Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:56, 15 August 2020

This is the talk page for WikiProject Biography. Place new text under old text. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new discussion. Remember to be polite, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks and be welcoming to newcomers. If you have issues about individual articles, please bring it up on the article talk page first before bringing it to this page. Article talk pages are the proper starting point for individual article issues. Discussions about article assessment (including complaints and suggestions) should go to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment.

Shortcuts WT:BIOG WT:WPBIO WT:BIOGRAPHY

Template:Misplaced Pages ad exists

Biography Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Why not fulfill a Biography article request?

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, 88

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

• 12 Jan 2025 – Jack Carter (actor) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Jack Carter (stage actor) by Roman Spinner (t · c); see discussion
• 12 Jan 2025 – Kim Yoon-ah (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Kim Yuna (singer) by RachelTensions (t · c); see discussion
• 12 Jan 2025 – Val Valentino (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Masked Magician by Turtletennisfogwheat (t · c); see discussion
• 11 Jan 2025 – Baked Alaska (livestreamer) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Baked Alaska (influencer) by Psychloppos (t · c); see discussion
• 11 Jan 2025 – Tony Ahn (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Tony An by RachelTensions (t · c); see discussion
• 11 Jan 2025 – Charles Corbin (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to André Charles Corbin by McPhail (t · c); see discussion
• 11 Jan 2025 – Kevin Gaines (police officer) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Killing of Kevin Gaines by 4meter4 (t · c); see discussion
• 11 Jan 2025 – Doris Angleton (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Murder of Doris Angleton by 4meter4 (t · c); see discussion
• 11 Jan 2025 – Benjamin M. Friedman (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Benjamin Friedman by Roman Spinner (t · c); see discussion
• 10 Jan 2025 – Daniel A. Nigro (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Daniel Nigro by JeffSpaceman (t · c); see discussion

(77 more...)

John Alexander Carroll

I am pretty sure, Dr. Carroll served on the USS Nevada at Pearl Harbor, not the California. He ran away from his family's ranch in Wyoming when he was 16 and joined the Navy in San Diego. According to Dr. Carroll he told the recruiter he wanted to get as far away from Wyoming as possible, and was assigned to the Pacific fleet aboard the USS Nevada.

During the attack at Pearl Harbor he received an eye wound which he underwent a number of surgeries throughout the remainder of his life. He vividly talked about watching the Arizona blow up in front of him - that's when he was wounded. After the war, he served on Truman's Presidential Yacht in DC, where he began his undergraduate studies at Georgetown. He received his BA, MA and Phd from Georgetown.

While a professor at UCLA, he acted as a double for Clark Gable in the movie Across the Wide Missouri. Anytime you saw Gable from a distance on a horse, that was actually Dr. Carroll who learned to ride in Wyoming.

He also spent time at Troy University in Alabama. Would teach his classes without the use of a text book, as an outline for him or for his students to read. Revered by most of his students, he wore silk suits, a wide-brimmed hat and spats almost every day and spoke about historical events as if he was there. 2600:1702:1FC0:54B0:B5D8:BBB8:AAED:178B (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on tagging BLP with template messages signaling COI and OWN

There is an RfC on the following link: Talk:Boris_Malagurski#RfC_on_Template_messages_and_Article_sections. It concerns dispute over tagging the BLP article with template messages which point to the possible COI and OWN issues that plagues the article for more than a ten years.--౪ Santa ౪ 01:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

CAT:NN

CAT:NN has a crazy backlog, including over 13,000 biographies some of which have been waiting almost 12 years: Can you please help? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Zak Smith

There is a current RFC on Zak Smith that the project may be interested in weighing in. Chetsford (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Jean-Michel Jarre GAR

I am doing a GAR on article about of the greatest and most essential electronic musicians of all-time: Jean-Michel Jarre. Participate in this link here: Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Jean-Michel Jarre/1. ias:postb□x 13:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Jonguxolo Sandile

I've done a little bit, but I am was wondering if there are any other language articles to link up with. Thought I post here to get peeps to help build the article. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

John E. Kelly III

Hello! On behalf of IBM and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have drafted a Misplaced Pages article for John E. Kelly III (Wikidata entry), the "father" of Watson (computer) who has also received multiple notable awards, including the IEEE Frederik Philips Award and IEEE Robert N. Noyce Medal. Mr. Kelly's career is well-documented, and I've worked to draft a neutral article using only reputable sourcing. IBM has reviewed the accuracy of the text, and I should also note, there are red links requesting creation of this page at List of Dublin City University people and List of Union College alumni, among other pages where he is mentioned. Before I submit to AfC, I wanted to see if any editors here might be interested to review this entry and potentially move into main space?

