Template:Wikipedia ad exists

Biography Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Requested moves

• 05 Jun 2024 – Wu'erkaixi (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Wu'er Kaixi by Yue (t · c); see discussion
• 04 Jun 2024 – Karan Bhushan Singh (politician) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Karan Bhushan Singh by Jlwoodwa (t · c); see discussion
• 04 Jun 2024 – Sudhakar Singh (politician) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved somewhere else by Jlwoodwa (t · c); see discussion
• 04 Jun 2024 – Chandrashekhar Azad (Bhim Army Chief) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Chandrashekhar Azad (politician) by LilianaUwU (t · c); see discussion
• 04 Jun 2024 – William Adams (pilot) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to William Adams (samurai) by Herostratus (t · c); see discussion
• 03 Jun 2024 – Substantial (rapper) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Substantial by SilverLocust (t · c); see discussion
• 03 Jun 2024 – Kumarasamy Visalini (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to K Visalini by Aeschylus (t · c); see discussion
• 03 Jun 2024 – Lady Louise Windsor (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Lady Lousie Mountbatten-Windsor by Omnis Scientia (t · c); see discussion
• 03 Jun 2024 – James, Earl of Wessex (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex by Omnis Scientia (t · c); see discussion
• 03 Jun 2024 – Abhay Chudasma (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Abhay Chudasama by 2404:3100:1817:8FAD:1:0:CC20:4E09 (t · c); see discussion

(47 more...)

The article José Silva (parapsychologist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced article with a slanted POV that has clearly not shown signs of improvement in years

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. I am notifying this since the article falls under this WikiProject. Thank you.

How can Col. Puckett have a WW II victory medal if he didn’t join the Army until 1949? 2601:640:C500:B0D0:E177:7ED5:70:4957 (talk)

I would like to chage the end date of Tom Little's daily panel Sunflower Street, which is important because it depicted the life of a black community between 1934 and 1950. The strip was written by Tom Sims and drawn by political cartoonist Tom Little, both white. In 1950 it was withdrawn by it's syndicate for possible racial issues. I think that is interestng as a study subject on it's own and in the larger context op King Features history. The Wikipedia page for Tom Little is the only place this panel is mentioned. Further on, I would love to do a seperate entry for Sunflower Street. But for now a factual correction of the end dat would be great. I have found a newspaper clipping stating that Sunflower Street was withdrawn by the syndicate from 1950-04-03. Unfortunately, that clipping is on a blog, run by blogger, which makes the link controversial. Due to the fact that it is an actual newspaper clipping I wonder how I should insert that link. Can anyone help? By the ay, here is the link to the whole blogger page, the clipping (and the date in the file name) is the last one on the page. If I link to the clipping seperately, I lose the date in the file name.

Hi everyone, I am a student currently enrolled in a subject which requires the improvement of 'John Aitken (biologist)' article. I had put all the changes to the Wikipedia page John Aitken (biologist) and would really appreciate if I could hear advice and feedback over my edits and contributions. Thank you --Tempstent (talk) 12:01 26, May 2021

The article suggests that he was awarded the Medal of Honor for action at Gettysburg while a member of the 20th Indiana Infantry Regiment. Pv.t Rood was actually a member of the 14th Indiana at Gettysburg. He was with his regiment in a fight on the night of July 2, 1863 that resulted in Confederates being driven from East Cemetery Hill. Private Rood captured the flag of the 21st NC Regiment, although some suggest that he actually found it on the field the next morning. He joined the 20th Indiana Infantry Regiment when his enlistment in the 14th expired. That was in the fall of 1864. Thus, when his medal was issued on December 1, 1864, he was a member of the 20th Indiana, but the action for which the medal was awarded was at a time when he was a member of the 14th Indiana. This is fairly common knowledge among the Licensed Battlefield Guides at Gettysburg. I'm sorry that I do not have a more specific source.

