User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Academic and artistic biographies

General
Could you give some examples of misguided articles? Standard biographies always include marital status and number and gender of children. The personal life of academics is relevant information, although these individuals may not be notable for their personal lives. If that was the case, then we would wipe out personal life information for almost all biographies, save politicians and the occasional celebrity who willingly bring out their personal life in public. I can't go for that. Calwatch 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) By this reasoning, shouldn't the biographies of artists, as well as academics, focus mostly on their work and not their personal lives? (Is Madonna an artist?)


 * I don't want to see material deleted from the wiki that is sourced and is relevant to the subject at hand. The solution to articles with too little information on one's professional career is to add information about their career, not delete allegedly negative (yet true) information about other facets of their lives. If their personal life made the newspaper, or the evening news, then it is relevant. Please note I am opposed to digging up dirt from personal weblogs (not newspaper columnist weblogs), individual observations, and searches of public records. Calwatch 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 2) The "overstated opinions of critics" argument applies not only to academics. I've seen these overstated opinions elsewhere, and they always seem to me to be out of place in an encyclopedia. I think this is a Wikipedia-wide problem. To see an article where the opinions of critics far outweigh the work of the subject of the biographical article, see Ann Coulter. Lou Sander 02:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, and that is why fork pages exist. Bill O'Reilly controversies and Bill O'Reilly critics and rivals are examples of properly forked pages designed to be a comprehensive account of all major controversies involving the commentator Bill O'Reilly. Ann Coulter probably deserves a fork at this point. On the other hand, the article for Lawrence Summers subsumes many of the controversies of Professor Summers into subpages, although more than the blurb we currently see on his actual research would be nice. The problem is that it is easy to cover controversies (type the person's name in Lexis-Nexis and see what you get), but much harder to cover an academic's research, because it requires a fairly advanced level of knowledge on the professor's field of study in order to summarize properly. Calwatch 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fork pages? ;-) Lou Sander 02:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples
I wanted to avoid being too specific with individual bios, since I don't want an idea for a guideline to turn into a digression on a specific person.

But perhaps I can cautiously present an example. A while back (something like last March), the article on Slavoj Žižek began to be dominated by verifiable but barely notable "critiques" of Žižek. All of the critiques were by real-life academics, not fabrications; but were more-or-less a random sample of the hundred of academics who have verifiably addressed (i.e. "critiqued") Žižek's work. Most of the "critics" are not themselves notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. The thing about these critics is that most are more like "discussants"... that's what's academics do: we discuss the pros and cons of ideas (though most of those presented tend towards the more harshly critical direction, it's still a very different quality than critics of Bill O'Reilly or Lawrence Summers.

The solution I eventually arrived at was indeed a fork of sorts: Critiques of Slavoj Žižek (against the opposition of a single-issue editor, who had a particular favorite critic). It's not a very good article, and doesn't have a lot of genuine reason to exist. But at least I toned down the POV-mongering tone of the text that I copied over to create the child. There's no huge harm in it existing, but it would have been a lot easier process if an explicit guideline had been available to point in the right direction. Take a look at the March-ish edits of Slavoj Žižek to see the more explicitly POV variants (though I was trying to reduce those insertions before the fork too).


 * I think the explicit guideline is already there... fork the article if criticisms and controversies are overwhelming, with a paragraph or two summarizing the criticism (which I see too infrequently). Point of view language is an issue in the whole project, and it affects the pro side too. Calwatch 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The focus on personal life happens a lot too, but I'm going to avoid arguing specific articles right now. I do think the similar moral does apply to a large extent for artists. Madonna is a bad example because both by her own efforts and by a press focus, her personal life is central to her noteriety. But, for example, I was reading the article on Alicia Keyes today, which is pretty good: specifically, it mainly focuses on her specific works, their style, etc. Or to pick another genre (someone who lives near me, which is an accidental reason for choosing the name): Max Roach. I just looked at the bio for the first time right now, but it seems reasonably good (could use some sectioning and improvement in flow); I neither know nor care about Roach's "personal" life, but I can see a good description of his musical style and influence... his "works". Apparently he had a "first wife"... I really don't care to know whether he had a "messy divorce", even if newspapers reported on it at the time. That's not why Roach is notable, and it would just be undue weight to discuss (under the hypothetical it is true, which I have no reason to believe). LotLE × talk 02:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I happen to disagree. People are newsworthy for various reasons. The weight of the news articles has to be taken into account. A anonymously sourced sentence in a three dot column in the local newspaper is different from a divorce that made the local TV news (perhaps because of a trial), is different from a divorce that made Entertainment Tonight or Celebrity Justice. The correct weight needs to be given, but that doesn't mean that it has to be swept under the rug. For a while I was fighting someone deleting the adultery information about state politician Tom Umberg. He's an adulterer, he admitted it in the local newspaper, the woman he had the affair with acknowledged it in another newspaper, and it was a campaign issue, yet somehow that is not worthy of inclusion? Give me a break. Calwatch 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the concern. Maybe I need to just get around to actually writing a proposed guideline.  I'm certainly not claiming that something in a notable person's personal life cannot be notable.  Nonetheless, there is a big gap between what's verifiable and what's notable.