Thanks in advance! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This request has been answered, so I've marked this section as resolved. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

J. W. Dunne

There is a disagreement at J. W. Dunne over the semantics of describing his father, who was born in Ireland of Irish stock but served as a General in the British Army. Any contributions to the discussion at Talk:J. W. Dunne#Nationality of father would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Berkay Çatak

I am really not sure what to make of this article, I see nothing remarkable that makes me think it should be on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Multiple careers and publications

Carl Sargent had two distinct careers, dealt with in separate sections. Each career produced several publications. To me, it makes sense to include the publications relating to each career as subsections within each career section, along the lines of:

Career1

Career1 publications

Career2

Career2 publications

However the article has a separate main section for publications, with subsections for each career. Thus, each career is effectively scattered across biographical topics, like this:

Career1

Career2

Publications

Career1 publications

Is there any good reason not to rearrange the article (and others with the same issue) as I first suggest? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

How to record nationality on Wikidata?

I invite your feedback on a property proposal for nationality as a cultural identity over on Wikidata. The proposed property is meant to offer an alternative to "ethnic group" and to nationality as defined by citizenship. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. Qono (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Rating review requested

An editor has proposed that the current C-class rating of Husayn ibn Ali should be upgraded. Bio-article ratings aren't my area, so I'm just passing along this request for help from others. DMacks (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Does it really matter? There are only a few ratings that matter: "stub", because it categorizes the article as needing attention; any non-stub quality rating, because it removes the article from categories that imply it needs attention; "GA", because it requires a formal review; and "FA", because it's our highest quality standard and has many rules surrounding it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't get me started on how I feel about that general aspect of WP ratings, or the talkpage system of listing them. DMacks (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Countries headed by women Interwiki collaborations: Interwiki Women Collaboration | Misplaced Pages Pages Wanting Photos Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Ending August 31st: Sports (returning for the next Olympics) Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Musicians

Template:WikiProject Musicians has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Chris Gragg FAR

I have nominated Chris Gragg 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. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I have started a discussion here on the usage of maiden vs. married names on the article Maddie & Tae. Please weigh in with your thoughts. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • 07:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Move request discussion: Title for the Suicide of Kurt Cobain article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain#Requested move 27 July 2020. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on Anne Frank

There's an RfC regarding Anne Frank that this WikiProject might be interested in. Loki (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs

There is a current RFC on removal of certain content in Singapore artistes BLP articles that the project may be interested in weighing in: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Content in Notes column of filmography tables in Singapore artistes BLPs. – robertsky (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Move request discussion. Opinions are needed on the merger of William Dickson (Falklands) to Antonio Rivero

The discussion is on the talk page of Antonio Rivero, the basic issue is whether sources exist for the murder victim Dickson to be considered notable. --Boynamedsue (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Question about the first section of a biography: “Early life” or “Early life and education”?

A question has recently come up about the title for the first section of many biographies. I am under the impression that “Early life and education” is used so commonly here it is virtually standard. User:Nightscream disagrees, saying it is not standard and that they commonly remove “and education” when they see it, because they regard it as redundant. A third user, User:KidAd, joins me in preferring “Early life and education,” pointing out that a person’s education very often extends into their mid or late 20s.