Bill Thomas June 14, 2021

Hello. A duplicate biography article has been brought to my attention. Would it be possible for these to be merged? Bertie Louis Coombes and B. L. Coombes are the same person. Many thanks! Jason.nlw (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you identify which of the two is the more common title in sources, that should be the primary name. Slap {{Merge to|Primary title}} on the other one, and {{Merge from|Secondary title}} on the primary one. Looking at it, it seems B. L. Coombes might be the primary name here and Bertie Louis Coombes the secondary. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I shall do that now Jason.nlw (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Randall James Bayer page, of a living botanist, appears to have been written by Randall James Bayer (Rjbayer). It was created on 19 August 2006‎, nominated for deletion on 19 August 2006‎, voted keep on 24 August 2006, and the final edit by the subject of the page was 15 years ago this month. Various cleanup edits have occurred since 2006, but in these 15 years, it still cites no sources (other than the IPNI citation for the botanist abbreviation) and has no tag templates. Furthermore, it is almost an exact copy of https://www.anbg.gov.au/biography/bayer-randall.html. Which came first is hard to tell. Eewilson (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Barack Obama 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. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I update annually the biography of my late father William Templeton who was a Hollywood scriptwriter. I come into possession of a whole trove of material and references that go into making these additions, in my opinion an informative biography with no embellishments. However, I have had an increasingly more difficult time with reference citations as so many appear to be rejected by editors. So for example the ImDb references which makes highlighting of older 1950s TV content near impossible despite the deep archive skills of ImDb who are the first to post and research old programmes and input details of all cast and crew based on viewings. There is no one else who does this.

I have had theatrical sites rejected too and an inability to recognise the difference from editors between a TV titles and a play title. I had several citations suggestions deleted in a row and all links were to platforms which are industry standard. This leaves biographies for those in TV, Theatre and Film thin and near useless for research and reference. Of course Wiki internal links are also rejected so often there is nowhere to go. I had to even take down my reference in the bio to me as his one son because there is no link that satisfies the editor.

Finally, I would encourage the debate about allowing 'family members contribute to pages be relaxed as my input are constantly questioned. I work with the British Library and the Library of Congress and use their references because they hold all his plays and play scripts - but even here, I struggle with editors. One to watch as the quality fo the biography is sometimes in the domain of a relative who may often have the most opportune and relevant input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Templeton (talk • contribs) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. The difference is subtle in some ways, great in others. It sounds like what you want is a database, not an encyclopedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer Wankhede. Venkat TL (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213 Online events: New: Film + Stage | Endocrine health Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month 2021 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Should this RFC from 2011 be upheld, i.e. should it be forbidden that we categorise people, groups, organizations, media under at least the above mentioned categories and "bias categories" in general? -- Mvbaron (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Hello, I hope this is the right place. This is an RFC to re-evaluate consensus from 2011 which forbids categorizing “people, groups, organizations and media” under so-called “bias categories” (and similar categories) and all sub-categories. I suppose this is a BLP issue. Either outcome will have at least somewhat far-reaching consequences: either a number of categories will need to be emptied and deleted, or a great number of categories will be allowed to be filled.[reply]

Affected categories: (I label categories that do not seem to follow the above-mentioned consensus explicitly, but all would need cleanup if the ban is to be upheld)

• Category:Ageism (does not follow consensus)
• Category:Anti-Ahmadiyya (does not follow consensus)
• Category:Critics_of_Ahmadiyya (needs to be deleted or filed differently)
• Category:Anti-Arabism (sub-categories do not follow consensus)
• Category:Anti-Buddhism
• Category:Anti-Catholicism (subcategories do overwhelmingly not follow consensus)
• Category:Anti-Catholic_activists (needs to be deleted or filed differently)
• Category:Anti-Catholic_publications (needs to be deleted or filed differently)
• Category:Anti-Catholic_organizations (needs to be deleted or filed differently)
• Category:Anti-Catholicism_in_Germany (does not follow consensus)
• Category:Anti-Hindu_sentiment
• Category:Anti-Islam sentiment (sub-categories do not follow consensus)
• Category:Islamophobia (does not follow consensus)
• Category:Islamophobia_in_Europe (does not follow consensus)
• Category:Anti-Protestantism
• Category:Antisemitism (massive category, does somehow follow the consensus, subcategories do generally not, but does have a notice on top stating that individuals should not be filed under it. no idea)
• Category:Homophobia (has been at the centre of the 2010/11 RFC but does in general not follow its own consensus)
• Category:Misandry
• Category:Racism (massive category, seems to uphold the ban, but at some point there are categories of far-right, neo-nazi parties that I guess would technically fall under the ban)
• Category:Sexism

Data:

• The RFC from 2011 upheld a ban for individuals, organizations and media from being categorized under so-called "bias categories". This includes sub-categories.
• All (or at least most) of the above-linked categories have either an explicit notice stating that It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-XXX (e.g. Category:Antisemitism) or a banner disallowing the same (e.g. Category:Anti-Catholicism).
• Most categories do (even though they have the above notice) in fact have people, groups and media categorised under them. (see the list above)
• Some categories do not have people, groups and media categorised under them. (see the list above)
• "Bias category" is a bit of a vague term: e.g. why does category:antisemitism fall under it, but category:anti-communists does not?