 * I don't want to spin the hypothetical about Roach any further, but let's just say "Famous Artist". This could be a painter, a musician (outside of the very small fraction who are "celebrities" as much or more than musicians), a novelist, etc.  So Ms. Famous Artist is overwhelmingly known for a certain body of work; at the same time, in the course of decades, it's quite likely she gave some interview, or someone she new made some comment, that gave some details about her "personal life".  Perhaps this detail of personal life has a negative direction, but that's not even the main thing.  What I have found repeatedly, is that many, many editors argue that the fact this detail is verifiable somehow mandates its inclusion (especially if the detail is negative... and the editor dislikes the biography subject).  More than the very briefest mention of most such details immediately gives them undue weight... it insinuates that Famous Person's affair, or divorce, or rare public drunkenness, or one-time offensive comment, or whatever is actually important to their notability, when it simply isn't.


 * Some of this is quantitative in a way that WP:V, and even WP:NPOV doesn't really get at. If there have been ten thousand music reviews of Famous Artist, and 20 articles discussing her youthful arrest on minor charges, both things are verifiable.  The problem is one of proportion: based on the fairly realistic hypothetical, I think there should tend to be 500 times as many words on the musical works... which means a clause on the arrest, at most.  But inevitably, someone inclined towards hostility towards Famous Artist wants to have a longish paragraph describing all the (verifiable) arrest details.  It's not that the arrest is an "extremist" or "slim minority" view: in the hypothetical it's acknowledged by everyone... the dispute is on the notability of the fact.


 * On the other hand, not putting the information or subsuming the information into one clause doesn't do the topic justice. I agree that Wikipedia overemphasizes current events. Do we really need a full page on the Mel Gibson DUI incident? Ideally, a paragraph would be provided in the main article (Gibson was arrested, and the story made front page news for a while) and a external link given to a Court TV or E! Online summary of the situation, or a link to a specialized wiki page on the incident, when that is made available. However, to use the 500 times standard is terrible and puts and emphasis on quality over quantity, one I think most Wikipedians would disagree with. I will not support any attempt to quantitatively condense information, because important details will get redacted and a whole picture of the subject's life will not be presented. Editing and redaction of details needs to be done on a case by case basis, not with arbitrary rules.


 * In that instance, a mere clause (Person A was arrested for drunk driving.... Period, Stop, End) is not enough. Why was it notable? Did Person A make comments to the officer? Some of the items, like Person A's alleged flirtation with other individuals in the bar, are not notable, but Person A's comments denigrating an ethnic group, made after making a movie perceived by members of the ethnic group to be negative, which caused the ethnic group's leaders to condemn Person A and resulted in ink being spilled on major newspapers and in the Big Three TV newscasts, is relevant. Calwatch 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm finding it really frustrating that you seem to be deliberately evading the point I'm trying to get at. Wikipedia articles really are of finite length individually, and balance and undue weight within them still matters, no matter how cheap electrons are.  Let me tell a fairly specific hypothetical biography:


 * Famous Academic was born in 1940
 * Famous Academic has written 20 books and hundreds of articles, about German and Russian literature, and about general literary criticism. All are published in academic presses and journals.
 * Famous Academic is uniformly acknowledged as one of the top 5 experts in her field by fellow scholars in this field.
 * 500 different fellow academics have written professional articles on elements of Famous Academic works, many of them containing criticisms.
 * A few dozen general "feel good" biographical articles have been written about Famous Academic in general circulation magazines over the last four decades of her notability.
 * In 1973 Famous Academic was arrested for drug possession, spent a night in jail, and served 20 hours of community service. In 1973-4, 20 articles in 4 regional newspapers discussed the arrest and sentence for up to several paragraphs.  In the couple dozen general readership biographies one in 1988, and another in 2001, mentioned the arrest for up to three sentences of material.  She has no other criminal charges in her history; and she has taken no notable position on police procedures, drug laws, etc, during her public career.


