Talk:Amanda Filipacchi/Archive 1

Image copyright problem with Image:Cover of Nude Men.jpg
The image Image:Cover of Nude Men.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

External links consistent with Wikipedia policy
The external links in this article provide additional information about the subject, including a recent Op-Ed the subject wrote for The New York Times complaining about the classificaiton of her work in this Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddievega (talk • contribs) 26 April 2013‎
 * No. See WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Qworty (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Qworty. It is not WP:SPAM. You removed a link to the subject's New York Times Op-Ed link. She followed up with a second Op-Ed where she complained about YOUR removal of her links. That link was highly relevant to understanding who she is and what she stands for. I presume good faith on your part and will leave to you to do the right thing and revert your change. EddieVega (talk) 26 April 2013

Is she a woman, and a novelist?
If so, she should remain in and  until such time as the CFD for  is complete. I have no argument with putting her in the parent cats as well (i.e., ). --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Of course she's a woman and a novelist. She also has two legs. I suppose. And other things, in this case related to womanhood--or perhaps you'd say, given your adherence to the newly gendered category system, that she's lacking a certain thing. If I invent a category and its implementation causes worldwide controversy, perhaps it's a good idea to revert to the previous state. I'd gladly enter a discussion with you if you didn't claim, basically, "the category exists so she should be in it and fuck the consequences." No wonder people think we're sexist morons. They may be wrong in thinking so, but thumbing their nose at them is of no help. You know who this person is, right? Shouldn't you be doing something to remove this appearance of sexism, rather than regendering her with every useless edit you make in this article? Drmies (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course I know who she is - that's why we should be quite clear on the categorization here, so that if she sees this article, she will know she was not treated any differently from anyone else with a bio on wikipedia. And you are sadly misinformed - she has always been "gendered" as you say - as of an old rev long before this all came to light, she was listed in at least 3 separate 'women' categories. Her "sexism" argument was not that people were in the woman novelist cat, but that they were was no longer in the novelist cat - as you can see, Amanda remains in the parent cats of  and, so her current categorization is in line with both policy and bulk of the discussants at CFD. Get off your white knight horse and start reading diffs, it might help you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I just created Category:American humor novelists and moved her to that one. I am not sure if that is the best way to describe her work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I did find multiple articls that described things as "humor novels" and was able toquickly add three new people to the category, none of whom had been in Category:American novelists and all of whom were men. So the claim by this author that we had all American men novelists in [:Category:American novelists no matter how obscure was just plain false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * She's both. I believe she identifies a a woman. It'd be nice to have her in the woman's category and other categories. Thanks. SarahStierch (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't put her in both, that defeats the whole purpose of subcategorization. Yet, if you can't see gender subcategorization as implicitly discriminatory, I'm not sure anyone can help you understand it :) Just use genre subcategorization and move on if we feel the category of American Authors is too voluminous. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the sake of women's studies - and as an academic - I believe that these categories are important. But, whatever. As a woman, what do I know. (I surely know I don't speak on behalf of all women, but, I'm not sure who here in this conversation is a woman, but so far I haven't met a woman who thinks the category should be deleted)SarahStierch (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, why do you think I'm not a woman? Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said "I'm not sure who here in this conversation is a woman." I just haven't met someone, openly a woman on Wikipedia, who has told me to the point "the women's blah category should be deleted." It's very valuable for people interested in feminism and women's studies. But, hey, that's okay I'm not here to argue. No matter how anyone fo any gender feels, I hate arguing about this stuff. It's been one of the most depresing conversations and situations I've had - even after a year as the gender gap fellow at Wikimedia - I'm going to stop watching this article now. :) Good luck! SarahStierch (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and many born and non-born women do chose masculine names for the sake of feeling more comfortable contributing, so you never do know. But, Jeremy isn't known for being a feminine name. SarahStierch (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * American humor novelists is now created? of for fucks sake, lambert, I can't deal with your bullshit anymore.  You're not helping the project by creating all these categories to mask the problem.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, blinking hard--wow. Can we have some WP:CIVIL, please? Qworty (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * NO, you cannot! I cannot stand by and watch the project dragged thru the mud like this.  Indeed, JPL should NOT be editing this article AT ALL.  The article subject has directly questioned JPL's editing history, as a major proponent of the american women's novelist category.  There's a clear bias issue that we have to avoid.  The subject has already written in the New York Times about how her article has come under attack for her first op-ed..  What happened to the days when admins would put a stop to stuff like this?--Milowent • hasspoken  05:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Admins aren't going to touch this. They're too terrified of the NYTimes.  They're like the cops during the LA riots, just watching with their nightsticks held behind their backs.  The fact is that this author has had four articles about her on Wikipedia for years, and all four of them have been primarily WP:PROMO WP:PEACOCK WP:ADVERT.  Where are the admins who are eager to clean that up?  Then she has the gall to complain about her articles, when Wikipedia has been providing free advertising for her for years, in violation of Wikipedia policies.  She doesn't understand how Wikipedia works.  But like a lot of people who've tried to use Wikipedia to promote themselves over the years, she is learning fast. Qworty (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the articles on her and her novels had problems, but there are a million things one can do around here, and I knew better than to work on them during the controversy. Because it would likely backfire.  Most people don't know how wikipedia works, but they read it, and then deny that they ever read it :-).--Milowent • hasspoken  05:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * re: - she's no longer in this category, and I've also nominated the category itself to merge up to the parents - I don't think it's needed. Feel free to weigh in here Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_28. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Cut the edit warring Eddie and Qworty
Or I will invoke 3RR and drag you both before ANI. They don't take kindly to revert wars. Until additional proof is provided, don't either of you add the 'conflicted person' tag to the top please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pot, kettle? Drmies (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops - sorry I thought I had reverted twice on Amanda Filipacchi but it could also be interpreted as reverting 3 times. Mea culpa - and yes I'm a bit of a pot here :) Nonetheless, the talk page tagging was reverted at least 4 times I think before it stopped... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries--I'm not about to drag you anywhere, nor you me I suppose. And you are right: this tag-fighting needs to stop. I'm looking at that edit war right now and have asked Qworty if there's evidence for the COI tag; it may be over at BLPN or anywhere else (I'm not going to block over it, though if you like you could slap 3R warnings on their talk pages). If there isn't any, obviously the other tag should go too. BTW, I'm sure you read Filipacchi's most recent article in the NYT. :) Drmies (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this one? or was there another? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, just to clear the air, with this edit, which you undid here: , you may have had the impression I was removing her from - but in fact, American novelists already existed (I just removed a dupe), and your edit just served to put her in the same cat twice. I just want to be clear that in my edits to this article, I never removed her from , even though diffs seem to suggest that; because that same cat was duplicated. This was in line with policy, which states that such cats should not be diffused - anyway sorry if my diffs were confusing on that point and on my intentions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia continues attack on Amanda Filipacchi
After a second New York Times Op-Ed article by Amanda Filipacchi appeared that was critical of the removal of links in the Wikipedia article about her and arguably sexist classifications of her work by Wikipedia editors, a Wikipedia editor with the handle of Qworty began a campaign of editing articles about Filipacchi's novels that are negative in tone and deepen the impression that Wikipedia is at war with women writers. Wikipedia may also have engaged in censorship when the same editor removed a link to Filipaachi's first New York Times article wherein she complained about Wikipedia's unfortunate gender-based reclassification of her work that she saw as evidence of sexist bias. Additionally, the timing of the edits may indicate they are retaliatory in nature and that the editor is not acting with the neutral point of view required by Wikipedia guidelines. Additionally, the contentious tone of the editor's remarks in the article's talk section regarding Amanda Filipacchi suggest the editor has a personal animus against her.