Relevant discussions:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_18#Category:Homophobia (2010, and linked discussions)
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories (2011, and linked discussions)
• Talk:Jewish_Defense_League#category:_anti-islam_sentiment_etc
• Talk:Project_Veritas#Category:_anti-islam_sentiment
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_24#Category:Anti-Catholic_publications

RFC: Should the above-linked RFC from 2011 be upheld, i.e. should it be forbidden that we categorise people, groups, organizations, media under at least the above mentioned categories and "bias categories" in general?

Pinging users that reverted or discussed this with me recently: RandomCanadian ‎Symmachus Auxiliarus Nableezy Slatersteven Peter Gulutzan Marcocapelle -- Mvbaron (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a new RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new RFC... Mvbaron (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold and ban bias categories in general. There's no perfect solution. It's always going to be a headache, and contentious. It's kind of a lose-lose situation. But, in this case generally: better less info than false info. (That goes triple for WP:BLPs). Summoned by bot. Herostratus (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely should not apply to groups, very slightly on the fence on if they should apply to BLPs. WP:BLP does not mean we cannot have factual material about living people if it is "negative". David Duke is in the Category:American Holocaust deniers which is a sub-sub-category of Category:Antisemitism in the United States as he should be. The Ku Klux_ Klan is in Category:Antisemitism in the United States and Category:Anti-black racism in the United States, as it should be. Because those are facts documented by scores of reliable sources, and censoring that fact is not in keeping with our core mission here. We should have high standard for applying such categories. But that does not mean we should not. Slightly more on the fence for actual BLPs, but that should just mean the bar is higher to include, not that it may not include. nableezy - 13:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold. For Category:Climate change denial the words "This category is not to be used for biographies." were added after much discussion. It was just too easy to put people in since no citing is required. I think I was pinged because I asked about a possible misuse of categories for a group, with reference to WP:CATDEF, yesterday. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Are categories OK if uncited?Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Slatersteven: Categories don't get cited, but they must be verifiable. That is, if a page is in, say, Category:2021 deaths there must be something in the article's prose that states that the person died in 2021, and that portion of text should be cited in accordance with WP:V. It's the same with any other category - if a page is in Category:Blind politicians, the article must have sourced statements that the subject is blind, and that they are a politician. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So in effect they can't just be added on a whime, RS must have said this about the group or person, its must be in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s why the 2011 RFC makes no sense to me. If we can (verifiably) say in the article that someone is a neo-nazi, or a Holocaust denier, or a homophobe - it makes no sense that there’s a global ban of using that very same category for the article. Mvbaron (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Because, first of all, we usually can't verifiably say these things. Most people don't say "yup, I'm a homophobe". We seldom have articles state "Smith is a homophobe". It's usually more like, putting forth some of his statements and letting the reader decide, or writing "Many observers such as X, Y, and Z have accused Smith of being a homophobe" and like that.

  And then so you also get an unbalanced category. If you have one guy say "The Holocaust was made up. Never happened" and another guy who says "I think we need to question the accepted narrative here. These numbers just don't add up. All I'm saying is that there's a lot of disinformation put out there for political reasons, blah blah blah" They're both Holocaust deniers, but the first one goes in the category and the second one doesn't. Herostratus (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But we do have plenty of people RS say just thaT About, they are Climat change deniers (for example). So if we have RS (and our article says) they are (using your example holocaust deniers) why cant we include that category?Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Bilorv listed (see above) the affected categories for this RfC and the relevant discussions. The climate denier category isn't in the lists, so the decisions made about it can't be changed by this RfC, but can be an inspiration for it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  actually this is only a selection and the 2011 RFC is also vague. It applies to the listed categories And so on, and so forth... the RFC effectively applies to all categories that are "bias categories" (whatever that is) plus all sub-categories... Mvbaron (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Mvbaron: No it doesn't. People have already !voted. The RfC applies to what you listed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ... don't wikilawyer. the RFC question is if the RFC from 2011 is to be upheld and that RFC applies broadly. Mvbaron (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Mvbaron, and Slatersteven, and User:Herostratus as Gulutzan mentions, this RFC is about listed categories, if that affects your position. I note that’s also a practical difference since categories of action (denials) or membership in an organization (nazi) are objective facts but whether someone has a bias is a judgement call. Beyond that, it also highlights a difference of description - these are categories of what the bias is, not of who has it. Holocaust denial is not the same category as holocaust deniers. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well but it says "a great number of categories will be allowed to be filled" if we overturn 2011, and the short list of categories is just a few that will have to be addressed there's no consensus to overturn 2011. So lot of categories are in play?