 * OK, there's the whole bio in summary. If we write a 4000 word biography of Famous Academic, how many of those words should concern the arrest and sentence?


 * If it's not obvious, my answer is that zero words is probably the best choice, but certainly fewer than 10 should be nearly mandatory. What I find in actual articles is often >100 words on details of the arrest, charges, sentence, etc. (or similarly for other personalistic information).  Of course it is simplifying to put this as a raw word count, and lots of context varies... but nonetheless, thinking about the question fairly abstractly lets us see the very real of undue weight, and of reporting things unrelated to notability (while still being verifiable).  LotLE × talk  05:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact is, though, that most articles aren't like that. You are making a straw man argument here. Most incidences of criminal activity in Wikipedia are recent, not in 1973. (And yes, a sentence for a citation like above would be appropriate... but if that person was charged with a felony (even if not convicted), if that person made the front page of their regional newspaper, if the incident was last year instead of thirty years ago, then a paragraph would be sufficient. If the person was not a Famous Academic but instead was running to be a Famous Politician, and the opponent brought up the charges in the campaign, then a bit more about the issue would be relevant. How verifiable informaiton is "personalistic" beats me, but I can see the need for balance, but not by eliminating details essential to understanding the story.


 * No! The fact is that the large majority of biographies of living persons (or recently living persons) are a whole lot like this. All the examples you look at are people who are extremely prominently in the eye of the general public... in other words, not academics (and also not musicians, artists, actors, etc. outside a very few in the "star system").  Far fewer than 5% of bios are anything like every example you give (broad and non-specialized notability; and with highly unusual "front page" and "national TV" coverage of the personal detail).  I'm interested in the other 95%.  And for these 95%, a whole paragraph is far too much.


 * Politicians are almost as bad an example as the "top stars", simply because politicians get their job by election... and campaigns tend highlight actual or perceived "character flaws". If this 1973 arrest became a prominent issue in a 2000 political campaign, of course it elevates to notability on its own.  But I'm still interested in the other 95% of bios.  And no, of course the specific detail of a "drug possession arrest" isn't universal (though it's a relatively common "blemish")... most non-star academics/musicians/painters/novelists/etc. probably did "something unflattering" at some point in their past life, and in a lot of those cases it's quite verifiable with local newspapers and the like.  Actually, it's not even really the "unflattering" part that is germane: I also don't care, nor want to know, nor especially do not believe it encyclopedic to know, that a moderately prominent sculptor honorably coached the local little-league team (something quite likely to be verifiable in local media).  LotLE × talk  07:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not deliberately evading your points. I just happen to disagree, and that's fine. I think that these issues need to be sorted out, in individual articles, in the whole context of things. I am not for biographies having a positive or negative spin, but I am not for anything more than the current guidelines in WP:NPOV. I would especially be opposed to any numerical guidelines like you are proposing. Calwatch 05:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The the academic critique thing is more extreme still, and even more abused in biographies that I've worked on. By the very nature of academic production, anyone who is well known as an academic has critics.  That's how you advance yourself in an academic field: by writing critiques of the more famous people.  Well, not the only way, but it's a very big aspect.  But if Famous Thinker wrote some widely read books, and (quite likely literally), 500 other people wrote critiques of these books in professional journals.  All these critical articles are verifiable, and were published in reliable sources, but their mere existence is more of an automatic supposition of the fact Famous Thinker is notable, not any special point of "balance" or NPOV.


 * If the academic critics fall into easily distinguised groups or schools, an article might discuss the underlying intellectual position(s), and the advocates of each side. But putting it in the biography of Famous Thinker herself creates a very awkward imbalance... it pretends that Minor Critic is as central to Famous Thinker's notability as are Famous Thinker's own books.  The Zizek thing is exactly this: none of the critics are particularly notable in themselves, nor are any of them unusual.  Following the implied grab bag "anyone who wrote something with criticism of Zizek's works", the criticism child/fork could easily be 100k words.  That it has the particular critics it does is just sheer accident of whose students wanted to add stuff.  This all makes for really unencyclopedic rambling, in almost every academic biography I've worked on.  LotLE × talk  04:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, what kind of criticisms are they making? What kind of research is the person engaged in? Are these people criticizing a fundamental point of the research, or are they just quibbling with the results? Were there any allegations of academic dishonesty or fraud? (Subsuming that criticism would not be acceptable.)