This is what the editor wrote (emphasis my own):

"Admins aren't going to touch this. They're too terrified of the NYTimes. They're like the cops during the LA riots, just watching with their nightsticks held behind their backs. The fact is that this author has had four articles about her on Wikipedia for years, and all four of them have been primarily WP:PROMO WP:PEACOCK WP:ADVERT. Where are the admins who are eager to clean that up? Then she has the gall to complain about her articles, when Wikipedia has been providing free advertising for her for years, in violation of Wikipedia policies. She doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. But like a lot of people who've tried to use Wikipedia to promote themselves over the years, she is learning fast. Qworty (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)" EddieVega (talk)
 * Nice locating this. I will quick patrol the Filipacchi books (having read them). -Aerolit (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I put the title in quotes since it's fictional. "Wikipedia is at war with women writers. Wikipedia may also have engaged in censorship..." is a bunch of boloney. Wikipedia is not at war with women writers, though it may appear that we're a bunch of idiots (and that is hard to deny). "Censorship" is usually the rallying call of those who don't know their ass from their elbow, and that seems to be the case here. Someone can probably find a half a dozen policies within a minute for why that editorial shouldn't be linked in this page--and CENSORSHIP is not one of them. Qworty's tone is usually a bit direct, but that's because they're dealing with an enormous bunch of crap from WP:BLPN, and it's plain to see for any (experienced) WP editor that the article was, well, a mess, and totally not in agreement with our policies. I could go into detail, but next thing you know I'm on the NYT blog as well. I've also tried to clean this article up some, and I've added a couple of sources from here and there, but the fact is, and Filipacchi will see this if she looks at a bunch of articles from living authors, that too many of them don't follow our guidelines and in many cases function as little more than invitations to call the agent or repositories of links to online poems etc. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Two points: I removed the quotes that Drmies added. That heading is not fiction and does not need quotation marks. That's not coming just from the pages of the NY Times but also from Forbes ("Yes, Wikipedia Is Sexist -- That's Why It Needs You."); The Week, ("Sexist' Wikipedia relegates female authors to a category of their own"); The Independent ("Wikipedia in sexism row after labeling Harper Lee and others 'women novelists' while men are 'American novelists'); and a growing number of legacy outlets. The kind of sexism Wikipedia practiced here is a hard and ugly fact and very easy to see for anyone with a cold eye. The Wikipedia editors engaged in a pattern of sexist editorial classifications and now want to pretend it is something else. As for the censorship, I don't use that word lightly. That is what occurred here. The link to Filipaachi's first New York Times article complaining about that same pattern of sexist behavior was removed, and after her second article appeared critical of the removal of the first article, a Wikipedia editor, with the handle of Qworty, the very same editor who had removed the NY Times link, began a series of retaliatory edits on several articles about her novels. At the time he made these retaliatory edits, he referred to her "gall" in writing that second piece complaining about the removal of the link. That is censorship. Then to undermine an editor who called him on it -- me -- he put up a COI banner making accusations of a conflict of interest and of lacking viewpoint neutrality. That was another retaliatory strike. Do you want an example of a real conflict of interest? Writing about a subject with whom you have a personal beef. And Qworty has one with her, evidenced by his own words right here on this page. I don't need to go outside this very page for proof of his personal animus against her. Lastly, saying that he is being merely "direct" or perhaps inartful, is to miss the rationale he is following to retaliate against her New York Times articles. And that brings us back to censorship. EddieVega (talk)
 * What you've seen here is editing, and editing disputes (between Obi Wankenobi and myself, for instance). Nothing here is "censorship". Removal of those articles/links was done because they simply do not conform to our principles of article writing. Someone writes an article in the NYT, great, but there's no need to link that in an encyclopedic article. Not everything is encyclopedic. If this turns out to remain a big thing, and if reliable sources say that Filipacchi got the ball rolling, it will be in here. But we're not the news. In your advocacy you may have missed that I actually agree with many of the points she made in the first op-ed; the second one, which probably refers to you as the kind spirit who restored a bunch of linkage, not so much. But I do agree with the basic points about categorization and the appearance of ghettoization, and it's obvious that Obi and I disagree, and that there's widespread disagreement. But to claim censorship just because the article is getting a good scrubbing, pff. FYI, you can't pull any wool over my head: I've written over 700 articles here, many on literary topics, and many biographies (you may be interested in Laura Zigman, which was on the front page last year). In general I fully support Qworty's edits, though there may be disagreements on individual points. And from what I see Qworty's problem is not with the author personally but with the article on the author. And with you, of course. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmies, Qworty's problem was with the author. It was her "gall" that had so outraged him. His word. Directed at no one else but the author. He became upset with me becuase I called him on it. Sorry, but I will not remain silent in the face of a bully, no matter how loud he might be. Clearly, as you say, in general you have little problem with his behavior though I'd be surprised if you were ok with the embarassment he has caused the Wikipedia community, which is doing great good in the world and promises nothing less than the transformation of global research and the sharing of information. I respect your right to hold the position you do. All of my points above were factually based; he said what he said and he did what did at the times he did. No wool. Just facts. And as someone who is clearly an experienced Wikipedia editor, you should be more sensitive than most about how such behavior can be percieved. Qworty decries the author's "gall" for calling out his edits in The New York Times and then starts littering articles about her work with banners and lumps her with "people who've tried to use Wikipedia to promote themselves over the years," a slanderous accusation based on zero evidence. The timing may be coincidental, his words rash, and his actions lock & key, but together there is no way of avoiding the conclusion that his editing was both punitive and retaliatory. And any efforts to rehabilite it simply by waving the magic wand of denial and saying that his edits were not censorious and consistent with Wikipedia guidelines will just not wash. As my grandmother wisely asked, tell me who you stand with and I'll tell you who you are. I do not stand with bullies. Especially when they are trying to silence someone trying to correct a wrong, not only to herself but to women writers everywhere. EddieVega (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And then you went ahead and called me a bully. Nice. Since when is removing a link to an external article "censorship"? Sounds like you're taking a lot of things for granted, and like you've forgotten that this, ahem, is not a free-speech zone but just another website, albeit one with certain policies and guidelines. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmies, I called you a bully becuase you kept reverting a banner on an article about one of Amanda Filipacchi's novels that accused me of a COI. First, facing down bullies who are engaged in punitive attacks is not a COI. I have no connecton to the subject author that would consitute a COI; however, I do have a deep empathy for someone who is being treated in a very shabby way. Secondly, I was no longer a contributor to the talk page becuase I removed my comments after the issues affecting the article were resolved. So I was no longer a contributor. Hence the banner was placed for several improper reasons. Yet you kept putting it back in. Were you trying to bully me into silence? That's not cricket. Now compounding the problem is that Qworty is back to vandalising the page and reinserting the banner. But this is part of his modus operandi, I hope not yours. In his excellent Salon article "Wikipedia's Shame," reporter Andrew Leonard examined Qworty's role in what he called "revenge editing" and found even worse and more widespread misconduct. Is this the kind of behavior you want to support? I hope not.
 * Eddie, you seem very upset. I don't know any of these editors (Qworty, Drmies), and in fact Drmies and I have some disagreements on other topics. However, looking at the edits they and others have made, this is all very much par for the course - wikipedia is sort of like tennis (back/forth/back/forth), it's not like golf (e.g. carefully plan your shot, measure the wind, have a nice practice swing, then sink a hole in one). If Ms. Filipacchi knew anything about wikipedia (and it seems she did, noting that she knew her bio would get edited), she should have expected this - this is not about retaliatory editing, this is about a massive increase in the number of editors viewing and watching her page - and in these cases, no stone is left unturned, and no wiki-law left un-applied. This same thing would happen whether she had written glowing praise or damning scorn of wikipedia. Some edits may go a bit too far, but there are so many watchers, those edits will be undone - for example, I undid some of Qworty's edits soon after he made them; other eds have come along and sourced things, etc. There are WikiGnomes and WikiDragons and lots of other fauna besides, all with different editing styles and approaches - it's really the end result which counts, and IMHO the article today is much better than it was a few weeks ago, its tone is much more neutral and it sounds much less like a jacket blurb.
 * What I'd encourage you to think about is, what do you hope to gain by your large, dramatic text blocks above? (Also, fwiw, please edit once, using the preview key, and post once - rather than posting umpteen tiny updates to your comments - that makes it really hard to keep track of what's going on)
 * Would you like to drag some of the editors in front of their peers, and have them admonished? Get some of them banned? A stern talking to? What result do you desire here?
 * Wikipedia editing is a rather brutal process, so at first it may seem heartless but I guarantee you, this same treatment is meted out on almost every article, no matter who it's about - especially if the article gets attention. Take a look at this graph, and you'll see how much attention this one has gotten:. The push and pull results in a good article at the end, which is what we have now. Why not focus on the article itself, not the talk pages, and find better sources/interviews/articles/whatever that are interesting and add further flavor and establish her (and her novels') notability and significance. That will be much more productive than railing on here about sexist practices - on that I'm afraid your sorely mistaken, take a look at the CFD for to see the community process in action. Category diffusion != sexism...if you want to see why, try to take my quiz (and ask Ms. Filipacchi to take it too! That would be awesome), and we'll see how well you guys score. Can you avoid a "sexist" or "racist" categorization?? Try your luck... but I warn you, it's hard. Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Obi Wan, like your cinematic namesake, your words are thoughtful. And right on many points. On the sexist classifications, we will have to disagree, but that is of little consequence since, as I understand it, the misclassifications that Amanda Filipacchi complained about in her NYT Op-Ed have been largely resolved and will continue to be improved as more women writers are moved back to the parent category where they belong. The end result of this unfortunate fracas are cleaner and better sourced articles, and I hope greater senstitivy in the Wikipedia community about gender-based classifications. That's something I know most of us want. It shows that Wikipedia's policy to move by consensus is a strength even when some editors engage in practices that make the entire enterprise seem questionable. By the way, I posted a response to another of your messages on another talk page where you also extended an invitation to contribute more fully to Wikipedia. I am taking you up on it. Lastly, as for the dramatic bolding of the word censorship, it was a way of highlighting a critical point about the actual practice of censorship which was in fact what occurred here. And there seemed efforts to explain it away as something other than what it was. But the Wikipedia community came together, including persons such as yourself, and resolved the underlying problem by removing the punitive edits. I no longer see the need for the bold text and have normalized it. The proces worked. For now. However, the problem caused by rogue editors seems to run far deeper than your comments let on, as journalist Andrew Leonard points out in his Salon article; it also undermines any suggestion that the editors' work was "par for the course." I don't think any reasonable person would hold that so called "revenge editing" is par for the course for any enterprise that values the principle of neutrality. The larger question is how does an organization that moves by consensus resolve long-term problems caused by rogue editors who are driven by obsessive anger and who promise to exact revenge on anyone who questions their behavior? EddieVega (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an article talkpage, and by now this has nothing to do with article improvement. Please take it elsewhere.
 * Peter Isotalo 00:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be prudent to semi-protect the article. NPR has picked up the NYT version of the story, even money, other media outlets will as well.Wzrd1 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Uh oh. Be prepared for the invasion of the Eleanor Beardsley fan club.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Salon.com error about talkpage
Please note that the article "Wikipedia's shame" claims to quote this talkpage. Except it doesn't. Both quote batches are from Qworty's talkpage.