  So... we could maybe change category names, maybe divide the categories more finely too. "Allegations of Anti-[religion]ism" or "Possible Anti-[religion]ism" or whatever. I don't know if that would help.

  I looked at a sample, and there don't seem to be any living individuals at the category which is good (and the category pages should basically prohibit that). But right off I see that Death of Christine Dacera is in Category:Misandry, which is one of the categories not characterized as problematic. So, for starters, there's nothing about misandry in the article. Apparently the Manilla Police may have lazily ascribed a natural death to rape and murder and refused to reconsider cos that's how police departments roll; doubtful that the Manilla Police are especially anti-male. My vibe is that the article writer may be on a men's-rights type mission. You don't get these kinds of problems with, you know, "1921 births" or "Detroit Tigers players" etc.

  It's not a super-easy call because categories do two things, help readers find a class of articles, and also help the reader of individual articles quickly get a handle on what are the key things about the entity. Different needs being shoehorned into one thing. So, tough question. I'm not changing my vote at the moment. Herostratus (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hej, I don’t know what you mean by a “listed category”, could you explain? About the other points: if we uphold 2011, then the category “islamophobia” needs to be emptied of people, organisations and media, and the category “islamophobes” should not exist. which is fine, it’s just not something we *do* consistently- hence this RFC. Mvbaron (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Islamophobes should definitely not exist and Category:Islamophobia should indeed be emptied of living people at least. If for some reason it was allowed to exist, there must be a demand that that the categorization then and there with the precise refs with quotes or something like that, e.g "[[Category:Islamophobes]] <--per [particulars of ref], 'I hate Islam'-->". I'd recommend that for organizations and dead people too. Herostratus (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold mostly for a pragmatic reason: too many articles are added to this sort of categories for which it is quite a stretch to be able to assess objectively that they belong there, or in other words the categories attract too much cases of WP:SYNTH. "Critics of" categories (such as Category:Critics_of_Ahmadiyya mentioned above) might be kept or evaluated on a case-by-case though. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The pragmatic reason you cite is actually a reason for overturning the RFC. The fact that most categories do NOT follow consensus can’t be a reason for keeping that consensus alive, right? Mvbaron (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is the existence of WP:OPINIONCATs themselves. It's a lot easier to police the existence of categories than it is who should/should not be added to them. You typically get people adding all members of a certain political tendency to a category en bloc regardless of whether the article even says anything about that opinion. The classic one for me is "anti-fascism", which seems to be one that people on the far left get added to regardless of whatever opinions they ever expressed about fascism (if any) during their lives. I'd also point people to WP:NONDEF as well, as these categories are too often used to categorise people based on throw-away statements that are not by any means definitive of the subject. FOARP (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  FOARP thank you for the comment, but I don't quite understand what your reasoning has to do with my discussion with marcocapelle. If this RFC goes to uphold, then we need to empty and delete a great number of categories - and I argued that a pragmatic argument would be to overturn in order to keep with what people actually do (i.e. populate these categories against consensus). Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mvbaron: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 4,200 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  RFC: Should the above-linked RFC from 2011 be upheld, i.e. should it be forbidden that we categorise people, groups, organizations, media under at least the above mentioned categories and "bias categories" in general? This would be it. Can I just move the roc template down so that it works? I didn't know that there was an issue with the bot. Mvbaron (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This edit illustrates the problem. Check that page again after 22:01 (UTC), now that I have made these edits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, redrose, for your fix. I think I understand now how it works :) Mvbaron (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold - one might seek to edit the guidance on categories as well to clarify not to categorize people this way. In general, an article text for a person or organization may mention (as supported) some issue or behaviour which has a bias lebel, but the the person or organization should not have a LABEL category put on them. WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:LABEL as well as the definition in the categories (e.g. agism) are supports to upholding the prior RFC, and Marcocapelle mentions pragmatism issues. I think it's just not good categorization and is a slippery slope to name-calling by subjective whim. For example, I thik it's acceptable for to include OK boomer but categorizing every person who ever said it is silly and useless, and gaps in categorization leads to credibility issues of fact or bias. Similarly, naming one organization leads to questions of why isn't AARP there. No, it's a good ban to uphold. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - I am aware of problems with this kind of categories, occasionally, but was unaware of this guideline, which must be one of the most ignored guidelines on WP. The usual problem, as others point out, is over-readiness to include, based on trivial/transient events. What I have also encountered is a situation where an individual was high-up in an undoubtedly racist, extreme-right organisation, but no refs supported THIS individual being racist, but another editor insisted that merely being a 'leading-light' in the racist org made him racist. I took the attitude that inclusion was pointless at best, apart from BLP issues, since the aricle contained no info about this person's antipathies. Despite these problems, the ability to 'group' people or orgs for whom, for example, anti-black racism is a significant factor, is valuable info. Perhaps we should be more precise in our inclusion criteria and stricter in enforcing categorisation of all kinds being a defining characteristic of the individual or group - and of course the article having actual textual content about the person's antipathies which have justified the inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Pincrete - Surely in the above case the solution is just to put them in the cat for membership of that organisation, and to describe the nature of that organisation in the article? It's not like people are going to have many doubts about what the nature of someone's views are if the article say "X is a senior grand wizard of the KKK, a known white-supremacist group" and is in the KKK-members cat. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, it was a UK fringe-y far-right org which did NOT have a membership category. Had there been, of course, there is all the difference in the world between being a member of X party/organisation - which is/is not a fact, and assuming an individual endorses every belief of that organisation. There aren't many people high-up in any organisation that don't share the core beliefs of that organisation, but we either avoid 'guilt by association' regardless of what people's political beliefs are, or we don't! Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a heavy "right great wrongs" vibe about this. If this was some tiny fash group, such that it was so small that there weren't enough members on wiki to fill a membership category, then why isn't putting "Mark Nobless is a senior member of the English Demonuts, a known white supremacist group according to X" in the article sufficient? I mean especially given how some of these smaller parties get hijacked by (even more) crazies - for example the old SDP, formerly a large UK political party, is now apparently a vehicle for various Toby Young-esque eugenicists.