 * No, no... my concern here isn't about academic fraud or the like. It's just: "I argue Famous Academic is wrong on blah, because of such-and-such argument".  Sometimes academics, especially in humanities, can get a bit hyperbolic, but even if someone claims that "Famous Academic's analysis is a total sham" they don't literally mean (in these contexts) that he fabricated evidence... it's just a colorful way of saying that they consider his argument of little merit.  LotLE × talk  05:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The other reason it seems longer is because of the references, especially in the Zizek article. You are using direct quotes from the critics, and citing them, which make the criticism appear to be more than it actually is. This has to be taken on a case by case basis, based on editor consensus, because I don't know anything about Zizek, and reading the article makes my head spin, in the same way an article about Michael Faraday might make your head spin. Absolute rules for all articles, though, are not the way to go. Calwatch 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah... but leaving out those things altogether is a really good option that a lot of POV editors try to exclude. Without you understanding Zizek, I can still tell you that there really are 500 people who have published "critiques" of Zizek in academic journals (heck, I'm one of them).  But the bar for those criticisms making it into biographies is way, way too low.  Zizek wouldn't be any more or less notable if I hadn't published an article on him... but in the aggregate, if 500 scholars didn't think doing so was worthwhile, he would be less notable.  LotLE × talk  05:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Omission
I don't think you'll be able to convince me that omitting information is a good idea. The Florida Bar standards (above) are a good start. Calwatch 08:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously claiming that if I can dig up my UMass Alumni Magazine issue that has a profile on local professor Max Roach, and it asks him about coaching the Amherst Little League team, we must not omit that?! Or if I insert that information, complete with precise and accurate citation, some other editors must not remove it?! It actually sounds like the subtext here is "must not omit something negative", which actually sounds even worse to me. I mean, I know perfectly well that Mel Gibson's recent DUI got big press—and I'm not even against a whole article on it (though I haven't read it specifically)—but if Max Roach had one, does anyone care? Or if I did? Or if another local professor, Robert Paul Wolff did? Or even if Martha Nussbaum did? (with all respects to Max, Bob and Martha, whom I am certain actually drive responsibly... as do I).  LotLE × talk  15:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have to take into account media coverage of the incident when it happened, notability and gravity of the incident, and that sort of thing. Basic bipgraphical information like birthdate (if properly sourced), marital status, name of spouse (if properly sourced), and number and gender of children should never be objectionable. Name of the church the person belonged to, birth parents maiden names (if they don't have their own wikipedia biography), and stuff like that I would classify as too personal. Misdemeanors twenty years ago might be omitted, unless there was a pattern of crime, the person referenced his crime as an inspiration for his work, etc. Quite honestly, though, I still dispute that this is a problem, although I don't generally edit in the academic sphere, as you have noted. And while I'm not for the straw men you have argued for, I'm not for a numerical standard of words either. Calwatch 04:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is that academic bios really do persistently attract old and non-influential personal claims. For example, a rather obnoxious sock-puppet wrote at the Talk:Michel Foucault discussion the following:


 * An affair that brings into question his ethical fortitude, if you will, has no place in an article about a philosopher? That's strange. By what standard do you draw that conclusion? I think it's very relevant to readers that they realize he is no bastion of ethical perfection but did, in fact, do something questionable. While it had no major effect on his career, it does have a major effect on his memory and how people view him. That's the underlying reason for the volitile reaction the facts have gotten.


