Talk:Jerome Kohl

Wikipedia activities
Nothing about his voluminous Wikipedia activities?? - kosboot (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find a reliable independent source for that (have been looking around a bit). Can you? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Any reliable source for that? It's more for insiders, no? User talk:Jerome Kohl, - one of the greatest editors I had the pleasure to talk to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link, e.g. Special:Contributions/Jerome_Kohl? Or maybe User:Jerome_Kohl at the bottom? - kosboot (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that it would fall into the category of "once the basic facts of the life have been shown to be notable, not every additional fact in the article needs to be notable, just have a reliable source" and if an typical claim (like "married, two kids" and not "greatest athelete of her generation") the source doesn't even need to be independent (like a university memorial). -- I think that his talk page, the memorials, etc. + the fact of the number of contributions would be enough to allow a note.  "He was also a prolific contributor to Wikipedia on many classical music topics."  Thanks to all for helping with the Draft/AfC. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We no longer have Category:Wikipedians with articles, but Jerry could be added to Notable people who have edited Wikipedia. I'm afraid that nothing can be mentioned here, as stated above, unless independent sources can be found referring to his Wikipedia work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * added him there --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Jerome's user page User:Jerome Kohl lists his biographical details, which match up completely with his activities and the obituaries, so there is no ambiguity between the user and the real person. In these circumstances, I cannot see any reason for not adding the category "People on wikipedia" or similar catehories. I have not checked what happened with Steven Rubenstein/User:Slrubenstein in Spring 2012. Mathsci (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think he'd be interested more in readers for articles on Stockhausen's music. The Stockhausen article received more than thousand views yesterday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) That's all mentioned in the username and the article; it seems a bit "à côté de la plaque". I'm mystified why you don't like to mention "wikipedian". Mathsci (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting a few possibilities (for clarity, these suggestions are based on the second paragraph "exception" of the "Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it" section of the Verifiability policy – it's a bit touch-and-go whether such exception can be applied correctly to the case at hand, so proposing here to see whether it stands scrutiny):
 * 1) add something like "Kohl's autobiography at Wikipedia website" to the "External links" section.
 * 2) add something like "Kohl published a short autobiography in Wikipedia. " to the "Life and work" section.
 * 3) and/or add something like "Kohl was an editor of several Wikimedia projects. " to that section.
 * 4) or something like "Kohl edited several Wikimedia projects from August 2006 to August 2020, totalling over 100,000 edits to English Wikipedia. " to that section.

Maybe there are even other possibilities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Hyacinth is enough to prove I've edited Wikipedia. Would not Special:Contributions/Jerome Kohl prove that he has edited Wikipedia. Also, I'm sure he ranks on the lists of Wikipedians by number of edits. He created 376 or 966 articles. It seems self hating to not acknowledge a prolific contributor to Wikipedia as such, as if doing such a thing was shameful rather than notable. Hyacinth (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Proof" is one thing, the other is relevance. An external reliable source picking up on the fact that Kohl was a (prolific) Wikipedia editor would be largely preferred to ascertain the latter. We may assume that as Wikipedia editors our judgement is blurred, either when we want to include the fact (as you propose), or when we want to omit it (as others propose). For me, tending rather towards the latter if no external sources are available, it would be acceptable if properly referenced, according to Wikipedia's rules. Conforming to the "exception" paragraph of "Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it" in the WP:V policy seems the only possibility when external sources are lacking (as is apparently the case). So, if you can phrase content, with an appropriate reference, and find sufficient editor support for it (as in WP:CONSENSUS) this may go forward. Lacking sufficient support (which also seems the case for any of my four proposals above), this should not go to mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Notability
Almost all the sources have problems with reliable sourcing and thus the entire article is very weak on notability. The sources are mostly not independent of Kohl involving institutions, organizations and people he had connections with. I am not seeing is any significant independent source that echo the accolades this article makes, it is like a bubble of insiders praising an almost-notable colleague. -- Green  C  14:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)