Peter Isotalo 10:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * True enough. Naturally, I WP:DGAF, but I'm curious about one thing:  Since you've criticized the Salon piece so much, why did you add it as a source to this article?  I'm not contesting the sourcing.  I'm just curious as to your thinking.  Thanks, and best wishes, Qworty (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm quite upset about how NYT and Salon has described this, but I'm not going to give anyone the chance to say Wikipedia is trying to tone down or engage in polemics against Filipacchi's accusations in article space. I pointed out the error in quoting only because Sara Stierch added Salon as a press mention but without knowing they had botched the quote.
 * Btw, your behavior is pretty much what triggered all this "revenge editing" crap. With those rants of yours, you managed to confirm sloppy reporting and misunderstandings from Filipacchi. Any chance you're going to show any open remorse about that?
 * Peter Isotalo 11:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Critical reception
Drmies removed the phrase describing the subject's work having "received international attention and acclaim among critics" as vague and Ngebendi restored it saying it is not vague at all. I tend to agree with Drmies because "international attention" is awfully ambigous. I don't see any of this attention in mentioned in any of the sources. Does it mean that her work was translated into different languages? While the subject's work may have been received positively, the number of reviews cited are a bit on the thin side to start using wp:peacock phrasing. This part of the phrase could use some NPOV improvments. I would submit "positive" as the better adjective. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have modified to say that she's been translated. "Widely" is a bit of a catchword and I don't like the primary citation for "thirteen" (which I changed, since it's not borne out in that catalog), and I added a specific phrase. It's pretty widely (ha) recognized that she has a comic talent, so that's the kind of thing that is fine in the lead. Plus, I found another hit from the NYT saying so. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Invite her to lunch?
This is likely offtopic for this page but thought I'd drop it here anyway - I wonder if we might find a way to invite Ms. Filipacchi to a virtual lunch with wikipedia - sort of like a Reddit AMA. It might give a chance for us to explain how wikipedia works to her and share our views with her, and for her to share her views with us - and lead to greater understanding between the two. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You're probably better off asking Jimbo or someone at Wikimedia about these kind of things.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to give you too much grief Obi-Wan, but the first thing she might explain, in relation to the language  of your invitation, is that you want us to explain "things", i.e. objective reality to her, and have her explain "her POV", i.e. her subjective point of view to us. Perhaps not such a good start on reaching understanding.  I do realize you probably didn't intend to couch your invitation in such terms, but language does matter. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it wasn't intended - I tried to correct above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? How is she different than any number of BLP subjects whose articles are lit up like a Christmas tree with adulation?   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's not adulation at all, it's quite a mixture - and viewed from the outside may be confusing. I just thought of it as an opportunity to create a bridge between her world and this one. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Those that are included in this classification
Should a writer such as Filipacchi who is currently included in Category:Post-modern writers also be added to List of postmodern writers? She is not currently included in the latter. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Poisoning discussion
I added Filipacchi to Category:American humor novelists because at one point our lead said that she "is an American writer best known for her humorous, inventive, and controversial novels." That to me shouted "this person goes in a humor genre for novelists". The attempt to portray this as some sort of attack is just not at all helpful. In the same way I think her complaining about removing sources (which I have not done, but I still think her attacks on it were mean spirited and misguided) was a bad move. We have rules about things being reliable sources, and at least from what she wrote on the matter I got the impression that much of what had been removed really did not meet the criteria for being a reliable source. Considering that she has been on List of American novelists for ages, and has not to my knowledged been removed from it after being placed there (which I cannot say for the clearly more well known Stephanie Meyer), I think she is creating a problem where there is none.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That might be, but rules can be gamed and many WP authors know that all to well. Which was exactly what some of the external reporting criticized ("revenge editing" and similar). So there can be justified removal of sources because they fail WP criteria in the context of the article. But there can be a removal of sources being ok in the given context by claiming they violate WP:RS foramlly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Qworty is now a COI editor on this page
Having become part of the 2013 controversy section as a named party in mainstream coverage (See: Salon cite in the footnotes), be advised that User:Qworty is now a COI editor on this subject and is hereby advised not to edit further on this topic. Carrite (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this your determination that he is a "COI editor"? In any case Qworty has already stated his voluntary intention to step away from these articles.  Perhaps your notice was intended for those reading about this story off wiki?   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As noted, Qworty has already agreed not to edit this or related articles or their talkpages, so this notice is not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2013
Apparently no one here has done much work in editing authors before, so I will explain. The template below is included in External links as a matter of course. The ISBNs for particular books are supposed to be for the first edition, in the Wikipedia language and/or original language. In this case, English. Worldcat includes the translated versions. This is considered useful. Some authors dislike its inclusion because they're afraid people will use libraries instead of buying their book. We've got 99 problems, but that ain't one.
 * [//worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n92-88406 Works by or about Amanda Filipacchi/Archive 1] in libraries (WorldCat catalog)