 * Now this particular editor was especially disruptive, and the attempted insertion was poorly sourced. But at a less extreme scale, I have seen very similar claims for inclusion of information on a great number of academic biographies.  Lots of stuff about how readers "deserve to know what kind of person Famous Academic is".  LotLE × talk  04:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What to do?
I read this discussion between LotLE and Calwatch with interest. I have observed similar problems in BLPs and I think that there is an elegant solution, if we apply WP:NPOV judiciously. A 2,000-word article about a philosopher and her philosophy, should be weighted on that and not so much about her personal life, unless specific aspects of her personal life had a bearing on the development of her theories, and that is discussed on reliable sources. As for critics of this philosopher, I would argue that if the critic is highly notable, he will have an article in WP, and his criticism of other notable people cam be explored fully on his article. A short mention of the philosopher's article and a wikilink to the notable critic's article will suffice. As for non-notable critics, these may deserve a small mention in the philosopher's article, if at all. Of course, you will need to negotiate all this with involved editors, and that is not always easy, in particular when you have active critics and supporters of the LP editing the article.≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've scanned/read through the whole page here, and this latter discussion in particular. I'm not sure where I land on this one, as I see merit to both sides of the argument. I suspect that WP:CONSENSUS just has to do its magic in most cases. In a recent set of discussions at Judith Butler and Michel Foucault, I think that did work, with one user getting a temporary block and two suspected sock-/meat-puppets getting permanent ones. They got blocked because they kept ignoring the process of consensus, kept inserting negative material from dubious sources or badly construed summaries of statements in legitimate sources. I suppose in this case, the articles are now in good or better shape, now that these disruptions have ceased. I don't mean to say that consensus will solve everything. Maybe instead of suggesting a guideline right now on academic biographies, it would be good to elaborate an essay on this topic. After some elaboration, collaboration, and discussion, perhaps we can return to the question of adding to the guideline per se. That's my two cents for now. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

PEBKAC, WikiProject suggestion
After a quick look, it isn't clear to me that living academics pose a different publishing problem than other living people do. I strongly suspect, however, that they attract a different type of editor. I note that Hilary Putnam has been the focus of quite a bit of attention recently, apparantly without any input from WikiProject Philosophy. An active WikiProject LitCrit (or any other discipline) might be more helpful than trying to create a subsidiary WP:BLP guide specifically for some of the examples above. Jkelly 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this input. I still think there is a slightly more specific issue, though the discussion has convinced me that "artists" (broadly construed: i.e. painters, musicians, novelists, etc) have close enough to the same issue that a common essay/guideline should apply to both.  To my mind, there is a difference between biographies of "the person" and biographies of "the body of work"... it's not a sharp-edged distinction, but it's a definite difference in degree or focus.


 * However, I think I'll go ask for advice/input on the Philosophy WikiProject, per your semi-advice. LotLE × talk  21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I generally don't edit in the philisophy or academician biographies. Most biographies I edit are of media personalities, business executives, and politicians. I think individual standards, per consensus, may work better in countering the alleged bias of some of these articles of less publicly-known subjects. Calwatch 04:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I'm not concerned with those biographies, in relation to this essay.  I think WP:LIVING does a good job already for those categories of biographies, or at least I haven't personally encountered special issues in my limited contribution to those bios.


 * I'm referring specifically to the various wikiprojects that attempt to categorize people into portals. Some of them are also promulgating standards for the articles, a concept I strongly support as people who edit lots of these articles are more likely to determine, through consensus, what is a good article. Calwatch 04:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did find a comment of yours useful, and added it to the current draft: something to the effect of needing special expertise to discuss actual academic works, while it's easy for anyone to identify and understand personal-life actions that are reported. This seems in a similar spirit to Jkelly's comment.  I guess I partially desire a certain level of expertise for editors of a technical mathematical or scientific concept, I would also like it for editors of a biography of an academic in a technical area... the ones I understand lean towards philosophy and a few related areas, but I recognize a similar need for expertise (that I lack) in other areas of academic biography.  LotLE × talk  04:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This, and the discussion about biography vs. works, leads me to rethink my suggestion that additional guidelines aren't obviously needed. Jkelly 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts
Hi. I agree that philosopher biogs in particular raise some special issues, and with the general thrust of this essay. I have some further thoughts, offered for whatever they're worth:
 * The purpose of articles on thinkers and creators (philosophers, writers, artists, etc.) is to provide an accurate, neutral, accessible summary of their work, and of its place and influence in their discipline and in wider culture. It is not to provide a final judgement of the intellectual worth of that work, of whether its influence has been positive or negative, or of the moral character of the subject. This distinction of purpose suggests some principles for the relevance of biographical and critical material. Biography beyond basic born-children-died is unnecessary, unless the subject's personal life is part of her work or influence (e.g. Tracy Emin but not Hilary Putnam) or is of intrinsic interest (e.g. Picasso but not Jerry Fodor). Criticism is worth including, first, if dialogue with that criticism sharpened or refocussed the subject's work (e.g. debates between John Rawls and Michael Walzer for Rawls's work). Or, second, if the contrast between the work and the criticism helps explain the subject to the reader of the article (controversially, I'd say that the inclusion of Nussbaum's critique of Judith Butler is justified for this reason: the universalist/anti-essentialist contrast is worth making for expository purposes). Criticism should not be included just because it has been made: the focus, again, should be the subject's work, and other material should be included only on the grounds that it shaped or illuminates that work.

