.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
          A Wikipedia ad has been created for this project page
WikiProject Biography (Rated 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Requested moves

(67 more...)

RFC "Bias categories" and whether we can categorize people, groups, organizations, and media under them

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
2011 Bias categories RfC upheld and clarified, specifically "Bias categories must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly so biased.".
The clarification is from the closer's own words put into the involved categories immediately after performing the closing.
Reasons why:
  • majority voices to uphold
  • WP:CATDEF and WP:NONDEF: "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having..."
  • WP:OPINIONCAT: "Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals"). Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic."
However, unlike what the opener seems to believe, I don't think this will involve emptying and deleting many categories, for example the top level of the first one listed, Category:Ageism, has maybe five entries about persons or groups accused of ageism which would be removed, while the remaining... fifty? ... are about non-person or group subjects, or about groups specifically dedicated to combating ageism (i.e., "activist" from WP:OPINIONCAT), not accused of it.
There is a lot more explanation at User:GRuban/ANRFC that only the truly dedicated will be interested in. And the Spanish Inquisition! --GRuban (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

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? (restarted RFC) --Mvbaron (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC) -- 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.

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)

Data:

Relevant discussions:

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)

I think we need a new RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a new RFC... Mvbaron (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
"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)

Discussion[edit]

I'm starting a discussion section because I believe that there are some points that need to be debated, and consensus found. Can someone !voting "uphold" please explain how a blanket ban on categorization helps prevent vandalism? I notice some arguments stating that, as it is, people ARE being categorized despite the ban, so we should uphold the ban. This argument makes no sense to me. If a bad edit is made, it can be unmade. If we can notice BLP being added to categories for the sake of this RfC, we can notice them other times. And if we can notice them and remove them, we can also notice them and rationally determine whether the reliable sources support them being in that category as well. I don't mean this to be a rhetorical question... I just don't see the counter argument to this. Fieari (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Throwing this to individual page discussions is simply an invitation to individual editors to edit-war inaccurate/defamatory categories into bio articles, knowing that the standards for having a category are de facto laxer than those for baldly stating in the article that X person was anti-Y (see above where people are saying "I couldn't find anything saying this guy was actually anti-ABC but he was a member of XYZ so I think it's OK to add him to that category").
Upholding this rule (and extending it to all opinion categories) would confirm that such categories can be removed and the problem (including the legal risk) averted. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, if they have sneakily put in the category and no one noticed... no one has noticed! Whether this rule is in place or not, no one has noticed, and it might as well be "sneaky vandalism". The rule changes nothing. Without the rule, you can still remove these bias categories. The trouble only appears when there is strong, uncontroversial, third party reliable citations regarding the anti-whatever position. It does our encyclopedia disservice to not have the categorization for those. Fieari (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category:Citizens of X through descent

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)

Anyone? Nehme1499 12:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
@Redrose64, Pincrete, Mvbaron, FOARP, Mlb96, Shibbolethink, and SandyGeorgia: pinging users recently involved in this talk page. Nehme1499 16:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea when this category should be used. You yourself created it... Mvbaron (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
What Mlb96 said … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
It should probably never be used, per WP:COPDEF, WP:COPHERITAGE, WP:NONDEF and WP:TRIVIALCAT. Trivial category clutter for stamp collectors. Almost nobody is notable or noteworthy because of their citizenship, and if mentioned at all in any source, it's likely to be a rather trivial aspect. All subcategories of Category:Citizens through descent and Category:People with acquired citizenship should probably be deleted as well. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Kristen Stewart § Jewish ancestry, again

 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)

FAR for Joel Selwood

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)

Is Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart a good and sufficient source for musicologists' biographies?

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)

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)

FAR notice

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)

Nomination of Taner Edis for deletion

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)

Good article reassessment for Decline and fall of Pedro II of Brazil

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)

December 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook |
Instagram |
Pinterest |
Twitter

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

RfC on whether and how to cover J. K. Rowling's trans-related views in the lead of her article

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)

The idea of WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Women Writers are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single socio-political viewpoint suggests BLP issues on the part of the one posting. :p
But by all means, we do need fresh eyes on the lead of an article, which has seen so much whitewashing and FALSEBALANCE POV-based editing against the BALANCE of RS provided. Newimpartial (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A class?

