Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 62

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

George Strait

George Strait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While working on some modules I noticed that the some edits at the above article need to be checked and probably reverted (the "born" date in the infobox is currently showing "invalid day"). However, I cannot see an old version that I can quickly identify as "probably good". Edits in recent weeks have changed several key details. Would someone with a clue please check it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the diff back to September 2016, checked against sources for anything that looked like vandalism, and fixed the obvious ones. There may be more that I missed; much of the information is not sourced, or to outdated sources. I have watchlisted the article. Kind of surprised this happened to such a famous musician, usually these guys are watched over pretty closely by their fans. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was also surprised that it was not more widely monitored. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Article that's promoting the subject

Hi Is there anyone who's a more experienced Wikipedia editor that could help me out with improving my page 'Simon Cohen (communication expert)'? I have a conflict of interest as I am currently working together with the subject of the page. I have submitted the page although I alone have not written the text for the article. Which words are a no-no for a biography that's promoting the subject? Thanks, and I truly appreciate any advice on this.MatildeZ (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Chloe Khan

Could someone more experienced than me look at the notes I've put on the above link? IPs (presumably same person) keep removing text, some uncontroversial, some controversial but carefully worded and cited. The edit summaries have generally given no reason, but on 4th May there was one with legal threats, which I've only just seen. Thanks for any help anyone can offer, Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Lars von Trier, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Linnda R. Caporael

I added a section on Linnda R. Caporael's page titled, "Contribution to Historiography of Salem Witch Trials". There was no mention of her new ergotism theory to the Salem trials and the debate that it created among scholars. I also added a few footnotes, and fixed some grammar in the "Educational Background" section as well. I think adding a section about her new theory was helpful, because there wasn't much information about her otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annie.farrington (talk • contribs) 00:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill proposal at WP:Citation overkill talk page

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Robert miles photo.jpg

The image File:Robert miles photo.jpg is nominated for discussion, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

How to describe the Emmett Till case in the lead sentence of the Emmett Till article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emmett Till#RfC: Should we include the "accused of showing an interest in a white woman" aspect in the lead or specifically the lead sentence?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Scania/Skane

Shouldn't Duke of Scania and Duchess of Scania be covered under one article? One seems to list the consorts of the other -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Yolanda Saldívar, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Ajay Ohri

Would someone from WP:BIOG mind taking a look at Ajay Ohri to see if he's really notable for a stand-alone article article per WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR? Some of the sources cited are pretty trivial things which are very unlikely to be considered the WP:SIGCOV needed to show notability. I'm asking here because better sources may exist and someone here may know where to find them. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I'm not really an expert on writing biographies of open source bloggers, but it looks non-notable to me. You could try checking tech web sites, but I didn't see anything useful at the ones I checked. You can see a few listed at Category:Technology websites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. Others have started to clean up the article a bit so perhaps some better sources will be added as part of that or at least some of the more poorly sourced stuff removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I did some cleanup there but he really looks non-notable to me. I suggest AfD. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Kendall-K1 -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Ugo Rondinone

Would someone mind taking a look at this article and reassessing it? To me most of the sources appear to be trivial mentions, gallery bio pages or reviews. The only independent sources seems to be ta New York Times, but the subject is only mentioned at the very end in a listing for one of his exhbitions. Anyway, other might have a different take on things so figured I'd ask. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Seeking feedback for Draft:James F. Allen (businessman)

Resolved

Greetings, WikiProject Biography members. Since editors here work on a lot of biographical articles, I'm hoping I can get some additional feedback on a draft I recently submitted to AfC. This draft article for James F. Allen, written on his behalf and as part of my work with Beutler Ink, was declined by User:SwisterTwister for being "Too suggestive of an advertised business profile for clients, notability cannot be inherited from others and the sources are largely consisting of simple announcements, local business journals, notices and similar." I posted a reply on the draft's talk page, and received a reply in the form of an additional AfC comment that said the sources were "not significant weight-ful of notability, including because they include local business publications and similar". I'm not entirely sure what this means because I thought the sources used are considered major publications (for example, Forbes and The Press of Atlantic City); it would be helpful to get editors from here to take a look and point me in the right direction.

I appreciate the AfC process and SwisterTwister's review of the draft, but this process has not really provided specific ways to improve the draft, so I'm casting a wider net and reaching out to this WikiProject for additional input. Are there are WikiProject Biography members who are willing to review this draft and provide additional feedback? Thanks in advance for any assistance. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I am marking this section as 'resolved' since the article has been moved into the main space. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Armenian politician

Is anyone able to figure out if we have an article about this politician please? Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Zaruhi Postanjyan. The name is being spelled "Zarui Postanjian" by the US media. I will create a redirect. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I improved the layout and added a short subsection, "Police altercation".Zigzig20s (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Citing significant relationships in BLP personal life sections

More input needed on this ongoing talk discussion (and this BLPN discussion) about citing significant relationships in a BLP. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A Request for Comment has been created here. Input appreciated. Lapadite (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC

There is a discussion about the article Don Reitz at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Don_Reitz. Please voice your opinion. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Archive 62/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Biography.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Biography, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

An invitation to participate in the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)

Hi there! I wanted to let you know that the Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified 5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.