184.78.81.245 (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for pointing that out. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but do we ever do this for books that have separate articles? Compare with Mario Vargas Llosa and Ann Rice, both promoted articles on literature. I don't see the point, really.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Filipacchi "emigrant" category issue
This is a tricky and interesting matter of definition, which I've been discussing with Obi-Wan Kenobi. We decided to move it over here. Filipacchi is currently in the category of "French emigrants to the United States." But is Filipachi an "emigrant"? Given that she was an American citizen at birth (because of her mother's American citizenship)?

Hope it's okay to print our discussion as a dialogue. (Certainly it's dramatic...)

ME: Here's the legal definition of "immigrant" (and emigrant is just the inverse, of course):

"An Immigrant is a person who has citizenship in one country but who enters a different country to set up a permanent residence. Just entering another country does not make you an immigrant. In order to be an immigrant you must have citizenship in one country, and you must have gone to a different country with the specific intention of living there."

It seems clear that Filipacchi does not qualify as an immigrant, since she already had citizenship. For this reason she can't be an emigrant either.

Agreed? I don't want to revert your edit myself - as it looks like an editing war; I'll leave it to you to do the reversion, if we're in accord here.

OBI-WAN-KENOBI: I don't think emigrant is a legal term in our category structure - it really is more about what happened. She grew up in paris, speaking french, and then moved, leaving paris behind, for NY. I think calling that emigrant is fair - regardless of citizenship status. emigrant: "a person who leaves one place or country, esp a native country, to settle in another " Also, you can be an immigrant and an emigrant at the same time - it's really a question of perspective.

ME: Yes, you in fact HAVE to be an immigrant and an emigrant at the same time. You can't be one or the other. Hence the definition of "immigrant" is all that matters. My problem is that to call Filipacchi an "emigrant" is in fact *incorrect*, looked at from the perspective of the US government. It doesn't have to be a legal matter - I'm simply regarding this as the most rigorous definition that we have. This is taken from a legal site that advises UK citizens on how to emigrate to America:

"The US government considers an immigrant to be someone who is not a US citizen, but who has received clearance to permanently reside in the US." http://www.immigrationassist.co.uk/immigration/us-immigration/

What this suggests is that it is logically impossible to emigrate to the US if you are already a US citizen.

OBI-WAN-KENOBI: Emigrant doesn't have the same legal definition - and it arguably applies, because "france" was just as much "her country" as the US is. we'd probably best bring this to her talk page in any case.


 * That's where it stands now. Currently she is in the emigrant category. Thoughts? NaymanNoland (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not an emigrant -- The OED defines an emigrant as "[o]ne who removes from his own land to settle (permanently) in another." Here "another" is "other than one's own land."  This says to me that if one is to be an emigrant, one must be settling permanently in a land which is not one's own.  If one is a citizen of the land to which one moves there's no sensible way to claim that that land is not one's own. Also, babies are born abroad all the time which have one or more parents who are U. S. citizens.  Do they all count as emigrants when their parents come home with them?  It seems improbable that the word is ever used that way.  Are children born to members of the U. S. armed services on military bases abroad counted as emigrants?  I've never ever heard it. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you add that interpretation of "another"? It's a bit tricky, because emigrant is not really a legal term in the way immigrant is; it's also a question of lived experience IMHO. Read this, which notes that dual citizens can be emigrants . Anyway, I think it's a useful cat as it puts her in the role of someone who was raised elsewhere and then came here from France, which was "her own land" at the time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your source is clearly talking about people who were not citizens of the country to which they immigrated, but who retained citizenship in the country from which they emigrated, so it's not on point. Of course I added the interpretation; I thought that that was clear.  It's not unreasonable, since the OED definition contrasts "own land" with "another."  What else can "another" mean than "not one's own land"? Surely you're not saying that the U.S. was not her own land, her being a citizen and all? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm saying. Again, I'm not talking legal definitions, but lived experiences. There are plenty of example of people who were citizens of X but whose "land" was "Y", because that's where they were, that's the culture they knew, etc. Living in Paris for 17 years, then moving over to New York, it *could* have been an emigrant-like experience - I guess it all depends, so we end with speculation. Perhaps Eddie can get an inside scoop and then we can move on :) This isn't worth wikilawyering over IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Obiwan makes good points on the issue of emigration. It is possible for example to be a person who emigrates from New Jersey to Florida without implicating immigration laws. However, the distinction relies on residency not on national citizenship. Not knowing what Amanda Filipachi's residency was at birth, her status as an emigrant is unclear. Her residency may have been her mother's, or even a dual residency, hence not implicating emigration. In any case, she is not a naturalized U.S. citizen; as pointed out in this section, she was born a U.S. citizen and should not be in that category. EddieVega (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should just ask her :) If she feels like an emigrant (or that she was, at age 17, an emigrant), we'll keep her -otherwise remove. It's not that big of a deal ultimately, so perhaps going to the source is best (but keep it on the down-low, and pretend I didn't say this :) ) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I sent the author a query about this matter. I am waiting for her response. EddieVega (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't wait to see the op-ed about this one. If we don't have a reliable source about her status as an emigrant, I'd leave it out.  Contacting subjects can be useful, but sometimes it veers into original research.--Milowent • hasspoken  18:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * RE: emigration status. I heard back from the author. She does not self-identify as an emigrant. EddieVega (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * that was easy. thx.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope that's OR. And potentially COI--this editor is a recently created SPI and, well, the fact they have contact with the author is pretty clearly a symptom of COI. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Jeremy, I suggest you drop it. I was one of the few defending addition of this "emigrant" category, on the flimsiest of reasons. Now even that has gone away. So I think we're done here. The fact that someone knows someone is not a COI.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (This post conflicted with Obi's - posted at the same time. But we're saying essentially the same thing.) Okay, interesting question: this is certainly OR, and probably COI, but it is (as far as I understand the term "emigrant") TRUE. Do we leave in false information, just because it contravenes policy regarding OR? Isn't the point to figure out what's correct? NaymanNoland (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're all in consensus, which is a beautiful thing, so I've removed the category. NaymanNoland (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Writing began at age 13
The lead says "She began writing at age thirteen" and this appears (maybe it is said elsewhere?) to be attributed to the subject's own website. BarrellProof removed this and said "cited source does say this, but it seems implausible. Most kids begin writing at about age five, and writing stories is a common schoolwork assignment much earlier than 13" and Kmhkmh restored this text reasoning "the source need to be understood in context, here it means writing articles/stories on her own beyond the chool curriculum /homework". Insertion of this text is obviously intended to make the point that this writing is of the precocious variety. While it may be true this BLP's writing of this period was beyond the norm, the only verification of this writing is attributed is a primary source. Extraordinary claims require sourcing independant of the subject, so I have removed the text until this claim can be reliably sourced. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 15:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not saying this cite supports "started writing at 13" on its own, but Kathryn Harrison did call her a "sublimely precocious writer." 24.151.50.173 (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that's not the kind of thing we can cite--it's a blurb (I suppose this is where an earlier "fearsomely witty" came from?) and if it's to be cited it should come from an independent source. BTW, it seems to me that the blurb makes the comment in relation to Nude Men being her debut. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone point to the policy that disallows solicited reviewers' comments in third-party-published books as reliable sources? It's certainly not WP:V or WP:SPS. The most cogent thing I could find on this topic was from an inconclusive old reliable sources notice board discussion about book cover comments: "The book's advertising materials may be the sole publication for some comments. Such comments by third parties should be treated like they were in a foreword, as they may have been solicited by the publisher in exactly the same way. I believe that caution is warranted, and that such blurbs ought to be handled as if they were advertising material, but the fact that such things were said is actually verifiable." 24.151.50.173 (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a secondary source (New York magazine); I've used the vague "writing fiction" since it's the obvious gloss for the paragraph, and I've also paraphrased their other comments on her teenage authorship.--Carwil (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I didn't drop by this section to dispute that "writing at 13" thing since that's of little concern to me--it was the blurb that caught my attention, since I just removed one from the article that was cited as a reference. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ten-year-olds routinely write a lot of fiction. I doubt she actually waited until she was 13 before writing any fiction. I also suggest that it is strange to invent modified versions of what the source says in order to make it sound more reasonable. I suggest just deleting the sentence, since it seems unnecessary to the article and it is unclear what the sentence is actually trying to say. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * After a bit of further thought, I amended it to say she "developed a strong interest in fiction writing" at age 13, which I think is probably what the source intended to say. Does that seem OK? —BarrelProof (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem OK to me. The NYMag source says explicitly that she started writing at the age of 13.  No interpretation needed. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll stop pushing it. It's just that most people start writing at a much earlier age than that. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Are you thinking of the verb "to write" as meaning "to put letters on paper" in this sentence? It seems obvious in the context that it means "to create original compositions". Most people don't start doing that much earlier than 13. Why in the world would anyone mention the age when someone started putting letters on paper. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed using that as a euphemism for private original writing is rather common. I don't quite get what problems people have with that. It seems to be a difficulty in understanding the sources and a misguided attempt to read them literally without context and common sense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me (although I've often seen kids younger than 13 writing original compositions too). I'm staying away from this henceforth. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, kids younger than 13 do, but evidently this one started at 13. And it's not even a euphemism.  It's definition 2b from Merriam-Webster:
 * 2. to set down in writing: as
 * b (1) : to be the author of : compose (2) : to compose in musical form
 * &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS issues
The fact that this article is undergoing extensive edits in response to publicity in the New York Times raises the issue of extensive canvassing, and undue editing by large numbers of individuals informed only by the words of the subject of this article. After the attention has died down, the slant of this article as a result of these edits needs to be re-examined in light of this.