My question for the members of this project: Is there a preferred or standard title for this first section? If so, is the preferred title “Early life” or “Early life and education”? Or is it “Early life” with “and education” allowed in some cases, such as where a person obtained additional education in midlife? Or is it a matter of preference/personal choice, suggesting that we leave it in whatever format was used by the person who first created the article? Thanks for any input. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• As I said on User:Nightscream's talk page, I believe that anything less than a two-pronged heading in biographies is needlessly vague and limited in scope. Specifically in the biographies of politicians (also musicians, authors, actors, etc.) early life and education typically begins with infancy and ends after a bachelor's degree is earned. However, for those who earn advanced degrees or experience momentous life events before the formal start of their professional career, this section can become overlong and clunky. In addition, an individual's higher education is not automatically pertinent to their professional or work history, as most college students are not members of the workforce. I have only used a more limited heading when a segment of the broad category is missing from reliable sources. For example, if I cannot find information on an individual's birth place, hometown, or high school, I will use only education. If no information is available on colleges attended or degrees earned, I will use only early life. One size does not fit all here, but a precedent has essentially been established, and it works fairly well. KidAd (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• I second KidAd here. ~ HAL333 20:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I forgot to make clear here that I am mostly talking about biographies of professional people, scientists, politicians - people for whom their education is an important and standard part of their resume. I have come to regard "Early life and education" as standard because those are almost entirely the kind of biography articles I write and edit. But as KidAd points out, this kind of consideration might not come into play for other types of biographies. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record, KidAd, I'm male. :-)

When the phrase used as the title of heading servers as the descriptive umbrella for each or most of the major elements or subtopics described in that section, taking one of those elements and singling it out as a separate qualifier in that title makes no sense. Let's imagine for example that we did this with other headings. Take Kamala Harris, for example. The "Early career" section in her article describes three posts she had during that period: Deputy district attorney of Alameda County, San Francisco District Attorney, and head of the Family and Children's Services Division of San Francisco. Now imagine if someone decided to change the heading so to "Early career and Family and Children's Services". Would that make sense? No, it wouldn't. And the reason for that is that it implies that that job was in some way not a part of her Early career, even though it's in the Early career section, as it is simply one of the three positions described in it.

The same holds true for Education. Early life sections tend to describe all the things that are typically associated with a person's early life, even things that are technically not specific to it, like parentage, siblings, and where applicable, ancestry. It also describes those things that typically do take place in one's early life. And yes, a person's twenties are indeed part of their "early life", especially when were're talking about a person in their 60s like Geoffrey Berman, whose article spurred this discussion.

Now does all education take place in one's twenties? No. But I have no problem with including a specialized heading in cases of subjects who completed secondary degrees later in life, or who attained notability as children, such as child actors, child activists, royalty, etc. Outside of these exceptions, education usuually occurs in one's early life.

As for the idea that a one-pronged title is "vague", this is false as a question of definition. If you ask anyone what they would think is in a section on a person's "early life," they would naturally understand just that: That it pertains to the things that occur in a person's early life. The phrase is self-explanatory, and entirely clear, which is the opposite of "vague." To argue that there's something inherent more clear about a title simply because it has two prongs is to not only engage in non-sequitur, but ignores the fact that most of the most common headings are one-pronged, including both category-specific ones like "Career," and layout-recurrent ones like "References", "See also", "External links", etc. Nightscream (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some flexibility as unless their early education is particularly defining I wouldn't have in in the text and instead in wikidata. Back ache (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Should a biography have an infobox?

Whenever I have worked on a biography I have always made sure there is an infobox.

I do this so

• The main points of the bio can been see quickly for those that don't want to read the whole thing
• It shows the info in wikidata is matches the artical (which can then be used as the basis for translations of the bio)
• It ensure that microdata is in place for any search engine crawlers coming past

The reason I ask is I have just an infobox on a artical I was working on removed with the comment No need for this nonsense so wanted to see what the consensus is from the biography community

For refence this is the artical https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nick_Wilton&action=history