You are invited to join the discussions taking place on these 5 themes here on Wikipedia (you can also use the Meta Strategy portal to locate and participate in discussions outside of English Wikipedia). This round of discussions will end on June 12th. You can discuss as many themes as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.

Here are the five themes and links to their information/discussion pages here on English Wikipedia. Each also has a page on Meta-Wiki (follow the link in the previous paragraph!) with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:

On the movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki, you can find more information about each of these themes, see the locations of discussions about them across numerous projects and languages, and learn how to participate.

Thanks for reading, and I hope to see you there! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking for dates

Hello. Does anyone have any suggestions to find the dates of birth and death of Spires Boling, an architect in the Antebellum South please? Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017 offerings @ WikiProject Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:Nefertari.jpg "Met artwork by women" "LGBTQ women & Wiki Loves Pride" "Pre-20-century women"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Abu Eesa Niamatullah

Hello! I am notifying interested projects and editors that I've listed Abu Eesa Niamatullah for discussion at AfD.

I invite you all to contribute to the discussion. Mujaddouda (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people by occupation

Lists of people by occupation is being discussed for deletion. Softlavender (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I "officially" join this project?

I am rather new to wiki-ing. I completed my first big article and it is a biography of a woman (I think that fits two or three needed/sought/desirable categories).

So! How do I join this project and the subprojects.

I have noodled around on the pages with no success..... QvixenSSF (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)QvixenSSF / SuzQ! (new handle -coming soon).

You don't have to do anything, really. But if you want to make it all official and everything, you could add your name to this list. I think some of the subprojects also have their own membership lists. You'd have to check their pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Atmosphere of editing biographical articles

Is editing or discussing biographical articles increasingly tense and heated lately? Individual infobox discussions don't generally get heated, e.g. Talk:2017 Berkeley protests. However, debates about biographical infoboxes do get heated, like Talk:Stanley Kubrick and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. I also realize the heat is no longer limited to infoboxes.

The filmography of Erin Moran was removed but then reverted. Then the discussion about the filmography got heated at Talk:Erin Moran, though the issue has been resolved.

Also, some non-free images of deceased persons get removed (or deleted), like an image of Robert Miles (FFD), while some other non-free images remain (especially after failed attempts to remove or delete them), like those of Reg Grundy (FFD) and Tony Scott. The votes at FFD were split, but the individual results may vary.

Also, the guideline WP:NSPORTS is challenged and debated at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). The discussion is still pending a closure.

Again, are discussions about biographical articles and individuals increasingly heated? If so, why? If not, how else can the phenomena exemplified by the above be explained? --George Ho (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Each topic has its drama magnets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And we have another biography-trend drama addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, though it's mostly about one editor's conduct. Still, I began to realize how drama-tic editing biographies are. --George Ho (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems so to me too, but I assumed it was just the articles I've been involved with lately. If it's a general trend it would be interesting to know why. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... what articles were you working on? By the way, the "Mary Tyler Moore filmography and awards" was split off from "Mary Tyler Moore" when the subject herself died. George Ho (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Chloe Khan until it got deleted. I will admit that I'm attracted to unpopular people's articles. I believe that Wikipedia articles shouldn't suffer just because the subject was a mass murderer, or started WWI, or scammed millions of elderly people out of billions of dollars. Roosh V is one of my favorites. Everybody hates him, and although I don't like the guy, I enjoy defending his article. But even considering my choice of subjects, I would agree that things are more heated now than say five years ago. BTW thanks for the NSPORTS pointer, but that discussion seems quite rational and tame compared to some I've seen recently. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I figure that the heat is no longer limited to just BLPs. Well, I'm not sure how much it extended to biographies of deceased persons. I was thinking just infoboxes and images. The prose content has been easier to resolve. For example, I was working on "Tommy Page" and "Stuart Timmons" because their sexualities were disputed until then verified. Hmm... maybe it's not just existing biographies. I was working on draft biographies, and the rate of shifting a draft to mainspace has been in 50/50, but there were just the drafts that I contributed to. Maybe the standards of notabilities have increased over the years? Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) may have a lot of discussions about people involved in porn industry, but it also has discussions about other people. Then again, as you said, the discussion about NSPORTS is rational and tame. Probably I just got frustrated when some of the drafts don't pass and when some non-free images get deleted. --George Ho (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Military biography articles: FA/GA discussion

MilHist project is hosting a discussion on GA / FA articles that have been tagged as possibly having unreliable sources. The discussion can be found here:

MILHIST: GA / FA articles.

Interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Two images re-nominated for deletion at WP:FFD

The following two images are nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 8: File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg and File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg. I invite you to discuss those separate nominations. --George Ho (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Melvyn Morrow -- trimming needed?

Can anyone from this project please take a look at this playwright's biography? It contains an awful lot of uncited and rambling material, it seems to me, and discusses various amateur productions. All the best! -- 65.78.11.228 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Allott

I have concerns about the notability of this person. Article seems to be a puff piece by a paid editor. Any advice would be appreciated. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Allott Bosley John Bosley (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with article Stewart W. Bainum Jr.