In general, this article does suffer somewhat from a promotional slant (for starters, is the unsourced "she has been praised for her comic talent" warranted?), though probably no worse than the other fancruft and needless praise that's endemic to articles on popular writers, musicians, and other well-liked artists. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree. I don't see that as a problem at all.  In fact, I see the complete opposite: whenever internal problems are advertised externally, Wikipedia editors step up to the plate and get their house in order.  In other words, the publicity has not just given us the impetus to fix any problems, but it has allowed for additional eyes on the article.  This is exactly where we want to be.  This is not "canvassing" in the way we use the term on Wikipedia. This is a positive development that allows us to think critically on a massive scale about a particular set of articles.  We really couldn't ask for more.  This is the essence of crowdsourcing. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The vague text "has been praised for her comic talent" is still there, but the "might be promotional" banner is gone. I'm kind of afraid of messing with such a high-profile article but does anyone else agree something should be done? Lansey (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd add that slapping a canvassing link on a talk page that has attracted attention from new users because of third part coverage of the topic raises the issue of WP:DONTBITE. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A critical review
The selected review quotes above, though well sourced are not wholly representative. I'm not so sure if I would call this a negative review, but it is a fair assumption to say the reviewer didn't care for the work. Is balance needed? little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 23:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if the positive reviews aren't representative. I'm looking around, and it seems pretty hard to find a negative review apart from this one. Most entries for novels don't seem to incorporate negative reviews unless there has been an overwhelmingly negative/ambivalent response to the novel. (I remember reading this book when it came out, and I read it because there was an AVALANCHE of rave reviews.) NaymanNoland (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If we start incorporating negative reviews, even though they're rare, then we're in the same territory as the Qworty issue: it looks as if Filipacchi is being attacked because of her critique of Wikipedia. NaymanNoland (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, "The characters in this remarkably idea-free book are so one-dimensional and unappealing" and "Filipacchi's characters are unable to fall convincingly in love because none of them seem to have authentic personalities or feelings" are just two of many negative comments about the book from that review. Why are you not sure that you would call that a negative review? That is some brutal criticism. Her first book did get several negative or mediocre reviews and the article about the book actually cherry-picks one such review to make it seem like a positive review. With her later books it seems the reviews are generally more favorable.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As editors, we should care about getting the article right and be overly concerned about the proces or the concerns of the blogosphere. Not too put to fine a point on it, but the last graph in the carrer section reads more like a jacket liner than an encyclopedia article.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 23:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree about getting it right. And one thing I know from a couple of friends who write non-fiction, and one novelist, is that EVERY book published receives a couple of pans. Without exception. It's the name of the game. I've been looking up reviews of Nude Men, and the raves are in pretty important places: Publisher's Weekly (the most important), Vanity Fair, Newsday, New York Magazine. As I say, two or three brutal reviews are just the norm. Unless it's Wikipedia policy to ALWAYS include one of them, I say we stick to the way other novels are treated.  As you say: we don't want to single Filipacchi out in any way. NaymanNoland (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean, think about it: we're finally in a nice neutral space. The WP:PEACOCK is gone; the revenge editing is gone; it reads the way an entry generally reads. Why mess up the balance, unless we discover that the negative reviews really do weigh out the positive reviews (and as far as I can determine, that's far from the case). I've been watching this entire process with fascination - it's been an amusing train wreck - and now that the train is up and running again, I think it would be a mistake to stall a car on the tracks. If you know what I mean.