Back ache (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see MOS:INFOBOXUSE, which represents the consensus of the community: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." – SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Google and some other search engines tends to read the data in info boxes, so it can be helpful to data searches as they are classed are using precision data. Which suggests it's useful to use when the page has a lot of information on. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Search engines lift the data from the inglorious turd Wikidata - the repository of unsourced and deeply flawed trivia. And don't edit war to your personal preference Govvy. We have WP:BRD and various ArbCom cases about poor behaviour around IBs. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit-war? I don't see an edit-war, also why are you posting an ArbCom to my talk page? And why are you talking wikidata turd? Besides, I stripped the IMDB out, that's a big no on that article. Still not sure about some of the sources on it. Govvy (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't see edit warring, despite edit warring? Funny that. You need to read what I have written and try and join the dots. Search engines don't lift info from WP, they lift it from Wikidata - a place where unsourced and unsupported rubbish is king. As to ArbCom, I left the note on your page because you've started acting improperly in terms of IBs: it is a note to make you aware that there are ArbCom sanctions in effect. And why on earth are you wittering about IMDB? Of course it shouldn't be used, but it's not relevant for this discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You're a weird one aren't you, now I look back it seems you're the one doing the edit-war I guess. Saying I am acting improperly, pfft, don't push your luck. You must of heard of the term back-fire right? Govvy (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Charming. Please see WP:NPA. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, WP:DICK. Cassianto 17:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto You should probably retract that. Govvy (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, should I? If the cap fits. If you want me to redact that, perhaps you could redact "You're a weird one aren't you?" It's easy to throw around essays, without actually getting anywhere, isn't it. And that, together with the disgusting slur, based upon your perceived view of someone's mental health, makes your behaviour akin to WP:DICK. Cassianto 22:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, biography articles should have an Infobox. All developed bio articles have them, so it makes no sense to exclude one. As long as the material in them is supported by citations, either in the Infobox itself, or where it is mentioned elsewhere in the articled, they are useful, and their widespread use would seem to constitute a consensus of the community. Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"All developed bio articles have them" Really? I can show you a dozen or more featured articles without them. The consensus of the community is quite clearly outlined in the MoS (already quoted above - "neither required nor prohibited for any article"). Insisting on something that does not suit all biographies, let alone all articles, is not the way to improve WP. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat:, I would very much like to see them. Nightscream (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

For examples, go to Misplaced Pages:Featured_articles#Music_biographies and work your way through. Charles-Valentin Alkan is the first of many in that section. I can point to numerous others once you’ve exhausted that section. - SchroCat (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The article in question (Nick Wilton) had an infobox when it was first created back in June 2011 by M.Mario (talk · contribs). It retained this (with occasional amendments) until July this year. The first edit that Back ache (talk · contribs) made to the article - at 08:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC) - was to alter {{Infobox person}} to {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} which may be seen as controversial, considering that Wikidata does not have a verifiability policy similar to ours. Rather than revert that edit, SchroCat (talk · contribs) (who also had no previous edits to the article) removed the infobox outright at 16:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC), with the aforementioned edit summary. SchroCat later invoked WP:BRD at 14:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC), yet I see no posts to Talk:Nick Wilton by either of these parties. Neither of them is a newbie: one has more than nine years experience, the other almost fifteen years.

My suggestion is that the infobox as it stood from 17 February 2020 to 13 July 2020 (i.e. prior to Back ache's first edit there) should be reinstated, and then its merits and deficiencies be discussed at the article's talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, the Infobox was the Bold edit, the Infobox edit was Reverted, and the onus is on the person who added it to Discuss the merits for inclusion. What part of that don't you understand? Cassianto 22:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain this more? 6 months stable till its removal - how is its removal now not the bold edit? Agree odd to invoke WP:BRD after a WP:BOLD edit. Wondering if more wording is need on the bold page so we dont have this odd problem of thinking old edits that have been stable are still bold after a certain amount of time. Hard for new editors or any editor to assume a 6 month old edit is now contested by bold.--Moxy 🍁 22:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, there was a "silent consensus" to remove it. Ask at ArbCom, they'll tell you. Cassianto 01:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean ...how the hell is this editor or anyone to know this (link pls)? Looks like a flyby edit with zero consideration for those involved with the article.--Moxy 🍁 01:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, silent consensus' are great at manipulating the situation into your favour. Cassianto 07:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, are you talking to yourself? Cassianto 05:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Evidently to no one that can explain.--Moxy 🍁 05:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, nope, illegible, sorry. Cassianto 06:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassianto: You say the Infobox was the Bold edit, the Infobox edit was Reverted - but what do you mean by this? As I have pointed out, the infobox was there right from the start. The article then had 177 subsequent edits prior to the first edit made by SchroCat, and an infobox is present in every single one of those 178 (and yes, I have checked). This edit by MarnetteD (talk · contribs) was the last one involving the infobox prior to Back ache's first, so the infobox was stable for 4 months 26 days. The infobox continued to be present in every version until SchroCat's first edit. Now, if that edit was a revert, as you claim, which version does it revert to? Or, which edit(s) is it reverting?