Hi there, I'm here to see if there are any editors from this WikiProject who would be able to review a draft to update the article for Stewart W. Bainum Jr. Mr. Bainum is a former Maryland state lawmaker and current chairman of Choice Hotels. His current article is quite short possibly due to the fact that a lot of the more in-depth sources about him are older and in newspaper archives. Based on news clippings provided by Mr. Bainum and from research on Lexis Nexis and HighBeam, I've been able to find a lot of older sources that provide information about his political career and his development of the company that became Choice Hotels. If this piques your interest, I have posted an edit request on the article's Talk page with more details. The new draft is saved in my user space here: User:16912_Rhiannon/Stewart_W._Bainum_Jr

Let me know if you have any feedback or questions about the new draft. Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Done This request has been reviewed. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of regicides of Charles I for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to Osama bin Laden at RfD

Just to notify that both redirects, Obama bin Laden and Obama Bin Laden, are discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 4#Obama Bin Laden, where I invite you to join. --George Ho (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Alice Bah Kuhnke, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team}

Proposed deletion of Edwin Jürgensen

The article Edwin Jürgensen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

relies on a single source and also lacks any notability, also lacks any information

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BSOleader (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracies on S. Robson Walton

Hello! There are inaccuracies on S. Robson Walton regarding his marital status and children. I posted an edit request to have these details corrected. Can someone from WikiProject Biography assist with this? I will not direct edit the page because I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; I work with the Walton family office, as I disclosed on my user page. Let me know if you have any questions on my request. Thanks, Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 18:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Help needed: Adding image to infobox

Resolved

Greetings, WikiProject Biography members. Recently, my AfC submission for James F. Allen (businessman) was accepted, but I'm now looking for someone to add an image of Mr. Allen to the article's infobox. I prefer not to edit the article myself because of my disclosed conflict of interest, so I submitted an edit request on the article's talk page. Is someone here willing to add the image to the inbox on my behalf? Thanks in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Inkian Jason, referring this back to article talk page to respond (as edit window page notice seems to imply...) thanks! Fylbecatulous talk 17:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

One editor is concerned about adding the image to the infobox because of the pending OTRS template, but I don't think this should be a problem. Is another editor comfortable adding a headshot image to a biography infobox? @Dank, Sandstein, and Wizardman: I see you are active members of WikiProject Biography, so I am hoping one of you might be willing to help with this simple task? I simply prefer not to edit the article directly. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The image has been added, so I am marking this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ronald Francis

Was wndering if someone would mind taking a look at Ronald Francis and assessing it for notability. It appears to have been created as a WP:AUTOBIO by the subject itself, and is not supported by any citations to reliable sources. I don't think Francis is notable per WP:BIO, but I'm not sure about WP:ARTIST. Anyway, any feedback on the article's notability would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Newish user creating hundreds of DWB-sourced stubs

Editors at this project may want to review the work of Helenrp (talk · contribs), who has been creating hundreds of biographical stub articles sourced to only the Dictionary of Welsh Biography. The main problems with their work include:

All articles are one-source. More sources need to added. the ones which fail GNG need to be AfD'd.
Too specific disambiguation terms in title. Many articles need to be renamed to use proper disambiguation terms.
Many articles which actually meet GNG are likely to have scope for plenty of expansion.

223.227.31.61 (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

From her talk page, it looks like this is an initiative of National Library of Wales. Someone could alert the WP:GLAM people, I guess, if they're not already involved. They might be able to provide guidance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.

File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The Signpost/The State of Task Forces in 2017

Are your project's task forces struggling to survive? Or is it just the opposite? What are strategies do your task forces use? Does your project even think task forces need to be replaced? Whatever the case The Signpost wants to know! Have one of your task forces go to User:22mikpau/Signpost/John Rocco edit-a-thon to contribute a section about their story. NOTE: This peice is an opinion peice with severel different editers contributing and the veiws of your task force or project may not be expressed in the articles entirety. Any questions can be left on the talk page. 22mikpau (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Who attended what and was seen where = notable info?

Three questions:

Why does it seem to be an acceptable standard, especially in biographies of royalty, to list what weddings or christenings they attended, what ceremeonies they were seen at etc etc etc?
Can I safely (based on any known guideline) remove such non-notable info that only takes up space, as I see it?
Am I asking this question in the wrong place?

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong. That is notable within in the context of royalty. It does not "take up space" it is information about the official work of the royals. We do not change guidelines to serve our own purposes. Or ignore them.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

What guideline covers this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Very good question. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A few points:

SergeWoodzing is asking questions. It is not wrong to ask questions.
This info does take up space. The question is whether it is undue to include it.
We do change guidelines to suit particular circumstances. See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
We also sometimes ignore guidelines, and even policies. See WP:IAR.

Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

So we should ignore guidelines when it fits. Interesting. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

And yes, it was a question. And last time checked questions requires answers. Even if the answers does not fit in to the person askings agenda.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Since nobody up to this point has actually addressed your questions, I will try.

Can't really say, I don't get much involved in Royalty articles. Have a few on my watchlist but mostly for vandalism. The kind of info you see to be talking about to me does not seem to be important enough to include in an encyclopedia article about a person.
Yes you can. Always remember BRD. If someone reverts, discuss it, don't get into an edit war about it.
This is an acceptable place to ask this type of question. You can also post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility pointing to this discussion so the members there can explain their thoughts.