This Wiki Project used to have an A-class review system, which is now marked historical. Various articles were rated A-class. Is there currently any procedure of delisting an A-class article, such as Alan Keyes, which I don't think meets the A-class criteria of, say WikiProject Military History. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: The MILHIST people suggest that you drop a note at WT:MHC if you feel that an A-Class article no longer justifies that rating. I'm not aware of any similar mechanism for other WikiProjects. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Widespread overcategorisation problems: ethnicity, descent, ...

Is it just me, or there is a whole lot of categories which are misused to a point which obviously fails WP:NONDEFINING? Category:People by ethnic or national descent seems to be a prime example: this is often times based on some ancestor, whether a parent or grand-parent, but is not an important aspect of the actual article subject's notability (in the cases where it is, Category:People by ethnicity (which isn't itself entirely unproblematic) is probably more relevant. A random example would be John George Bourinot (younger) (who was classed as "Canadian people of Jersey descent", something which was not mentioned in the article at all...); or Howard Krein (someone notable for a few things, but not for his religion or his ethnicity).

These two also had the common problem of the "alumni" categories (where someone went to university/which university they thought is rarely a defining characteristic of the kind described at WP:NONDEFINING - and then you get to extreme examples like Einstein, which needs a whole lot of trimming...).

In any case, if there are others willing to try and address this issue, that'd be a nice start (and would help remove some of the excessive category bloat which can be seen on many pages). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

RFCs on Talk:Éric Zemmour

I would like to alert you to the RFCs currently active on Talk:Éric Zemmour. Fresh eyes would be helpful and this Wikiproject is relevant. Munci (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Nicholas Wade

A Request for comment at Talk:Nicholas Wade could use some additional input to establish a consensus. See RfC here. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPP § Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPP § Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

How to refer to changed family names?

I'm working on User:RoySmith/drafts/Claremont Park. A confusing aspect is that the family name has changed over time. Zborowski and Zabriskie are the ones that seem the most common, but https://archive.org/details/zabriskiefamilyt01zabr_0 also notes Zaborowskij as the original. Any thoughts on the best way to handle this? It would be easy if each person had a specific spelling, but sometimes I find sources which conflict on which version was used by a specific person.

I grew up in Northern NJ and used to go past the Zabriskie house in Paramus all the time. I was vaguely aware that he was an important historical figure, but not until I got into writing this article did I really learn anything about him. So, hurrah for Wikipedia :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Vesey Alfred Davoren up for deletion

Has a big filmography. Was a silent film star. Appeared in movies for five decades. Certainly there are obituaries. For search purposes, he appears best known as Vesey O'Davoren. 7&6=thirteen () 19:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Assistance Needed

Hello everyone,

I am mastetchi, I am working on the biography of David Eric Gokhshtein. I'd love if someone can assist me with editing what I have written. This is my first article. I need help please. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_Eric_Gokhshtein

Thanks Mastetchi (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sumerian King List has an RFC

Sumerian King List has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Zoeperkoe (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Rob Roy McGregor (admiral) up for deletion

A question of notability and sourcing. 7&6=thirteen () 13:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

photo

Could someone familiar with commons remove File:Monglolian rats.jpg -- I have removed the article in which it was used DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If it's a non-free image, it will be automatically deleted. If it's on commons, we don't remove images that aren't used in articles (the overwhelming majority), and it's actually commons' purview, not ours. Kingsif (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Barthélemy Boganda

I have nominated Barthélemy Boganda 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. (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

D. B. Cooper under FA review

I started FA review on D. B. Cooper. Your input and contributions are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-free images

I have a question for those more familiar with writing biographies and non-free images than I am. I have been in a multi-month email exchange with the World Archery Federation about them releasing a photograph of their former president, Inger K. Frith, for use in her article. I have been quoting commons licenses etc and whilst they were initially very positive to the idea, I get the impression someone there is loath to release control a picture completely. Could someone here familiar with the use of non-free files for biographies of deceased persons please advise the relevant enwiki policy for use of non-free images. If appropriate I will instead quote that to them and see if they are happy to release a picture with conditions. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC).