I am aware that music biogs need talk page consensus for an infobox to be added to an article that doesn't have one (the pop music people love them, the classical music people tend not to); or for an infobox to be removed from an article that already has one. Two things stand out here: one, the subject isn't a musician, but an actor and scriptwriter; two, the article already had an infobox, and there was no talk page discussion (let alone consensus) for its removal. In fact, there has been no talk page activity since 07:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC). There has been no talk page discussion since 15:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC) - subsequent edits have all concerned the top section: WikiProject banners etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "music connection" is all that pertinent in this case. There is a wider question over whether those from the liberal arts or performing arts should have them at all. IBs work well when there is a career progression or statistics to encapsulate (so politicians, the military and clerical appointments are all very clear; those in sports have their playing stats present, for example), but for the creative fields? They're like an ashtray on a motorbike for all the good they do. Ezra Pound springs to mind, as does Noël Coward or Ralph Richardson as top rate articles in the "performing" field that all eschew the limitations of the box. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, "You say: "...the Infobox was the Bold edit, the Infobox edit was Reverted - but what do you mean by this?" -- exactly as it says on the tin. WP:BRD is a cycle, with BRD being in exactly that order. The first edit is always the bold edit. If there is no first edit, it cannot be bold. That goes for every edit, not just infoboxes. The next part of the cycle is "Revert". That is when an edit is reverted that has been added through someone being bold. Lastly, "D" is for discuss. That is for the person who reverted the bold edit to discuss why the bold edit was reverted, and from there is when a consensus is formed, either by way of local consensus or RfC. I don't think I can be any more specific than that. Cassianto 12:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I know what BRD means, don't lecture me. What I want to know is which specific edits each of the three stages applies to.

Which was the bold edit here? The edit that added the infobox (which was way back in 2011) or the edit (you have a choice of three) that removed it?

Which was the revert here? One of the three edits that removed the infobox, or one of the two that restored it?

Has anybody involved with the article discussed the matter at its talk page in the last, say, six weeks? Hands up anybody with a fairly recent edit to the talk page. I'm waiting. None? Bad argument.

How many edits were made to the article where BRD was mentioned? I make that two: 1; 2. Both of them were by SchroCat (talk · contribs), and both removed the infobox. The first was debatable; the second was a bad BRD call, and indeed fell within WP:EW. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, if you have to ask "which specific edits each of the three stages applies to", then I'd have to disagree that you know what BRD is. You should know that the IB was the bold edit. Cassianto 14:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

the IB was the bold edit Do you mean that the first edit having an infobox was the bold edit? That was done at the time the article was created - so, on that basis, creating the article was WP:BOLD; and since at no point was the entire article either blanked or deleted, there has been no revert. Now, are you going to continue to be obtuse, belittling and otherwise disrespectful? You are aware of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Remedies, where it was resolved that you are indefinitely placed on infobox probation; I am 100% certain that you are aware of this resolution, because you were informed about it at the time. Now, please give a pair of straight, non-evasive, non-abusive answers to my two questions: (1) Which was the bold edit? (2) Which was the revert? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, indeed it was bold. That's why we have an AfD area so things can be deleted (reverted). How do you suppose the cycle goes? Something needs to be bold for it to be reverted. Please tell me you at least understand that. Cassianto 21:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, why are you bringing up the ArbCom case? Do you hope to silence me through fear? You're very much mistaken if you think I give a toss about that particular committee's decision and how they handled that case. It's because of them that this poxy subject keeps coming up. Oh, and I think you'll find that I'm "allowed" to talk about IBs in general, just limited to one comment per specific article. Now, if you're aware of the case then you'll also know that it applies to you, too. Nothing further to say to you, so off you pop. Happy editing. Cassianto 21:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Initially, I made some observations of fact, and as a neutral outside observer, I offered a compromise suggestion - but was met with patronising comments from the start. After that, all I have asked for was an indication of two specific edits - WP:DIFFs are excellent for that, such as those I used in my earlier posts here: alternatively, you could provide the timestamps of the edits concerned. I'm trying to work out your position on the article, which version you feel to be the most sensible; yet all I get is vagueness blending through obtuseness into hostility. "Nothing further to say to you, so off you pop.", straight after asking questions of me? That creates a dilemma: to answer the ArbCom question, or not? Oh well, here goes.

