred? Did it cease to be a country and become a "landmass"? Did the same thing happen to England, Scotland and Wales at similar points in their histories too? There is zero chance of any proposal succeeding if it attempts to impose a standard on Ireland related articles only. 2 lines of K303 13:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay's proposal withdrawn

It's been over 3-days & it's obvious that my proposals aren't gonna be adopted. There's one thing in the Wikipedia:UKNAT essay, that I can't dispute -- It is impossible to gain uniformity across these bio articles. I imagine it would be 10 times as difficult to get uniformity with (for example) Italian & German bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yours might be, but mine isn't. Mabuska (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley and TCB Band

TCB Band page claims Elvis invented the acronym (for "Taking Care of Business"). I thought it was common amongst African American communities at the time. Is there any documentation that he invented it? 173.164.183.149 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Monti and Lucas Papademos

User:Noherzl is making wild, unsubstantiated claims on these articles (about some kind of "monetarist coup against democracy"). Needless to say such edits have been reverted (by numerous editors including myself), but the editor in question has just reverted them back each time. I've tried to reason with the editor on their talk page, but it seems this is being ignored. Perhaps sanctions need to be taken against this editor and/or the articles need to be protected. «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the problem has ceased (at least temporarily) - either the message did get through, or they just got bored... «dæɑðe jekwæɑld» (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Watch closely... Colleagues, blogs are for debating politics; Wikipedia is for getting the facts straight. Maria Ashot (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Noize

Will someone in this project more familiar with the policies and guidelines related to its material plesae take a look at the article Boys Noize and determine what if anything from the removed talk page templates below should be readded as a result of the page's reinstatement on Wikipedia? In particular, I am concerned about the OTRS ticket as it relates to the article in its current format. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{ConfirmationOTRS|source=http://www.facebook.com/boysnoize?v=info%7Clicense=d%7Cotrs=2011012110008037 }

{WPBiography |living=yes |class=Stub |auto=yes |musician-work-group=yes |listas=Boys Noize }

{WikiProject Germany|class=stub|importance= }

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

Richard Stilwell's huge stature

General Stilwell's Stature: I met Dick just after he stepped down from the UN top spot. Nixon had just given our intel mechanism a big black eye and we were like now, on the verge of anarchy. I worked briefly for him and witnessed his addresses an many occasions. He was the greatest orator I have ever heard. No one who heard one of his addresses, ever failed to give him a standing ovation. His voice boomed like a cannon, mesmerizing the entire audience. You knew he gave you the truth. Sitting in the audience while Dick was standing alone, delivering an address on a stage or at the podium, you might speculate this man's height might be well over 6 feet. In one of the "Alcatraz" movies, a scene has Dick boating over to the rock and telling the warden, in his office, that he was there to help. The moviegoer could easily relate to Dick's extreme stature by subconscious comparison to his aides. They didn't even reach his shoulders. I have related this history of Dick's saga of perception to note that Dick actually shared a physical statistic with Audie Murphy, they were both smaller than I am. My friend Gary had Murphy's shoe last to make him boots. The lasts were for a 100 lb. guy. I worked for Dick on several projects and we spent a lot of time together in hotel rooms. In our bare feet, I was an inch taller than Dick. I am 5' 8" and I weigh 150 pounds.

Stature is all about perception, creating the icon. Richard Stilwell was the Icon of all Icons. He was the brains behind saving us from that meltdown. He will probably never be known for what his greatest accomplishment was, because of the administrative need for secrecy.

Patrick Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmichael2012 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copvio?

Much of the text at Randolph Kirkpatrick is the same as at its 2nd reference. I can't be sure which way round the copying went, but it looks more likely to have been copied into wikipedia. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muriel Paget -- actually, an excellent biography!

Why on earth would anyone rate the page on Muriel Paget as "Start Class" and "Low Importance"?

Is it because she was a witness to Bolshevik atrocities and we would like to forget those ever occurred?

Is it because her life story reveals a moment of closeness between the UK and Imperial Russia at the time of the First World War, and references charitable acts, including acts in which the Empress Alexandra of Russia, grand-daughter of Queen Victoria, was involved?

Or is it because she was a woman?

I have read and used many articles on Wikipedia that are less important, more trivial and more poorly written -- especially in the Russian-language portal, which I am well-qualified to evaluate, but also sometimes in the French portal (which can use considerable expansion). I should also mention that I am, indeed, quite favourably impressed by the calibre of the Polish articles, their breadth and depth.

Lady Paget's life became a matter of investigation for me in connection with some professional historical research into World War I. To my surprise, you have an excellent article here on Wiki about her, yet why is it rated so unfavourably?

I have been around enough, teaching and reading, to know that there are plenty of people who for all of the reasons I enumerate above will attempt to get a piece buried or dismissed.

I should like to point out, if I may, that the contributions of women, especially at critical times during the war-plagued 20th century, are extremely important for study and generally poorly known. That does not make such articles 'less important' -- it makes them, if anything, more important.

Furthermore, the article on Lady Muriel Paget has good detail, whilst also opening up avenues for further elaboration, but rather well covering many of her impressive contributions and extraordinary travels during wartime and revolution. There is no lack of clarity in the article. Neither is there error.