~ GB fan 10:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and especially for your non-aggressive, constructive tone. I will follow your advice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:People who turned down an award has been nominated for discussion

Category:People who turned down an award has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ever discussed re: desired personal impact of WP editors on bios of the famous?

I have now contributed to Wikimedia projects for many years, and I'm ready to ask another question based on those years of experience, hoping that nobody will be too offended and also that I'm asking it in the right place.

Q: Does anyone know if it ever has been discussed on these pages or elsewhere that a few editors, who seem to want to own certain articles about royalty and other famous people, or at least want be seen as having a considerable personal impact on those life stories, often contribute to those articles more from that personal impact angle than from a strictly encyclopedic standpoint?

I am not alleging that this is a major problem, nor that many editors behave that way, but after all these years, it seems to me that a guideline might be appropriate with a wording something like this: Never ~~let it show that you~~ contribute to any article about a famous person because you primarily want your own personal impact on that life story to be evident.

Please feel free to comment candidly, but preferably in a constructive and non-aggressive manner. Some of you might have no idea at all what I'm talking about. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

In no particular order, my thoughts in reply to this good faith question are.... (A) it isn't clear-cut that this is a problem, for two reasons. First, there are no examples listed and second, one can be so motivated and yet still be adding decent encyclopedic content with excellent NPOV and RSs. (B) Assuming for sake of argument that this is a problem, the proposed text urges people to go ahead and engage in that problematic behavior, but just be sneaky about it. (C) The proposed solution to the alleged problem strikes me as WP:CREEP, because you've already said the targets of this proposed language are in violation of WP:OWN. Also, our rules are designed, in theory, to prevent problems. If the text of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, etc haven't gotten through to these editors, how do you think the addition of this new text will inspire prevention? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Good points, thank you! You made me laugh at my own suggested wording. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, and this place needs people who can laugh at themselves. I'm happy to meet another! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Objectivity check at Drashti Dhami

Hi all, I would consider it a favor if at least one other editor could please add Drashti Dhami to their watchlist to ensure objectivity and conformity to community standards. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I watchlisted it. Skimming through the history, puffery seems to be a problem. Have you thought about going to ANI? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sandro del Prete

The article Sandro del Prete has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability has not been established since it was questioned in September 2008. BLP with only one source and only one footnote.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Terrayne Crawford

The article Terrayne Crawford has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adil Doğançay

The article Adil Doğançay has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability has not been established since it was questioned in September 2008. COI per talk page.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Edgar L. Sanford

The article Edgar L. Sanford has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability has not been established since it was questioned in September 2008. Unsourced biography.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hermann Greulich

The article Hermann Greulich has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no references and lacks notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BSOleader (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017#Prodigy

Discussion about retaining the entry of Prodigy's death is occurring at Talk:2017#Prodigy, where I invite you to discuss. --George Ho (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC tag is inserted at Talk:2017#.5BReady.5D Prodigy. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

TFAR for Jennifer Lawrence

There is a request for Jennifer Lawrence to be featured on the main page for her upcoming birthday on August 15th. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Jennifer Lawrence for more. Would prefer responses sooner rather than later. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy

Hi. I'd like to invite you to Cycle 3 of the Wikimedia Movement Strategy discussions. This cycle is focused on the challenges identified by the research that was conducted in collaboration with experts, current/potential partners, and current/potential readers of the Wikimedia projects. Every week until the end of July, one challenge will be discussed, so if you're not interested in - say - challenge 1, don't forget to have a look on the page later this month.

If you want to ask a question, ping me or read the FAQ. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Help request Draft:Charles Jeffrey Gray

Hi, This (Draft:Charles Jeffrey Gray) is my first attempt at an article and I am aware that there is potential for conflict of interest as it's about my late father. It has been suggested that I should ask at this project for assistance and I would be grateful if someone with knowledge of these matters could take a look? Many thanks Robertjgray (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"Nader El-Bizri"

Please check what is taking place around the article "Nader El-Bizri" since this was proposed for deletion, but the reasons put forward touch upon statements that harm the reputation of the living person it covers. The ranking and merits of the work of a living person should be judged by their peers and not simply by random wikipedia users, especially if the deletion has not been requested by someone specializing in academia but by someone who has been covering businessmen and billionaires. Please check this serious matter since it lowers the integrity of wikipedia and causes actual harm to living people, especially if they are in the public domain and well known in their field. The article exists since 2008 and it received a thousand of edits, by multiple users, and visited by you and checked numerous times over the years. If you are unable to ckeck it, maybe suggest how to call for responsible and experienced editors to do. Thanks (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8170:FF93:C1C4:942C (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

Proposed deletion of Jan Konůpek

The article Jan Konůpek has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks citations

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BSOleader (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Juan Valdivia (insurgent soldier)

The article Juan Valdivia (insurgent soldier) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphan and dependent on only one source

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BSOleader (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources for Joshua Waddington

I honestly could not find much articles on him, but I listed what I did find. - Book: https://books.google.com/books/about/CASE_OF_ELIZABETH_RUTGERS_VERS.html?id=KKhDvgAACAA - His court cases: https://books.google.com/books?id=HCNLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=joshua+waddington+facts&source=bl&ots=eh36sGUozs&sig=u4UDN8sKYexY9COZ0s-- BFtaHkGo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQtJjTrILVAhWLcj4KHWtJBCIQ6AEIRzAG#v=onepage&q=joshua%20waddington%20facts&f=false - Famous court cases: http://www.nycourts.gov/history/legal-history-new-york/legal-history-eras-02/history-new-york-legal-eras-rutgers-waddington.html Longtallsid (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hermann Graf

An article that is of interest to this project has been nominated for community reassessment. The discussion can be found here:

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hermann Graf/1.