NaymanNoland (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is still the little matter of cleaning up the jacket liner quotes.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 02:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be wise to leave things alone at this point. I'm sure the article will improve as Filipacchi becomes better known and more is written about her work (both positive and negative). My impression of biographies of other authors at the same level of notability is that they tend to be positive unless the books were widely panned (which is not the case here). Negative reviews tend to be more of a concern in biographies of more established and prolific authors, or where the books themselves are the subject of study. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Current events header needed
As it stands, the transition from biography to current events is unmarked by a header. Something like "Wikipedia sexism controversy" would be a neutral choice. Along the same lines, it would be good to add some WP:RS uninvolved commentators on same such as Yes, Wikipedia Is Sexist -- That's Why It Needs You. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't encourage "controversy" sections. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this section really necessary? It unbalances the article - surely her novels are of far greater importance - in favour of a single current event. WP:NOTNEWS would seem to apply. Euchrid (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Background analysis is not news, so it doesn't fall under that guideline. A group of journalists writing op-eds is not what you'd call an "event" - the rationale for NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. "WP:UNDUE weight" may be, but I find the current one-paragraph adequate to the level of buzz found on the net; or it could be merged with other similar incidents into a sub-section or sub-article of Criticism of Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed policy, I agree that integrating this information, as we are now doing, rather than calling out a new section, as I initially suggested, is the best approach. I also concur that the current paragraph treatment with independent sources added is not WP:UNDUE. Subsequent developments, if any, could no doubt affect how much treatment is due. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A good article by James Gleick in the New York Review of Books explaining the classification and other issues can be found at Wikipedia’s Women Problem. I'd at it as a reference, myself, but lack the necessary privileges given the semi-protection. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Revisiting this, I now feel like the section on the op ed has gotten too long. Except for within wiki-land, Filipacchi's op-ed is not likely to be an ongoing source of her notability - I'd prefer we trim it to no more than two sentences, which get at the essence but don't do a play by play of every op-ed and every reaction to said op-ed - this whole story is much larger than her, and probably merits a head article at some point, but for now we can send people to the controversies page. Thoughts?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should leave it alone for now. The article is finally stable, and your guess at whether the op-ed thing is "likely to be an ongoing source of her notability" is a only a guess.  I could just as easily see a scenario where this episode gets into textbooks on content analysis and is taught widely.  That's just a guess too.  It's a good paragraph as it is and I see no reason to modify it on the basis of guesses. If its relative appropriate weight changes in the future there will be plenty of time to give due weights to all aspects of her career, whatever they turn out to be. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have some thoughts. Whether or not you and The Devil's Advocate intend to, you may be perpetuating the impression that this biography is being edited as revenge for the subjects critical words about WP. You should leave this to others. As for the section, I have no problem with it as it is. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Obi-Wan suggested below that he was trying to create a "bridge" between Wikipedia's denizens and the wider world, which sounded like a worthwhile effort. I fear, however, that some of his latter contributions are in furtherance of constructing a bridge to nowhere. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks IP. I wonder, what have you done to address the actual problem Filipacchi uncovered (which now, I truly do thank her for)? (e.g. widespread ghettoization) Have you been actively de-ghettoizing articles? What about you, DC? Can you show me the efforts you have made? I'm proud of my record - for example, I de-ghettozied Maya Angelou, Louis Armstrong, and many others - and I've come up with a potential (hack) solution for category intersections esp around gender/ethnicity categories, and created a proof of concept around same, and I've nominated a number of categories for deletion which only served to ghettoize and were not in line with our guidance at WP:EGRS, I created a quiz to help editors understand the challenges around categorizing in a non-ghettoizing way, and I added a simple link to the top of the category that enumerates all of the novelists including those in sub-categories (again, a proof of concept). What have you guys done to actually resolve THE ACTUAL PROBLEM, besides defending the sanctity of the  special snowflake category, and beat up on me in various discussions? Sorry if I'm testy, I just don't like being dragged before ANI any more than the next guy, and I don't like being told that good faith suggestions to edit Filipacchi's article will be seen as revenge - I suggest you look at the edit history, I was literally one of the FIRST editors to undo some of the overzealous edits Qworty made to her novels. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Obiwankenobi, I was careful to qualify my cautionary statement ("whether or not you ... intend to"). I think it is clear from Filipacchi's second op-ed piece that she feels Wikipedia editors are making changes to her biography as revenge for her other op-eds. It does not matter if you are making these suggestions in good faith - it is important to acknowledge how this is likely to be perceived by the world outside of Wikipedia. In regard to what you have done to address the "actual problem", I think we should agree to disagree on both what the "actual problem" is and on how helpful any of your actions have been. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. But it's hard to agree to disagree if you don't put forth what *you* think the "actual problem" is? Feel free to leave comments at any of the areas I've done this work, and propose a better way. All I see is from you and many other commenters on this issue to date is, well, not much. Lots of talk, very few people proposing and working on real solutions. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In short, I believe that the situation documented by Filiapcchi is a reflection of problems within the culture of WP and will only be solved by changing that culture. You won't find me moving things en masse from one category to another or debating which categories should be deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah - so you're talking about the *wider* issues of sexism. That is a much much much bigger topic, and no, I haven't done much to fix that either, and I also agree that fixing cats will not fix that. I'm not sure if you had a chance to read my little essay on structural and categorical sexism, wherein I argue that sexism is actually a pretty bad word when applied to our current categorization challenges - its really a red herring IMHO. But the categories stuff- that _can_ be fixed. It's just I get frustrated with people who say "We should be able to see all American novelists from the category page" but then aren't willing to sign up for the work needed to make that actually happen or think about what implications that might have for other novelists or other countries or other jobs. If we do want to de-ghettoize people other than American novelists, we *will* need to move people en-masse, or at least add them en-masse to de-ghettoizing categories. It began with American novelists, but it shouldn't end there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did want to say that a number of the things you did early on such as the quiz you created did seem helpful at least to me, but the rush to make massive category changes after the close of the CfD struck me as falling into the Politician's syllogism. As for what I've done? What I have deemed appropriate in line with First do no harm. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - although I'm not sure what you mean by "massive category changes" - I may have moved 50 bios, tops. Others have moved many more... My maxim, on the other hand, has been "try lots of things" :)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring over further info template.
Stop reverting each other and talk about it. The question is whether should be used in the section on the op-ed. I personally think that it should be because the scope of the subsection of the article linked to, while it does not currently mention this specific issue, does talk about criticism to the effect that WP is lacking "extensive and in-depth encyclopedic attention to many topics regarding gender." This is an example of that, so that is further information about this. As a compromise, perhaps we could put it in a see-also section. That's my second choice, though, because it'll be less clear which part of this article it refers to. Thoughts? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I like TDA's current solution best of all. I didn't know that could be done with that template. Pays to RTFM, I guess. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that TDA's solution is a good one: 24.151.50.173 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

LGR's revert of "opinion in Wikipedia's voice"
LGR, would you care to explain what "opinion" was being stated in WP's voice in the edit you reverted? I just don't see it. The version you reverted to was, as the editor you reverted noted, less clear than what you reverted from. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree: the edit was perfectly neutral. No worries, though - the work done since the reversion has resulted in sentences that are both neutral and clear. Which is what matters. It is in fact a complex bit of narrative, the back and forth over this in the mainstream media, and I think we finally have it right. Probably best not to fiddle with it too much, unless there's further info to be added. (And I won't be surprised if there is: I don't see this firestorm winding down any time soon.)NaymanNoland (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Hived" or whatever the description of the category issue is the subject's opinion and should be stated as such.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, "to hive off" means "to separate from a group" per the OED:
 * 5. intr. hive off: To swarm off like bees. Now esp., to break away from, to separate from, a group. Also trans., to remove from a group, a large unit, etc., to make separate.
 * It's a matter of fact that women novelists were being hived off since they were being removed from a group. The language is neutral although the issue is moot.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is just a British English versus American English thing. "transitive verb chiefly British : to make separate: as a : to remove from a group ". 24.151.50.173 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If that were a reason for not arguing over it to the last bloody detail, the number of WP edits per day would drop by orders of magnitude. ;) &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:American_novelists : Consensus reached
Hey Guys and Gals,

I realize the whole Category:American_novelists thing has been the subject of a huge debate. Is there any consensus out there as to how to deal with this issue? Would someone more familiar with the debate please point to somewhere that a decision has been made so we can stop edit warring?