I wasn't the one who first mentioned ArbCom - four people (one being yourself) did so before me; and that prompted me to have a look - where I find that you are named directly, but I am not mentioned at all. The closest that it gets to me is All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general. Also, this discussion is about one specific article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Working from "neither required nor prohibited", I can't imagine why anyone would argue that a given biography shouldn't have one, what valid reason there could be to remove one, once someone has created it. For my information, what reasons have people given for opposing the addition of an infobox or for favoring the removal of one? User:SchroCat mentions writers as a case in point. I don't know what distinction anyone makes between whether a given article "needs" or "doesn't need" an infobox, but there is, after all, an {{infobox writer}}, which someone created for, well, writers—and if someone added this to Ezra Pound, why would that make the article worse? Largoplazo (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Because they can be crass and misleading. Would such a box make the Pound article worse? Yes, of course it would. The factoids used to populate such boxes strip all context and nuance from a subject, meaning all that remains is a copy of the information in the first line of the article. The prose of even a poorly-written lead will always trump an IB in informing a reader about a subject. This is all rather moot: this project has no power to mandate IBs anywhere, so the MoS's "neither required nor prohibited" will, thankfully, be the default, rather than the knee-jerk mantra of too many that 'all articles/all biographies need an IB'. - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Largoplazo, Infoboxes should be used only occasionally and with great care. They should not be a formulaic part of articles. In my opinion, infoboxes on the arts seem to pander to the lowest concentration span. Their premise seems to be that readers can't absorb the key facts from extended text, or that they want isolated factoids hammered into a prefabricated shape. They judder against the lead as a summary of the main text, but are prone to deceive (not by purpose, but in effect). Their inclusion would be derided in any culture that wasn't saturated with 30-second television ads and news broadcasts featuring 5- to 10-second grabs from politicians, PR consultants and disaster witnesses. Infoboxes are at loggerheads with WP's goal of providing reliable, deep information about the world; they intrude between readers and their all-important engagement with the opening of the main text.

Further reasons include:

• Undisciplined expansiveness: A maximum-inclusion approach to fields that leads editors to place repetitive, sometimes downright silly information in the box. (There needs to be clear, prominent advice about not using every single field in every circumstance, and rather the need to ration the information, shaping it to the context.)

• Visual degradation: The way infoboxes squash the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture.

• Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel infoboxes give to articles: here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the boxes says it all.

• Disconnected particles. Their domination of the very opening of an article with chopped up morsels that seem to contradict the continuous, connected form and style of the running prose. (If the justification is that adding an infobox provides both genres, the problem is this utter visual domination at the top—and see the next point.)

• Uncertain benefit for readers: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)

• Better as lists: The fact that infobox information seems, in design, to be for comparison between topics. (If this is the case, the information would be far, far better in a WP List, where the form is much better suited to comparison, and the relationship between lead and table can be made to work very well indeed; see WP:Featured lists for what I mean.)

I think that's covered it. Cassianto 13:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Should a biography have an infobox? Only if the biography is about a monarch, politician or sports figure. Otherwise, no infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