Interested editors are invited to weigh in. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Luisa Gavasa

her page, just a stub actually, claims 50 movies.... but iMBD says only three, the rest of her credits are TV shows and all appear to be in Spanish. shouldn't the article receive Speedy Deletion on the ENGLISH Wikipedia? --Qazwiz (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Qazwiz, There's a Spanish article about her[1] and there are more sources than IMDB, particularly in Spanish, so it's not a great candidate for deletion. It seems to be a better candidate for expansion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Outline of revisions for Joshua Waddington

These revisions are for the Joshua Waddington page. I read through it and saw a few things that can be fixed. I plan to rewrite some sections as well as change around sentences. Longtallsid (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Longtallsid, Are you referring to comments at Talk:Joshua Waddington?

It's a big block of comments and I'm not sure what you're looking to do. Aren't these in the article already?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Noah brothers

There is an article entitled Noah brothers about Dan and Bramwell Noah, which contends that the duo are often credited as "Noah brothers" or "Noah Bros", but I am not seeing that is true based upon this search.

There is little in IMDB for them, such as this for Bramwell or Dan, where there is more info. In neither case is there mention of Noah Brothers.

What are your thoughts about this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I worked on the article and renamed it with the brother's names. Optionally, it could be named "Noah's Art Movies".–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Help with article Draft:Stephen_Maitland-Lewis

Is there anyone who'd be willing to take a stab at rewriting the article for 'Stephen_Maitland-Lewis? While I've been on Wikipedia for awhile, I haven't yet tackled writing a full Wikipedia entry. Supcomtabz (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Tabz

I see that there is Draft:Stephen Maitland-Lewis, but I also see that an article has been created and deleted many times.

19:09, March 15, 2016 Malcolmxl5 (talk | contribs) deleted page Stephen Maitland-Lewis (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Maitland-Lewis (3rd nomination) closed as delete)
14:17, March 7, 2016 Joe Decker (talk | contribs) restored page Stephen Maitland-Lewis (135 revisions restored: reopening AfD)
21:45, February 29, 2016 Joe Decker (talk | contribs) deleted page Stephen Maitland-Lewis (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Maitland-Lewis (3rd nomination) closed as delete)
17:38, June 8, 2014 Joe Decker (talk | contribs) deleted page Stephen Maitland-Lewis (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Maitland-Lewis (2nd nomination))
19:41, May 28, 2014 Joe Decker (talk | contribs) restored page Stephen Maitland-Lewis (77 revisions restored: restore my improper AfD close)
19:09, May 28, 2014 Joe Decker (talk | contribs) deleted page Stephen Maitland-Lewis (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Maitland-Lewis (2nd nomination))
13:24, October 15, 2009 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) deleted page Stephen Maitland-Lewis (Simply being published by XLibris is not an assertion of notability. Neither are the other statements about Mr Maitland-Lewis.)
05:45, April 18, 2007 Majorly (talk | contribs) deleted page Stephen Maitland-Lewis (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Maitland-Lewis)

Why do you think that the article might be viable now?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Pokerdealer123, SwisterTwister, Primefac, Supcomtabz, and Supcomtabz:–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the ping, since I work with these subjects after all. First of all, Supcomtabz The current page as is would not be enough to outweigh the past deletion, even if it's different than the last time; because what's currently in the article is not showing he's actually considered a significant figure; the awards are too trivial here and there's simply not nearly enough reviews. I'd of course be happy to work on this with whatever material can be offered differently but there's not enough to accept. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I declined the draft, and it hasn't changed since then, so my comments regarding its suitability are still valid (i.e. AFD concerns haven't been met). Primefac (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Germanicus needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Germanicus; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Elijah Daniel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah Daniel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Junayd of Aydın needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Junayd of Aydın; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge with Emily Dickinson or separate section / article about her sexuality?

There is a merge discussion at Talk:Emily_Dickinson#Proposed_merge_with_Kate_Scott_Turner about merging an article about someone that it seems that Dickinson loved with the main article. In my response, I have also posed the question about further exploring Dickinson's sexuality, which could be done within the main article or perhaps a separate article.