On another note, some editors might pay heed to using slightly more informative edit summaries than " perfectly fine the way it was, thanks" or "ad nauseam" or random uncited quotes. As most folks familiar with WP should know, citing stuff is important, and providing links for those citations, also pretty important. NickCT (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The page should be locked with Category:American novelists on it. I see that some new faces, heavyweights like User:Alison and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, have reverted recent efforts to remove the category.-Milowent • hasspoken  17:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Like, forever? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, forever. And Ernest Hemingway too. And all the others. The possibility of an RfC has been raised here and this post on Ernest Hemingway too is relevant. I can't see a way forward at this point to reach consensus without an RfC, one drafted by an experienced and uninvolved editor. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @Truthkeeper - You think we should have an RfC on this talkpage?
 * So I take it this silly Novelist Gender Category thing is still being decided. Unfortunate really...... This debate is rather tedious. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately I do. Problem is: there's been edit warring for weeks on lots of articles - my watchlist has been overactive! - and it's not stopping. I'm seeing diffusing and reverts which probably will be ongoing until consensus is established and for that I think we need an RfC. Until today all my energy has been devoted to a single article talkpage, in regards to this issue, but it's taken up a huge amount of time and cuts substantially into productive content building. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd really much rather see this discussed in a much broader context than this talk page. Filipacchi is just one of many female writers who would be affected by this. I wouldn't want to end up with a situation where Filipacchi is categorized one way and other female novelists are categorized another just because Filipacchi was the example that got the press' attention. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes agree. And it's spilling over to all the Am. novelist pages so it needs to be moved elsewhere. Re the RfC: let me rephrase - in my view consensus was established at the CfD but it's being edited against. Unless that stops, then an RfC is the next option. Or an arb case - and that really would be a shame. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Double agree. Why don't we combine forces and start the appropriate discussion! NickCT (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pick a place. I'll stalk edits and find it. Am actually working a bit on an article at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Nick, we're not even talking about gender-specific cats or anything else sensible at this point. People are riled up and assuming the worst of every category-related change on this matter and acting as if a single admin closing a discussion speaks the word of God rather than looking at what the community actually said. We are so far away from a legitimate discussion that I am not even sure what on Earth we are supposed to have an RfC about.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The community" had its say at the CfD, which the close reflects. Not exactly rocket science. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, but many many Am. novelist biographies have been since "diffused". What to do about that? Truthkeeper (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There the solution is much simpler. Either (a) nominate and  for deletion at CFD or (b) argue on the talk-page thereof that these cats should not be diffusing, unlike every other category of the same type. It's that simple. But, if it's not diffusing, the result is, we'll have to move every novelist to  - are you signing up for that?

If we're going to have an RFC, why don't we have it about something important, like, say, the subject of Filipacchi's op-ed - ghettoization-by-categorization based on gender (and ethnicity, sexuality, religion to boot). If we're going to take the community's attention, why not do so for a noble reason, not for a tedious debate on whether Hemingway is or isn't a ? The real problem identified by Filippachi still exists, in droves, and this RFC will do *nothing* to fix that problem. Please, pretty please with sugar on top, can we try to go after the root issue and not this chauvinistic fluff?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

@Truthkeeper. Revert the changes and see to it that the offenders are blocked, IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been edit warring & I seem to lack clout. I'm tired of talking though - I'm here to build content. If this doesn't stop I'll ask someone with clout to draft an RfC. Thinking about who is good at that. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact is, nobody is edit-warring against consensus. When Tarc says above that the community had its say at the CfD, what he really should say is "the admin said this was the consensus in his close and I am just going to take the literal meaning of his words and ascribe them to the people who voted in that discussion without looking at what they actually said." Nothing against the admin as I don't think he was intending to misrepresent the consensus, but the community view was not that articles on female novelists should never be moved out of the American novelists category and into sub-cats as his words could be taken to suggest. Just look down through the votes and it will be clear that most were objecting to unequal diffusion into sub-categories. In other words, as long as the diffusion is identity-neutral, there is no issue. What is happening is perfectly in accord with the community perspective at that CfD, even if it goes against what the closing admin said.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I re-read it this morning and to me looked like a very clear keep and merge !vote. I think the admin knew what he was doing (he's quite capable) and that people also knew meant what they said with keep & merge. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My dispute is not with whether they voted keep and merge, but why they voted keep and merge. It wasn't "keep and merge because female American novelists should not be removed from the parent category" but "keep and merge because female American novelists should not be removed from the parent category when male American novelists are not." The admin closed it in a way that implied consensus was the former, when it was really the latter.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can I ask that we don't rehash the CfD discussion yet again (or do it somewhere else)? Thanks. Truthkeeper, I have more clout than I can reasonably make use of - feel free to help yourself to some of mine. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, please collapse this NOTAFORUM above.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's just move this to here Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that this subject is not included in Category:Humans. Why does Wikipedia refuse to recognize her basic humanity? Kauffner (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sentence already establishes that she is a human being. Category: Humans is reserved for biological and/or anthropological articles, not to establish that the subject of an article is a human being. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar  22:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The verb "to publish"
Means in one of its transitive senses " to produce or release for distribution." Read the definition for yourself. The verb "submit," with which LGR replaced the verb "publish," connotes a state of pending acceptance or rejection of the piece. It is not used for essays which have already been published. Both the author and the publisher are said to have published the piece since the author produced it and the publisher released it.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Did she publish an article or an editorial?
An editorial must be written by the editor of a newspaper or magazine. She's not an editor of the Atlantic so she can't write editorials. If you don't believe the WP article, try the OED: 1B (n) A newspaper article written by, or under the responsibility of, the editor; a ‘leader’. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * i changed it to op-ed. You are being disruptive with your pointy editing.  I suggest you stop it now.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 20:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not an op-ed either. Op-eds only appear in newspapers.  Read the definition in the dictionary.  I'm not being pointy.  You're using words to mean things that are contrary to their accepted meanings as explained in reliable sources.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. Meriam-Webster also defines op-ed as -- "US : an essay in a newspaper or magazine that gives the opinion of the writer and that is written by someone who is not employed by the newspaper or magazine."  Moriori (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's weird, because my link was to Merriam-Webster also. In any case, I'll accept that op-eds can appear in magazines even though your link is to their learners' dictionary and mine is to the regular dictionary.  So now the question becomes one of whether the article in the Atlantic was an opinion piece or not.  I will start a new section for that discussion. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal life
Anyone see anything wrong in adding a sentence along these lines:


 * Filipacchi currently lives in New York City together with journalist and novelist Richard Hine.

I noticed this while debating Hines on Twitter. He has no article, but he seems to be fairly notable on his own.

Peter Isotalo 09:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - I can't find any moderate or high quality RS to back the claim. I'm sure it's true, it's just not very verifiable, and hence I'm somewhat opposed to adding it. NickCT (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless reported in reliable sources. I usually avoid personal details like this unless its reported in the news, though these are discretionary types of decisions.  Recently on Steven Crowder, for instance, I opposed added the name of his wife to his article.  One can figure it out, but its not been reported in any reliable sources, and the subject himself doesn't identify his wife by name when he refers to her.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose I don't think this merits a mention, unless several sources mention that they are basically long-term partners. If they're just dating or living together, I don't think we should add it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not set on it myself, but just making sure you noticed that it's from Hine's own website.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd wait for a few other articles, that say "Amanda, and her long-time partner Richard Hine" or whatever. Otherwise, its just a bit, hmm. Doesn't feel right - I don't think we usually mention who is dating whom or living with whom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