I appeal to the community of users not to be too hasty in dismissing articles -- especially Biographies -- which seem to be of small consequence to you in your field. I can imagine, for example, that a Physicist might not readily discern what is important in the life and accomplishments of Lady Paget. But someone who writes military history, or the history of medicine, who happens to know which distinguished neurosurgeon served at her Anglo-Russian hospital and there advanced his expertise in neural trauma (Dr Jeffers) -- or someone who is interested in the rise of international philanthropy, not to mention the influence of women at a time when the matter of allowing women to vote was still very much a struggle even in the UK & US -- would find this article enormously useful.

Keep in mind, please, that very often areas where historical detail in even advanced textbooks is hazy yield nuggets of priceless discoveries, when one simply consults the biographical summary of an eye-witness to important events. That is when all kinds of fascinating details and connections jump out.

Meanwhile, whoever wrote up Lady Muriel Paget, kudos! Thank you! And Lady Paget -- wherever in whatever form you might be in the Cosmos -- thank you for your life of courage and initiative and relentless generosity! Maria Ashot (talk) 07:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Or is it because she was a woman?" Indirectly, I expect. In the grand scheme of things, her influence was pretty small (as compared to, say, Florence Nightingale or Clara Barton). And if you want to praise the originator, User:Dalkeith46 deserves the credit, as the page history reveals... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's partly a terminology problem, I'd say. In my experience, articles marked "low" in importance are the ones it's most important for Wikipedia to have. Articles marked "start" class are often well written, adequately documented and of suitable length. But the terminology is the same across all Wikipedia projects and I can't see it changing :) Andrew Dalby 12:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Carter-Ruck

Non notable person. The article should be deleted or merged with the law firm 'carter ruck'.

Lawyers that start law firms are ten a penny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.46.187 (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the rubric at the top of the edit screen, it would be better simply to put a pointer from here to Talk:Peter Carter-Ruck where you've also (correctly) raised the issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lansing Brown Jr. page

This article speak more about Refugio Ruiz than it does about Lansing Brown Jr, and should be either removed or totally rewritten to cover the the subject not his assistant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.38.21 (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Dee Myers

Hello there, I'd like to see if there is anyone here interested in reviewing a proposed improved verison of a BLP article I've researched and written. The current article is Dee Dee Myers, about the former White House press secretary, and my proposed replacement is here. Under other circumstances I would have moved my version into place already, but it happens that I work with Ms. Myers' employer, and I have prepared it with their input, so I want to be very careful about following COI guidelines. To this end I have already placed an explanatory note on the Myers Talk page and asked for assistance at COI/N, but so far I've received no response. I'm quite certain that my draft is an improvement—certainly the current version has very few citations—but I would like to get an uninvolved editor's feedback, if at all possible. Otherwise I may just move it soon. Please respond to the Myers discussion if you are so inclined. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any COI problems. The article looks balanced and well cited. I've cleaned it up a bit. I suggest that you just go ahead and copy it over the current article. FurrySings (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you very much! I've reviewed your changes, and they look good to me. I'll move it over now. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Zamperini

The "Post War" section is not well cited. Many of the statements seem more like things that would be more appropriate in a revival meeting rather than in a BLP on wikipedia. I'm not sure if it's better to put 'citation needed' on these, or on the whole section, or just remove the statements all together. I suspect that there is some truth to the statements, they may just need to be rewritten to be more neutral. Catsintheattic (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rob Graham (attorney)

This bio is a vanity piece of a bankruptcy lawyer, likely written by the subject himself or his firm.DCX (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help on W. E. B. Du Bois

The article W. E. B. Du Bois is almost ready to be submitted for consideration as a Featured Article. If anyone has time, it would be helpful to have additional reviewers at the in-progress peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/W. E. B. Du Bois/archive1. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical English Roman Catholics

It has been suggested that most historical persons before the 16th century should be removed from Category:English Roman Catholics - at least those who were Roman Catholics by default without a significant impact of their Catholicism on their lives, such as, say, Henry V of England. Input would be welcome at Category talk:English Roman Catholics. Huon (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox writer

It is proposed to merge {{Infobox writer}} into {{Infobox person}}; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 17#Template:Infobox writer. Your views will be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assessing

Resolved

hello,

to avoid edit-warring, can someone say if Otis Redding is really B-status, or rather C-status. Thanks.--♫GoP♫TCN 21:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Picture of Ian Kershaw

Does anyone not have a picture that can be used for Ian Kershaw's page he is well known and I think it would be good to see a picture of him on his page, he is well known and a cited historian who has done many good things like completely disproving the myth that Hitler was Jewish or of Jewish ancestry for example.--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

when did robert creamer die?

For everyone that can help please answer this one simple question as soon as posible. When did Robert Creamer die? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.27.141 (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for third opinion

Can another set of eyes please add their thoughts at Talk:Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab#Sunni or Kharijite. An editor keeps trying to support contentious claims with unreliable sources, despite repeated warnings. I've begun dialogue on the talk page, but that hasn't paused the editor's article adjustments. Thank you. ClaretAsh 00:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Šuvcāne, Baiba. "He was proud to be a Liv..."
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography&oldid=466940450"