Any input would be wonderful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Reginald Harrison

[Following text copied here from the photo caption to reduce confusion]
Wondering if this is Reginald Harrison. Lotje (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The caption in the book says it is. Do you have some reason to think it's not? Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, It seems very possible. Can you connect any of the information on page 24 with the Dr. Harrison in the article?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss this on the article talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, I answered your question the best I could. I don't see what there is to discuss. If you think that there is something that needs to be discussed, may I recommend that you add it to the article talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Not unless Lotje (talk · contribs) wants to share with us why he thinks that might not be Harrison. And even then, the discussion does not belong here. (I just realized you might not know that I was replying to that editor, who asked his question in the photo caption instead of in the customary place.) Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Atobe Katsusuke

The article Atobe Katsusuke has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unreferenced

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BSOleader (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

BSOleader There were links from a few other articles, so I added two citations.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Petru Maior

The English language article says he was born in 1761, different dates of birth depending on the languages (!) The text indicates 1761. Anybody here who knows the exact date so it can be corrected everywhere? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Muse

Hi, quick question, do you think we could create a new category for 'Muse' for those notable individuals who have inspired others to create. It currently doesn't seem to exist on WP so wondered if it had been discussed before and maybe rejected as problematic or if there are cases where we could and should use it. e.g. Stella Cartwright and others listed in this article for instance. @Victuallers: Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinglehammer (talk • contribs) 13:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

My first thought is that it doesn't seem like a defining characteristic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI there is a Commons category:Muses, don't know if that may be helpful to inspire.

Lotje (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all @NinjaRobotPirate, Lotje, Kudpung, and Melissa Highton:. I've now discussed this with a few folk and, on balance, think there is a case for creating the new category as this can be a reasonably defining characteristic in some very notable instances. By way of example, I have added a few Wiki biographies to the category to illustrate (although a lot more could and should be added) as well as adding a definition to the new category to disambiguate it from the Greek goddesses. Let me know if you see any issues. Cheers, Stinglehammer (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Billy Davis (Arizona politician)

Can I get some eyes on Billy Davis (Arizona politician) please. It's basically a fluff piece written by a user whom I suspect is the article's subject. The vast majority of the article is complete personal scrapbooking and fluffery but I know nothing about the article subject to do much more. I've removed a lot (and I mean a lot) but there is a lot more work to do to make this article worthy of staying on Wikipedia. The subject is notable, minorly, so I've not tried to go through a deletion process but any attempts I've made to get more eyes on it have failed (e.g. politics and Arizona noticeboards.) So if anyone has any time and wants to get a huge pair of scissors to an article, this is your time. Cheers. Canterbury Tail talk 13:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, I used a huge pair of scissors to the article, and boy did it need it! I summarized the edits here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And you weren't kidding, those weren't scissors that was a flame thrower. Canterbury Tail talk 21:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, I am truly sorry to say that it's much worse now. I came back to find reliable sources and I am only finding sources for bad information about him. There's a posting about sources on the talk page if you have any suggestions, input, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Oh no that wasn't a criticism at all, it was just a comment on how much content was removed in the end. I'm happy with the look of the article now compared to previously. I should have put a smiley in earlier. The article was a complete mess. BLPs are not my area of exterptise and it was a random article I came across on a general search for articles to improve. I hugely appreciate the time you've put into this. Canterbury Tail talk 11:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, I didn't misunderstand, although I can see it sounds that way. I just meant that there was a lot more cut now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Leonard Charles van Noppen of Charles Leonard Van Noppen

Anybody here who knows if Leonard Van Noppen and Leonard Charles van Noppen are related and in which way? See also: s:Author talk:Leonard Van Noppen Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Made an edit to change the piped "Category" to "Leonard Charles van Noppen".–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Simone Manuel

Hello! There is currently a dispute at Simone Manuel, an article under this WikiProject's scope, regarding the statement that Manuel is the first black woman to win a swimming gold in an individual event and whether or not Ranomi Kromowidjojo's racial background renders this statement incorrect for Manuel. Other editors are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Simone Manuel#Simone Manuel, the first black woman to win a gold medal? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 22:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Bibliography/Works" section

Hello. User:DrFleischman has removed the bibliography section from Antonio Spadaro's article. I have asked them to restore it but they suggest it should be redacted because of WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY. I disagree. It seems absolutely standard to add a "Works" section with a list of the books authored by the subject of an article; however, I could be wrong. What does WikiProject Biography think please? Should the content be restored? Otherwise, is there a strict rule against adding "works" sections in biographical articles please? Hopefully we can reach consensus and come to an understanding once and for all, as they have admitted to redacting such information from other articles in the past. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the best place for this discussion. I suggest that interested editors weigh in at Talk:Antonio Spadaro. A more general discussion probably belongs at WT:NOT (where it has come up before, I believe most recently perhaps a month ago). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This WikiProject should have guidelines. I have created many biographical articles and I always add a "Works" section when I can. So frankly I am extremely surprised by your reaction. But I believe you are doing this in good faith--we both are. Now, I believe this is the right place to ask because it goes beyond Spadaro's article--you have been doing this to many articles apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine, obviously other editors are free to decide where they want to weigh in. Please note that I am not watching this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: 1day1woman

Women in Red is pleased to introduce...
A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: 1day1woman

Create articles on any day of any month
Cover women and their works in any field of interest
Feel free to add articles in other languages, too
Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Peter Tomich

Hi, anybody here who might have more information on this file and person? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Lotje, I don't know who the Pete Tomich is in the draft registration card during WWI. It doesn't appear that he served (he was married with 2 children). He may be the Pete Tomich working in a Wire Mill in PA in 1930, who immigrated in 1902, but that's all that I could find. In that case, he listed his country of origin as Yugoslavia, formed from Austria one year after he completed the draft registration card in 1917. I wondered if "Pete" might be a nickname, but couldn't find anyone that matched his date of birth with the last name Tomich either.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017 at Women in Red

Welcome to Women in Red's August 2017 worldwide online editathons.

