Talk:Recluse

'Citation needed' ? for Hermit and Anchorite
Noted a 'Citation needed' tag after Hermit and Anchorite. Both words have a Wikipedia entry, and the gist of those entries conforms with the Oxford Concise English Dictionary.

Citations are included when that word or a novel use of an existing word can not yet be found in a dictionary or an encyclopaedia, but has appeared in printed material such as a newspaper or magazine. They helps establish the credentials of the proposed (new) meaning.

As there are references, both on the Hermit and the Anchorite Wikipedia pages, and their meanings are listed in a long established dictionary which -at least in the United Kingdom- is held in high esteem, would the Citation needed tag be superfluous, as the citation is available 'one step removed'?

And as a person new to editing Wikipedia, on the point of good manners, do I amend or remove it, or leave that to the author, or to the person who added the Citation needed tag?

Finding my way in the history to find the person who added the 'Citation needed' tag seems daunting. Will adding this Talk automatically bring it to the attention of the author and the person who asked for the citation to be added?

Your comments or pointing me to a concise guide in case I have overlooked something relevant would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dutch59 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Notice after posting that whereas previous entries show the contributor and the time posted, these are absent from my entry. Will add them here. Posted 25 February 2007 by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dutch59.

Harbouring Recluses
"However, isolated and sparsely populated states (e.g., Montana, Wyoming, and Alaska) and countries (e.g., New Zealand or Australia) often harbor recluses, who are often seeking complete escape from civilization."

WHAT? This is completely false. Australia and New Zealand are not isolated or sparsely populated; nor do they contain a higher proportion than usual or recluses. I think one will find our level of civilisation to be as high as any average area of the US or Europe. I have removed this part of the sentence, although perhaps someone will care to defend it. Ppe42 11:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the idea of Oceania harboring recluses goes back to the myth of Australia being a place where the English could go to "disappear." The idea that Australia was a haven for criminals and still a place that British citizens could "escape" to is still believed by some.

Split article?
I'm thinking we should split the list into a separate article to be titled List of reclusive people. There are people like Sandy Koufax and Bill Watterson who are not recluses but are known for being especially publicity-shy, and there ought to be a list that includes such people. -- Mwalcoff 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was reading the article and finding several people listed because they do not give interviews or stay away from the media, but does that really make than recluses? I mean, they could still live their lives with plenty of people around them despite not appearing "in the public eye". I think this is a different issue. --84.249.199.74 (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Proof?
Seems like most of these "recluses" are just private celebrities. There is a difference to avoiding publicity and avoiding people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.185.40 (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree; the vast majority of recluses are not public persons. I think the list should be trimmed to those known as recluses; Howard Hughes, Sid Barrett...; a few years out of the public eye does not a recluse make - mystics, etc. are often known as recluses (some, not all).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.39.120 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Famous Recluses should refer to people who were at some point in time gigantic in the public eye, but then devote a considerable amount of time and energy to avoiding publicity. (Howard Hughes, like mentioned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.188.25 (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Van Morrison, Kate Bush, Johnny Carson, Morrisey? recluses? I think someone should remove this entries and others that are not true, or for the least put a reference that explains it. --Skibish (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The list should be removed
Perhaps there should be some examples, but the list is really pathetic and notable people can't be defined as recluses in the same way they can be defined as, say, Catholics, or Latin Americans. I want the list gone. Does anyone feel the same way? Belasted (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Praise mighty jesus, the list is gone. Let's keep it that way. Thank you. Belasted (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm shocked it got to be so large and was around for so long. In the future, if you see similar unsourced WP:BLP-violative stuff just remove it. No discussion is required. Best, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bring back the list. Portillo (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)