At some point, we really need to have an RfC on this. This question seems to pop up at various articles once or twice a week, leading to a bunch of unnecessary arguments. Just have one big argument, let everyone put their views on the table, and then hopefully the community can arrive at a decision. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, what about the articles that have already had an RfC not to include an infobox? Would your RfC trump them? If so, why do you think this'll stop the arguments? If anything, it's more divisive. Cassianto 19:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. I suppose any hypothetical RfC would need to account for prior discussions. It just seems to me that it would be better to avoid continuing to have numerous article-specific debates. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There have been such RfCs before (from memory the last one was a year ago, possibly two. The consensus was that it’s too difficult to make a solid rule on the matter, so the “neither required nor prohibited for any article” consensus was confirmed as the best one to stick to. - SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, the reason this issue continues is because of the many incompetent ArbComs who have chosen to ignore it. They find it too difficult to fix, and buy not doing so have done a disservice to the project. Cassianto 05:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this still going on, I still can't believe I didn't get an apology from you Cassianto, you clearly are below the belt type of guy, kinda makes me sad for you. All this arguments over who thinks what is right over an info box, info box data can be read by search engines without reading meta, search engines also read the first few paragraphs, however special needs browsers hate info boxes and a lot of those users don't like the output of the way they read info boxes. :/ Govvy (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it’s obviously still going on. Please don’t continue to insult other editors while playing the victim card at the same time. You’ve thrown insults at others, so don’t be surprised when they reply in kind. As has been mentioned above, which you may have missed, the idiot box doesn’t provide information for search engines: Wikidata does that job. You’ve already replied to the comment where I told you that before, so hopefully the information will stick this time. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a different approach would be best. - thus far its caused reputations to be tarnished and conflict with editor after editor.--Moxy 🍁 13:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, WP:DICK. Cassianto 14:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yes at this point I think it should be codified that biographies should have an infobox. In this specific case at Nick Wilton there was an infobox at creation so the onus is on SchroCat to find consensus to remove. Since their edit removing it was the bold edit, they should then discuss it on the talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Good luck with the centralised RfC to have that codified. The last few times it was tried, the idea was rejected. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That is a different story! I would probably support it should one come a long but it would be a long hard road to be sure. One seems to have been due since the original arbcom case from what I can see but nothing has really happened. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• The last RfC was 2018, so I doubt it is "due", except in the sense that IB warriors think that the best way to achieve ownership of the top right-hand corner of all articles is to keep smashing the question over and over again until people are either driven off the project or are so sick and tired of it that they capitulate just for some piece and quiet. But that's no way to run a circus, let alone what is supposed to be a collegiate project. - SchroCat (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think "IB warriors" is a little too close to a PA. ~ HAL333 20:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Would you mind passing a link to it? I would be curious to see how it went. PackMecEng (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay - I missed this: this is the last one I know of. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• Cool beans, thanks! I will check it out. PackMecEng (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• It would be a great idea to require infoboxes on articles above a specific size. They are always helpful on large articles but aren't especially beneficial when an article only has three paragraphs. ~ HAL333 20:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Biography of Rev. Robert Wright Lee lV

Misplaced Pages is receiving numerous edits regarding the Rev. Robert Wright Lee 4th. I think we should have a discussion of the facts of who this person is so that his claim to be the 4th great nephew of Robert Edward Lee is verified by facts.

Rev. Robert "Wright" Lee lV shares the same name with his father, grandfather and great grandfather. They all were from North Carolina. His 2x great grandfather was John Osborne Lee and his 3x great grandfather was Robert Scothrup Lee, both were from Alabama. Finally, his 4x great grandfather was Col. William Lee originally from Georgia and then settled in Alabama. What I found is not one of these men are related to the Lee's of Virginia and certainly not related to RE Lee. So I decided to check into his claim a bit further.

I contacted the Lee's of Virginia DNA Project to see if they had any of these men proven via DNA to be related to RE Lee but they could not verify a connection. I then researched 55 trees on Ancestery that Rev. Lee's grandfathers and great grandfathers appeared in but not one of them included any Lee's of Virginia in their trees. So I researched numerous trees that RE Lee was a relative and not one of them included any of Rev. Lee's relatives.

I then found the obituary's of Rev. Lee's 2nd and 3rd great grandfathers and no mention of a family connection to RE Lee was within those obits.

Then I viewed an article written by Tim Stanley, Staff Writer at the Tulsa World Media Company http://www.tulsaworld.com, where Rev. Lee stated the Lee relative he "descended" from was Charles Carter Lee, the eldest brother of RE Lee. That's a red flag as you cannot be a "descendant" as a nephew at any level. I then reviewed Charles Carter Lee's male children because if Rev. Lee was a great nephew, one of Charles Carter's sons would have to be one of Rev. Lee's grands or great grands. However, none of his sons, George Taylor, Henry, Robert Randolph, William Carter or John Penn are part of Rev. Rob's family.

Are we to believe Rev. Rob's claim to Robert E Lee which he uses to help spread his message? Shouldn't Rev. Lee's ancestry be verified before he is given these platforms to express his beliefs? Certainly he has a right to express his opinions but does he have the right to falsely claim the heritage of the Lee's of Virginia and RE Lee in particular to help give credibility to his narrative. It seems this is a critical element of his message and one that I hope that writers will research before posting future articles.

I hope other's will join in this discussion and create a narrative that will lead to either the proof that Rev. Lee is related to the Lee's of Virginia or will lead to his ceasing to use the heritage that is not his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6200:3850:60D8:9E61:E83D:81E6 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Project-Class biography pages
• WikiProject Biography