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

A new WiR initiative starting in August

Introducing...
WiR's new initaitve: 1day1woman for worldwide online coverage
Facilitated by Women in Red

Create articles on any day of any month
Cover women and their works in any field of interest
Feel free to add articles in other languages too

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Philip Baxter needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Philip Baxter; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Help updating David Trone article

Resolved

Greetings, WikiProject Biography members. On behalf of David Trone and Hickman Analytics, as part of my work with Beutler Ink, I have submitted an edit request to update Mr. Trone's Wikipedia article. I've proposed a few updates to the article's "Personal life" section, and suggested a few links for "Further reading" and/or "External links" sections. The proposed additions (which I've outlined here) are not very controversial, in my opinion, but I can't edit the article directly because of my COI and I'm looking for a neutral volunteer who can review the proposed text/links and update the article accordingly. Is a WP:BIO participant willing to help? Inkian Jason (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! An editor has assisted with the first 2 requests outlined here, but there's one part left (#3) and the reviewing person would like more input. Is someone able to take a look at the proposed text, and update the article appropriately? Inkian Jason (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The edit request has been answered, so I am marking this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Two Biography related edit requests

Hello. I want to direct a willing editor's attention to two semi-protected edit requests over at Talk:Imran Khan and at Talk:Mumtaz Qadri. If anyone in this WikiProject has the time, please consider reviewing these requests. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

COI requests waiting review

Hello again. Aside from the yet unanswered edit requests I described above this section, there are multiple conflict of interest edit requests on articles in your scope waiting review.

Please also send these to relevant WikiProjects if any of them cannot be answered by this project. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:BLPN#Robert Conroy Goldston

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:BLPN#Robert Conroy Goldston. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Turning picture around in infobox

Hi. Can someone please turn Jean-Laurent Bonnafé's picture around to make it look normal as it does on the French Wikipedia? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

May not be a en problem as it does the same in French Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Anshe Chung

Should Anshe Chung really be classified as a biography? It's an article about an online avatar which seems to be more of an article about a fictional character than an actual person. I guess it can be loosely referred to as a biography, but not in a Wikipedia sense. Articles about fictional characters may contain information about real people, but they are not typically categorized as biographies, are they? This one was even tagged with Category:Living persons which caused it to be flagged as a BLP with respect to the infobox image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability of Early Life sections

Before a notable person does something notable in their lives, they are not notable, so no-one pays much notice. Once they become begin to attract public attention, the press takes an interest in the person's backstory. They usually glean this info directly from the subject, typically in an interview for a puff-piece article that the subject is happy to do as part of their public relations. The subject is therefore entirely in control of this backstory, and can put into it, or exclude, whatever they wish. This sort of human interest story is very unlikely to be subject to any ratification by the publishers, so appears, exactly as the subject wishes it to, in publications that Wikipedia will assume to be a reliable source.

But we really cannot take that information as having been checked or verified: it is autobiographical in origin. Of course in the vast majority of cases it is true, but some people will exaggerate for effect. Some people undoubtedly have been brought up in very crowded or impoverished conditions, worked from an early age, suffered abuse, been neglected by parents with mental health or addiction problems, done many hours of training before school, or explored other promising career paths before settling on the route that lead them to fame. But it is also the case that it will suit others to exaggerate the conditions of their childhood.

Essentially, what happened in the privacy of a family home, unless it became a matter for a criminal law case, is unknown outside of that home, and the objective truths of what happened may be very different from the subjective experience of it, even where the best intentions to give an honest description are held.

In the interests of providing an encyclopaedic record of what is reliably true, how much credence can therefore be given to these recollections? Our rules on verifiability state, "Any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." A link to an interview in which the subject makes that autobiographical claim does not provide adequate proof that the subject is not creating a version of their personal history for reasons that suit their adult selves, and yet that is essentially what we currently accept. If someone is inclined to challenge a biographical detail, then "Well he said it was true" does not really cut it: people are not always objective or honest in regard to their past.

So should we:

A) Give what the person has said as though it were unquestionably true (what happens in practice in most cases currently);
B) Give what they say as fact, but permit editors to add a "He reports that..." (or similar) if they believe that it is not reasonable to assert it as unquestioned fact;
C) Only ever report these details that only the subject and their closest family members couched in terms such as "He described his childhood as..."
or D) Only permit that which is not dependent on the subject's testimony?