It's very obvious where this ends up: wing-nuts edit-warring by adding every left-winger to the "anti-American" category and every right winger to the "racist, homophobic" category based on their interpretation of what their views actually entail. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold Putting an individual in such a category is a broad negative judgement that WP should not be making. Categories give no room for nuance--if we use them we will have difficulty distinguishing between someone who once used a slur that got into the newspaper from someone who has made a career of bigotry. Categories need to be unambiguous in order to avoid endless disputes about where to draw the line. It can be difficult enough with other categories--how much acclaim does someone need to be called a "singer"? If a person ran for a primary once in their life, are they a "politician", but an error here is not the sort of thing that can have negative consequences. The basic idea of BLP is "do no harm" and putting someone in these categories would in most cases do them harm. We can of course cover these things in bio articles, and the place to draw the line for what to include can be difficult enough to evaluate, but at least there will be an immediately visible RS., and some clarity about the evidence. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The decision from 2011 was a poor one, and requires Wikipedians to ignore reality. Such discriminatory practices are always defining. Dimadick (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As there is (and cannot be) any valid policy-based argument for including a category not supported in the body I think those objections based on this are invalid. If this was the basis of the old RFC it should be overturned. If RS say someone is X so should we, if RS (And only RS count) do not we can't, it really is as simple as that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Slatersteven. The issue I have here is this leads to e.g., everyone who is a member of the communist party being categorised as e.g., an "anti-fascist", even if e.g., they supported the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and thought that the US and the Hungarian insurgents of 1956 were "fascists". Categories are binary, you're either in them or you aren't, so people use their subjective interpretation of the facts to use them to say something about someone that no actual reliable source supports. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold DGG's reasoning is sound. Categories are binary, either you're in the category or you aren't. Rather than litigating every close case, it makes more sense and is more inline with the general spirit of BLP to simply ban these kinds of categories from being used in BLPs. You can write as much nasty shit as you want in the article itself. Mlb96 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold and Extend to all opinion-based categories - What you too often see is people being categorised due to a (possibly temporarily-held) view, or due to a subjective interpretation of that person's view based on membership of an organisation. It becomes a way of saying something that no reliable source actually supports. The area I have seen this most is the near-systematic definition of everyone on the far left as being "anti-fascist", including, for example, supporters of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, or people for whom "fascism" meant the Hungarian insurgents of 1956 or the United States, or many people who never actually took part in any actual anti-fascist activism. By all means say in the article that they criticised this-or-that, or that they were a bigot, or whatever, if the reliable sources say that. If you want to say some one was a racist, then say this in the article relying on the sources, but opinion-based-categories are the wrong place to do this as literally anything can be interpreted subjectively to place people within it or without it. Membership of an organisation is a different thing - anyone who the RS's says belongs to the KKK or the Nazi Party should be added to the relevant category and the reader can easily draw from that what their views are. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  PS - can I emphasise right here that we also have WP:OPINIONCAT saying don't do this, and this isn't just about this 2011 RFC. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn if someone is notable for being opposed to something, than categories that reflect this should be in said article. For example Chick tract is well notable for being against Catholicism and Islam, and has garnered a lot of coverage for this. To remove these categories from the article would be damaging to Wikipedia's ability to function as a proper encyclopedia. While a rather weak argument, WP:EDITCONSENSUS also has to be evoked if very few editors can be bothered to follow the 2011 consensus, than it evidently wasn't much of a consensus after all. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that far fewer people ever look at the categories than look at the body-text of the article, and the categories are often spread around thoughtlessly. Trying to build a WP:EDITCONSENSUS out of what is often only a step-or-two above vandalism ("person X belongs to party Y, I think party Y is anti-Z, so I'm going to add person X to the 'racist against Z' category") doesn't cut it. FOARP (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold and extend to all opinion-based categories, per FOARP. Adding to a category is equivalent to asserting, in Wiki's voice, that the name of the category is an attribute of the subject of the article, and if WP:VOICE would stop us doing that in the article text, then we shouldn't be doing it with a category. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but this is already policy. (the old RFC doesn't change anything in your example). BUT the old RFC forbids the reverse. If (per VOICE) we are allowed to add the attribute to the article, then the old RFC nevertheless forbids adding the category... Do you intend that? Mvbaron (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I see this it is typically someone just trying to say something about someone that isn't actually supported by the article, let alone by reliable sources.