@Cavalryman: You don't need to inform a copyright holder when you are using a photograph under fair use (the non-free policy on en.wiki to which you refer). Once a person is dead and there are no free images of them, and it is clear it will be difficult to find free images of them, fair use is quite easy to claim. I suppose if you have been talking to these people for months it would be polite to tell them that, without a free image, you will be using a non-free image, properly attributed, under fair use, but you don't have to. I also wonder if they may be backing off because they realize they don't hold the copyright to photographs they own: if the person you are contacting is not the photographer (or, in certain situations, first publisher), they cannot release the image to you themselves. Another question is, based on Frith's year of birth, there may be some images you could find on the internet that were taken before a certain date that may mean, based on the country in which it was taken, the image has fallen into the public domain (whether someone claims to have copyright or not). Kingsif (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks. The easiest would be to cut down and upload the photo in this article. I have searched pretty extensively and this is the only picture I have found. I might send them one more email explaining this course of action. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC).
@Cavalryman: A quick search shows multiple images in this article for a start... Kingsif (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

To what extent is a non-notable master's thesis by the subject worth mentioning in an article?

Hi! I am currently editing an article where there are 2 paragraphs worth about ~1400 characters dedicated to her master's thesis. The thesis is not notable nor influential in and of itself. How much space should it be given in the article? And a secondary question, should its abstract be copied into the bio as a quote? Thanks in advance for your response. Santacruz Please ping me! 15:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, A._C._Santacruz sorry for the late answer, you will find the policy about that here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship, where it says: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. In other words, they are not reliable unless specifically shown to be (by other reliable sources). Short link: WP:SCHOLARSHIP Best, -- Mvbaron (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Mvbaron, I don't think this answers Santacruz's question. As I read it, A._C._Santacruz's question is not about whether it's a reliable secondary source, but whether an article about a notable person should contain 2 paragraphs about the thesis. That is, if a person is notable, is their work notable enough to be mentioned? Notable, not reliable. I think the answer could be found in WP:NOTINHERITED, but I actually think this is better answered case-by-case by the article's authors, or perhaps by an RfC. Because it could be a notable part of the person's career or outlook, which would be useful in describing the notable person... or it might not be useful. Case-by-case, as I said. But WP:NOTINHERITED would be a useful essay to read regardless, and might influence the direction of consensus. Fieari (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure about that. If the master's thesis is not notable (and therefore not reliable), then it shouldn't be used in the article simply per WP:V and WP:RS. We can't cite the master's thesis (per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and there are no secondary sources, so how is any more than a mention of it justified? I can't see that. The essay you mentioned WP:NOTINHERITED seems to be about arguments at AdF. Not sure if that applies here. Mvbaron (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
This actually has nothing to with notability or reliability, but is a question of due weight. That is, do independent biographical sources about the person commonly put a lot of weight on their master's thesis? If so, then we should too. If not, then we shouldn't. The notability, reliability, influence, etc. of the thesis itself doesn't matter: only what others write about it. – Joe (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for using the wrong term. Much appreciated, Joe Roe. Santacruz Please ping me! 10:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Instead for master's theses their reliabality is exactly measured by their notability. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. But yeah, agreed on everything you said otherwise, WP:DUE is relevant. (This discussion is about Sharon_A._Hill btw for context.) Mvbaron (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Notability is wikijargon. It's unrelated to "significant scholarly influence". Sometimes influence is a factor in determining notability, but you'll confuse everyone and wind up with arguments that don't make sense if you use "notable" to mean anything other than "what's been written about sufficiently to have a Wikipedia article about it" (a very different bar than the influence a particular paper might have). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tang Joon-sang#Requested move 17 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tang Joon-sang#Requested move 17 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice re J. K. Rowling

An editor has nominated J. K. Rowling 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Demosthenes

I have nominated Demosthenes 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. (t · c) buidhe 04:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of "from"