American novelist cat
This bio is now in two by-century, non-gendered sub-cats of American novelists, which is a diffusing category. Therefore, it should not be placed in, per WP:Categorization. We need to stop worrying to much about newspaper articles and get back to following our own guidance, which is pretty clear. Gender/ethnic categories: non-diffusing. All others: diffusing. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As I just just said, what part of "What part of "The result...is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists" are you confused by?" isn't crystal-clear? This is the consensus of the discussion.  If you and The Devil's Advocate refuse to abide by it, then you will be taken to WP:ANI where this refusal can be discussed. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In case you're not clear on what Tarc is talking about, the CfD was closed recently. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, that would be awesome. Listen Tarc, this is a losing a battle - WP:Categories is pretty clear on this point. If you like, pretend that we did put it in, and then a day later, an intrepid categorizer placed this bio into a by-century, non-gendered sub-cat which is diffusing, e.g. - the sort of thing that happens, all the time. Would that go over better for you? If you like, we can give this bio a 24 hour stay in the American novelists land, before it gets diffused. Let me try to repeat again: Gender/ethnic categories: non-diffusing. All others: diffusing. Would you like to treat this bio differently than everyone else? If you think you have a case at ANI, be my guest. Cheers! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think any editor moving this article out of Category:American novelists without having a clear consensus first documented on this talk page and maybe also elsewhere would seem to have a death wish.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: now at ANI, for those interested.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Bad news folks. There is also a List of American Women Painters category. Get to work boys. -Aerolit (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the "boys" problem - it's everyone's problem... if you want to start de-ghettoizing bios, be my guest. My guess is, we have completed about 500 novelists, and have around 100,000 other bios to go.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No one has ever given a coherent reason as to why a person cannot be in both cats, though. All we hear is "diffusion", which is getting tossed around so much it feels like an overused 90's tech buzzword, like value proposition or paradigm shift. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * all cats diffuse by default. Do you at least accept this as a principle? Without that principle, the whole system would not work due to recursion. Some cats (very rarely, like EGRS) should not diffuse - and when editors don't remember this difference, nasty articles get written.
 * So if you say that someone should be in a child and a parent cat, what you're saying is, that child cat doesn't diffuse the parent. It's really up to you to make a cogent argument as to why not, since as noted, all cats diffuse by design. Now I could make a very cogent argument why Pulitzer Prize winners should not diffuse, or asian-American novelists should not diffuse, but I can't come up with any good reasons that shouldn't diffuse, and the only ones I've heard to date are IDONTLIKEIT.. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt that "20th-century novelist" is a defining characteristic for many entries in the category. It's something that people who don't read much might assume is obviously defining, possibly because "19th-century novelist" is more likely to be defining, maybe because they think it's a matter of when the novelist wrote their novels. It's not.  By the terms of the category guideline you keep quoting, for a novelist to be placed in there there would have to be reliable sources commonly and consistently discussing that novelist as a 20th-century novelist.  This may be only loosely tied to what century the novelist wrote in.  There are any number of reliable sources which discuss Emily Dickinson as a 20th century poet, e.g.  and Thomas Hardy is going to be a big problem too, not just because of the fact that his career spanned two centuries but because there is such a thing as a 19th-century novel and there is not such a thing as a 20th-century novel.  There are probably plenty of authors whose 20th-century-ness is discussed by reliable sources as a characteristic, but there are plenty in that category right now who are not, and no one who's hiving them off into these categories seems to be checking at all.  Most novelists who wrote in the late 20th and early 21st centuries won't be discussed in those terms for decades to come if they ever are.  That all categories "diffuse" by design is going to be a perennial source of conflict therefore, and not just about race and gender.  Why not leave it up to the editors of individual articles, who may know more about it than you do.  Do you have sources for Amanda Filipacchi which meet the guideline's requirement that "[a] defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define" (emphasis in original) her as a 20th-century novelist?  If not, why do you want to put her in that category at all if the guideline's so important to you? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the category, nominate it for deletion at CFD. If you're making the argument that it should exist, but it should be non-diffusing or only partially diffusing, that's a different discussion. Categorization-by-century is quite common here, all across the writers/poets tree, and those are always diffusing as far as I can tell. Also, someone can be in two of these if they published across century boundaries (as Filipacchi did). As to your assertion that there is no such thing as a 20th-century novel or 20th-century novelists, you may want to inform Berkeley, which has a |seminar devoted to that topic (google turns up many many others), or this guy who wrote a whole book on the 20th-century novel in Britain: "A reader's guide to the twentieth-century novel in Britain", Randall Stevenson, University Press of Kentucky, 1993. "That all categories "diffuse" by design is going to be a perennial source of conflict therefore, and not just about race and gender." - I think if we want to continue that discussion, it should not be here but at the talk page for WP:Categorization - happy to continue there. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know that colleges organize their English courses that way and I know there are books titled stuff like that. It's not the argument I'm making.  I don't care to start a discussion about the wider issue, either, because I just don't care that much.  Let's just stick to Amanda Filipacchi.  Do you have reliable sources which commonly and consistently discuss her as both a 20th-century novelist and as a 21st-century novelist?  Why do you think those are defining characteristics of her? You seem to parse "20th-century novelist" as "a novelist who published in the 20th century."  Why do you think that it means that rather than "a novelist who wrote 20th-century novels"?  Which one are the college courses and the books about?  I would bet you that it's the latter. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess it's a combination of both. I think college courses try to draw a box and say "this is the quintessential 20th century novel" - but they would be quite hard pressed to say some other novel, published in the 20th century, is *not* a 20th century novel. It's a definitional issue, and there are many points of view, so the best is just to go with something that is indisputable, e.g. year of publication. Otherwise you get into endless debates... There's another debate raging right now over whether Picture of Dorian Grey is an or a  (or both) or something else entirely. I suppose the alternative, is to go through all 6700 bios, and try to find some source that says "this person is an American woman novelist" and "this person is a war novelist" and "this person is an African-American novelist" - it becomes impossible - instead, you find sources that cover the facet (e.g. is she a woman? check - is she african-american? check - is she a novelist? check). That's just the way these cats work... Maybe the criteria around DEFINING need to be updated to match actual practice. If we required multiple sources for every category and every person then a massive amount of our categories, esp those around gender/ethnicity, would be sparsely populated, as you can't find sources that clearly state each bio belongs in each category where it should belong per its facets. Such is the messy work of categorization - and why I think we need to move to category intersection esp for these issues. The alternative, of leaving just a lucky few in, is that you then have edit wars and people saying "So and so is *not* a science fiction writer, they wrote other things besides, therefore they should also belong" and so eventually, everyone is in American novelists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that despite the requirement that reliable sources describe the person commonly and consistently in a certain way, we're just going to do it some other way because the other way is too hard? Is that not just the IDONTLIKEIT argument you keep accusing others of making? I think you'll be hard-pressed to find "year of publication" used as a defining characteristic in reliable sources in most cases. And now you want to change the language in the guideline to support what you want to do? Until now you've argued that the language is clear and that it supports your position. Maybe the categories should be sparsely categorized. Not every novelist who's a woman is commonly and consistently discussed as a woman novelist. Not every novelist who published in the 20th century is commonly and consistently discussed as a 20th century novelist. Why should they be in the category? Do you and your category wonk peers know better than the reliable sources? Why do you not want to do the work of categorizing things properly, preferring instead to change the guidelines to make it easier to complete a task which very few editors think is important? Also, why not stick to the issue of this actual writer. Do you have sources to support your desired categorization of her based on the guidelines as they actually exist now or do you not? If not, why don't you go start a discussion on changing the guidelines yourself? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read the guidance carefully, you may find that it already covers what I discussed above: "'A central concept used in categorising 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[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: 'Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...', Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio. A category embodies one or more defining characteristic—how this is achieved in practice is described in the following sections.'" emphasis mine The key is the "one or more" - to me that suggests, you can put Carvaggio as an or an, even if sources only called him Italian in line one, painter in line two, and baroque in line 3. Intersection categories are perfectly reasonable, even if they combine different "defining" characteristics.
 * In any case, we should continue at the categorization page if you want to debate this further. I've already said elsewhere I'm not categorizing this special bio anymore, so you guys can leave it wherever you want it to be.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * discussion moved here Wikipedia_talk:Categorization. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)