For example, nearly everyone in the English anti-fascists category (Category:English anti-fascists) doesn't really belong there because very few of them are actually anti-fascist activists, some did no more than at one point say that fascism was bad, and others didn't even do that but editors have added them to that category simply because they were members of the far-left. In nearly every case nuance is totally lost/ignored by adding them to an opinion category and it is simply the subjective analysis of a single editor that puts them there - do all communists really belong there? Even if they supported the Hitler-Stalin pact? What about people who were at one point supportive of fascism but later opposed it? Does Winston Churchill really belong in this category? I mean sure, he fought WW2, but he was also an admirer of Mussolini, so does membership of this group really make sense? But then what's the point of having a category for anti-fascists that does not include the guy who actually fought the war against fascism?

The actual number of cases where reliable sources will classify people uncontroversially by an opinion that lines up exactly with a category that we have on Wikipedia is exactly zero. Much better to classify people by acts/membership of groups where there are objective facts we can rely on. FOARP (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Because the old RFC is illogical.

(A) If it is forbidden (per WP:V, WP:VOICE or anything else) to add the "bias" attribute to the article, then it is also forbidden to add the category (per WP:CATV). (In other words: if we can't verifyably say that a person is X, then we can't categorize the article as X).

(B) If it is allowed (per WP:V, WP:VOICE etc) to add the "bias" attribute to the article, then it is also allowed to add the category (per WP:CATV). (In other words: if we can verifyably say that a person is X, then we also can categorize the article as X).

So, the old RFC, which banned categorizing anyone (verifiable or not) as X, does nothing in case (A) - policy already forbids adding the category. And in case (B), it runs counter to WP:CATV - we are allowed to say that a person is X, but we can't categorize said person as X.