Many of our biography categories include the term "from". E.g., Category:People from Florida. There was recently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Lingering question on the meaning of "from" about what this means. There were varying responses as to whether "from" in these categories refers to a person's place of birth, the place where they grew up and completed their education, or their place of principal residence. I've generally assumed that "from" in this context is equivalent to "originating from" and have thus used place of birth, but there doesn't seem to be a standard practice. Nor have I found any official or unofficial guidance. Should we try to reach consensus and provide guidance on what is intended here? What do others think? Cbl62 (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If we do leave it to editor judgment, it might at least be helpful to offer examples of particular edge cases and principles as to how they should be resolved. E.g., (i) Joe Smith born in Chicago but moved to St. Louis at age six and lives in St. Louis thereafter for his entire life would be properly classified as "from St. Louis", (ii) Bill Jones born, raised, and educated in Boston, moves to Dallas at age 40, properly classified as "from Boston". We could also clarify that its fine to use multiple "from" categories where the nexus is strong with more than one location. Cbl62 (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
When someone where I live asks me "Where are you from?", sometimes I reply "G" but more often I say "the Y area". When I'm traveling and someone asks me the same question, I'll probably answer "W" (even though I don't live in W, though I did over two non-consecutive periods totaling seven years), but sometimes, more accurately, "A".
So, quick: If I attained notability, where would Wikipedia think I was from?
If, on a related note, we felt the solution should be to disaggregate "from" categories into "born in" categories, "has lived in" categories, "lives in now" categories, etc., my article could categorize me under "People born in N", but what would the point be? It would be a fact, but it would also lead to no understanding of anything relevant to my being. It would be akin to "People who were in [place] on their third birthdays." Largoplazo (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on Birthplace details

Recently an editor has been removing the local parts of a birthplace in favour of the just city name with the edit summary of "City only, per guidelines", eg:

Could someone clarify as to if this is correct? I cannot find any guidelines as such, and the only pointer I can find is in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 36, Seeking info on birthplace convention. There a reply that states "The most relevant question is what do the sources say?" So it would appear that if the source for a persons birth states it in full, that should be used, not a trucated city only version (Assuming good faith in the editor who wrote that section). Is this correct? Sciencefish (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

All three of the pages you mentioned still contain the "local" part of the birth place (and even include the street or hospital for the birth place), and not just the city. I assume you are instead referring to the removal of content only from the infobox, and that is supported by the infobox guidelines, which say that the birth place should be "city, administrative region, county". See Template:Infobox person. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, infobox, and thanks for the pointer, it was right under my nose. Sciencefish (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

BLP mentions of contracting covid-19

Is there any precedent on WP that if an individual has C19 it must be stated on their page? Or is it in specifically notable cases, like if the person almost died from it, made donations to a fund following their recovery, donated their antibodies for research (eg. Tom Hanks), or contracted it after making controversial statements regarding the virus (eg. Brian May)? And is there a particular type of wording that should be used/avoided? Like if a label releases a statement concerning one of its artist's getting C19, and an editor writes that the label "claimed" the artist was negative at a certain date before quarantining after getting a positive result at a later date? -- Carlobunnie (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Must be? No, there is no requirement that any specific aspect of any person's life be reported in an article about that person.
If you meant to ask whether it may be stated, I'd say that unless a major impact on that person's life was reported, taking WP:NOTNEWS into account, it may in the near future come to seem the same as reporting whether a person has had chickenpox or the flu. In that light, it would make sense to mention it only in out-of-the-ordinary situations. I'm not stating this as a rule to follow, just suggesting a way to look at the question. Largoplazo (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Additions like this and this were made to those respective BLPs and to me it doesn't seem necessary since, as you put it (which is also my sentiments on the matter), no "major impact on that person's life" has been reported in either case so far, just that they tested positive. If something more serious were to come of it however, I'd have no question about that being noted. But I didn't/don't want to remove them prematurely in case it would be wrong to do so. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Makoto Soejima

Hi. This article has been floating around for a while but still hasn't been marked as reviewed yet. Could someone please review it if they have the time?

Thanks -Imcdc (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

AKM Nazmul Hasan

The wikibio for Bangladeshi Major General AKM Nazmul Hasan is currently at AfD. The article has numerous references with passing mentions of recent activity but little on his career. I suspect this is because the sources needed are in Bengali. I have posted at the Bangladesh WikiProject to ask for any editors who can read Bengali to look at the present reference 2 to a Government Weekly Gazette to check on what that reference says, to have a look for any Bengali-language sources that are more substantive, and to contribute to the AfD thread. It occurs to me that members of this WikiProject could ask have useful thoughts to offer on the article and the AfD. Of course, any and all contributions with whatever perspective are welcome and invited to both the article and the AfD, whether from Bengali-speakers or not. Information that suitable sources cannot be located would be just as useful to that discussion as locating suitable sources as the bio should not be preserved if Nazmul Hasan is not WP notable. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 Women in Red

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

  • Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month.
Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red

Facebook |
Instagram |
Pinterest |
Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sharon A. Hill has an RFC

Sharon A. Hill has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.Santacruz Please ping me! 14:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy/archive1 Featured article review

User:Nutez has nominated Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy 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) 17:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)