My preference would be for B: readers need to be mature enough to accept that such disclaimers do not amount to saying that we do not collectively believe it to be untrue, but that we can only inform the reader that it is unverifiable. (I had posted this at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons yesterday, but have deleted in favour of posting here, which seems more appropriate)

Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Interviews are generally primary sources. They're usually fine for trivial facts, though a certain degree of skepticism is often warranted. I don't think there's really a single rule that can be applied. Celebrities may have an incentive for stretching the truth in interviews; for example, actors sometimes lie about their age to counteract age discrimination. I keep this in mind when researching, but I don't litter the article with "such-and-such actor claims to be X years old". However, I don't uncritically report major claims that appear only in primary/self-published promotional material. This is discussed to some extent in WP:BLPSELF, though it's about self-published sources instead of interviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Surnames with "von" in running text

Hello biography experts! Can anyone point me towards a guideline for how we refer to names including "von" in running text? I can't seem to find a relevant guideline. The reason I'm looking is because an editor has recently been through the article Swan Lake changing all references to the character Baron von Rothbart from "von Rothbart" to "Von Rothbart", and I'm not sure which is preferable. My instinct would be to refer simply to "Rothbart". --Deskford (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think in Dutch and German the "von" is dropped if only the last name is used. But I'm finding conflicting information. I would not expect to see it capitalized in English unless it's at the beginning of a sentence. Chicago MOS says to capitalize "von" if only the last name is given. There is a bit of info at von (note downcased article title), and a bit of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 1#"Van", "von", "de" in people's names. I don't think we have a WP guideline. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the German particle von is only capitalised at the beginning of a sentence. For many real people, von is indeed often omitted, especially for well known people, or if the nobiltiy particle is felt to be unnecessary: e.g. Otto von Bismarck and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe are rarely referred to as von. User:Mwvandersteen's edits at Swan Lake are wrong; they may have been influenced by Dutch/Flemish spelling of van in those situations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I indeed based those changes on Dutch language rules, plus the fact that there already were a number of capitalized "Von Rothbart"s in both Swan Lake and Swan Lake (1895). I will change most of them to "Rothbart". -- Mwvandersteen (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. -- Mwvandersteen (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you everyone, and thank you @Mwvandersteen: for making those changes. That seems to me much better now. --Deskford (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Alice Walton

Hi! There is an edit request for the Art section of Alice Walton. I will not direct edit the page because I have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which I disclosed on my user page and declared on Talk:Alice Walton. This section is fairly well-developed already, but there are some instances where it could be improved. I created a proposed Art section that tidies up the existing content and includes appropriate sourcing, and would appreciate some help from the community to review and update the section if they agree. Thanks, Kt2011 (Talk · COI:Walton family) 19:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Lana Lokteff being a White Supremacist unsupported.

No Wikipedia page on Lana Lokteff even exists. The assessment appears in the [Palmgren] article, as written, a character assassination. Verifiable evidence needs to be provided or the assessment removed, as it is currently in violation of policy.

I am neither a WS nor a Liberal, but I am concerned when any individual or group is suppressed or denigrated without any reliable evidence. ITPhoenix (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

It's always a big help if you provide links and tell us exactly what the problem is. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Biography or self-promotion?

Where does Wikipedia stand on people creating their own biographical entry, meticulously detailed and sourced, and yet almost hilariously amounting to a self-aggrandising plug for a career/life that is, probably not without merit, but massively overblown?

I'm prompted to ask having just come across one such preposterous biog of somebody I know. It was very evidently first created by himself nine years ago and in its early years assiduously topped up by three contributors all sharing his "family" names, including the dog. Every breath and tic of his life through 300 revisions is objectively documented and sourced, including this priceless instance (mildly adjusted by me to anonymise the detail): "He collaborated with artists X & Y to present a special edition of their "ABC" T-shirt". C'mon! He "presented" a T-shirt???!!! Whatever that means, it ain't gonna change the course of history.

The point is this entry stands as a valuable free advertisement for the man and nobody else is in a position to dispute or challenge any of his claims. Other than to pour scorn on a T-shirt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.200.241 (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The official position is at WP:GNG. If the subject is not notable you can go for Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Sometimes you can get help from other editors, but not without telling us which article you're talking about. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Fred Jones Jr.

I started discussion at Talk:Fred Jones Jr. about the notability of Fred Jones Jr., an American entrepreneur. Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Angelo (poker player)

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Tommy Angelo (poker player) and assessing it? The article is filled with quite bit a fluff which can gradually be trimmed out, but my main concern is whether this person is Wikipedia notable enough for a stand-alone article. He doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:MUSICBIO and it's a bit iffy per WP:BIO, but maybe he is notable for his accomplishments in poker. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Using "illicit" to describe Letourneau's interaction with Fualaau at Mary Kay Letourneau article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Regarding "illicit". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Writing about distinguished people you know

Hi, I am a new Wikipedian, participating in a Women in Red event at the University of Edinburgh. I hope to add pages for many of the female children's book authors and illustrators who are not currently included. That said, I am myself a children's book author and illustrator and know many of the people I'd like to include. (The children's book world is a small one.) It means that I am well placed to document them all correctly. (As a doctoral student this is important to me.) However, I'm hoping this won't be a problem as far as conflicts of interest are concerned? Thank you! ElizabethDulemba (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If you haven't already, read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I don't think you necessarily have a COI problem if you are writing about people you know and have no financial connection. I would proceed cautiously. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)