Additionally, current editing practice does not respect the 2011 consensus - it seems consensus has changed since --Mvbaron (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Current practise" includes a lot of basically vandalising pages by adding people to "bad categories"/"good categories" that aren't detected until years later because people tend not to look at the categories articles are in. As far as I can see opinion categories are being widely used to heap praise/criticism on people that the references cited in the articles do not support and it's much better to simply ban opinion cats for at least BLP and probably bio articles in general. FOARP (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Uphold and remove people from it. I will grant that it's possible that there might be an "Activist" category as defining, but that should be a separate category - e.g. Anti-Catholic activisim, for when this is a major focus of the person's life, and not merely having "usual" anti-Catholic views for the time and place. These categories are a BLP minefield if not treated very carefully, and should not have specific people in them unless, again, they're an outright activist about it. Categories should not be used if there's any doubt about their applicability, and this is definitely a case where there's more harm than good. SnowFire (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When should this category be used (e.g. Category:Citizens of Lebanon through descent)? Only in case someone became a citizen (through descent) later on in their life, or even if they were born citizens of that country, but abroad? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 12:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64, Pincrete, Mvbaron, FOARP, Mlb96, Shibbolethink, and SandyGeorgia: pinging users recently involved in this talk page. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea when this category should be used. You yourself created it... Mvbaron (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirroring the 27 other categories in Category:Citizens through descent (which is under this wikiproject). I just want to make sure that I'm not adding articles to the category that shouldn't be added. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I was pinged, but I have no interest in this issue, so don't expect any insight from me. Mlb96 (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Mlb96 said … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Donziger has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chris Jeday#Requested move 20 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. VR _talk 03:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Lewis (baseball) 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please note that Isabel Adrian, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 1 November 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Is it possible to find out if a botanist and full professor of botany is considered notable before I publish the article (so as to avoid an unfortunate deletion process)? Eewilson (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of getting Margaret Sibella Brown ready for WP:GA. The biggest problem I see is my use of http://freepages.rootsweb.com/ to support the statement, "The name Sibella or Sibyl in the Brown family is traced back to Isabella French (born about 1731 or 1732), wife of John Barrington." How do people feel about this as a source? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you provide an exact link to the source rather than just Rootsweb?--Eewilson (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind. I got there. If you want to keep that sentence in the article, I think a more reliable source is in order. As a genealogist myself, I would only use it in an attempt to find a better reference. Would removal of the sentence you quoted be detrimental to the article? --Eewilson (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That sentence is certainly in the "nice to have" category, in that it explains why so many of her relatives have similar names. But, no, it's not essential. I'll keep hunting to see if I can find a better source. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Too, unless there is something in the source that says the original person was the actual eponym for all women with that name or variation of the family who came after, then it seems the article would be drawing a conclusion rather than stating a fact from the source. --Eewilson (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician)#Requested move 7 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Akhtar Hameed Khan 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are welcome to comment at Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist#Associated_acts_confusion where a WP:Request for comment is underway regarding proposed removal of the infobox parameter "associated acts". Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:George Vincent (painter)#Requested move 5 November 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SkyWarrior 01:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael of Zahumlje has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Bradley Joseph 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. Z1720 (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kristen Stewart § Jewish ancestry, again. Discussion of identifying someone as having an ethnic or national ancestry. Sundayclose (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Joel Selwood 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. Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German musicologists of the 20th century often have biographies in the MGG, sometimes written by themselves. I see two problems with using these biographies as the main sources of an article: 1. Self-written biographies are usually not good sources, and I'm not convinced that the editorial oversight of the MGG changes that. 2. I feel like the MGG has lower notability standards than we do (WP:NACADEMIC), so there are cases like Helmut Loos which end up as BLPs relying on only one source, which doesn't seem right. Am I overthinking this or is there a (minor) problem here? --188.97.58.6 (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm good question... Maybe discuss it also at WP:RSN? I would say we can generally trust the editorial oversight of the MGG, but if the only source (and thus source for notability) of a person is an entry in the MGG written by themselves, then that's not enough. Basically, if someone is notable enough, there should be more sources to be found than a self-written entry in the MGG, right? Mvbaron (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Sasha (DJ) 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. Hog Farm _Talk 17:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taner Edis 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/Taner Edis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 23:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to notify this WikiProject of a Good Article Reassessment of Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil, an article related to this project, on behalf of SaturnFogg. This article has the potential of being delisted as a Good Article. The reassessment is being discussed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil/1. FredModulars (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216 Online events: New: "Double the lede!" | Women who died in 2021 Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change and preparations for our 2022 Climate initiative Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead

I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.

Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]