Cheers, Sam Clark 12:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sam. I find your description quite useful, and have added it to the essay.  If you feel like doing any rearranging, trimming, clarfication, etc. to the essay directly, I would love to have the help polishing the wording.  LotLE × talk  15:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Kmaguir1 counter-essay
This discussion to a sibling because it has digressed into a long thread about a specific external article. I recommend continuing any such discussion on the relevant article talk instead:


 * Counter-Essay on Academic and Artistic Biographies


 * I am in total agreement--in fact, I think it is in fact a counter-essay, I've appropriated a term, created a project page, and linked your page to it, and I will soon copy the talk page from your subdivision of the essay to the talk page of the new project page, and then blank the previous talk page (for the subdivision). I think this debate should prove good for the community.-Kmaguir1 05:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessing notability
I'd like to find the right language to describe a distinction in reasons for notability. Obviously, simply being an academic or artist does not rule out notability for other reasons. But notability is what needs to come first, last and throughout. In this regard, I think the question one should ask is whether a biography subject would be any less notable if a given event had not occurred or had not been reported. Just because some sort of maudlin fascination or titillation may arise from some tid-bit of an academic's or artist's life (even if the event was indeed reported in some minimal but verifiable way), especially from some negative or "incriminating" aspect, that does not mean such is what makes the person notable.

I dislike leaning too much on individual examples, because it distracts the conversation into digressions on the individuals named. But just to try to illustrate: Obviously it would not be remotely sensible to bury the fact Theodore Kaczynski was convicted of multiple bombings on the grounds that he had been a math professor. If that's all he had done, he would quite likely be notable enough for a much shorter article that was a lot heavier on the technical mathematics stuff. But as is appropriate, the bulk of the biography is devoted to the whole Unabomber thing.

In contrast, it would be equally absurd to lead the Ludwig Wittgenstein article with "Wittgenstein is known for writing the Tractatus and threatening Karl Popper with a fireplace poker". Just because we can cite "Edmonds, D. & Eidinow, J, Wittgenstein's Poker.", that hardly makes it the most notable things about one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. OK, sure, it's a funny, slightly disturbing, and somewhat vindictive, anecdote. But if the event had never occurred at all, Wittgenstein's notability would be affected not in the slightest. I'm mildly surprised the anecdote is not mentioned even in passing in the biography, but the bio is certainly no worse for its absence (and would be much worse if the matter earned more than one clause late in the article).

The insults Kmaguir1 added to the bell hooks article is close to the Wittgenstein case, FWIW. It was alleged by one fairly unreliable source that she was once boo'd at an invited commencement speech. The fact itself seems dubious, given its partisan cited source; but even if it were true, it is almost in the description itself that it does not relate to her notability. The fact she got invited to give the commencement speech in the first place says a lot more about notability... random academics do not give these talks, but only ones with prominent prior reputation. And hooks notability would be no greater and no less if this alleged boo never occurred (stipulating that it actually did happen). LotLE × talk 02:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia?
Would you object to a "trivia" section for such items then? Amusing stuff like that (he is X' XX" tall, he placed first in the Boston Marathon in 1965, etc.) would be in those sections, with maybe a sentence or two about each item. That would not be in the main narrative. Calwatch 04:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To a very limited extent, I find those sections OK. This issue, however, isn't really anything special to academics and artists—most any biography subject might have such trivia.  I do worry that such a section can be used to try to hide what are actually smears or insults, but a lot of "trivia" is perfectly neutral.


 * Probably no one who placed first in the Boston Marathon is a non-athlete (of whom the fact relates to their central notability), but take "placed first in their high school track team". Does it really make any difference whether Robert Motherwell placed first in high school track (I have no reason to believe it true, nor false, but it's conceivable).  Or that Margaret Mead was alergic to shellfish (again, pure speculation)? Or even that Goro Shimura had a twin sister (likewise, probably false)?  There are lots of such things that someone might find interesting... but then, equally many people might find such facts completely uninteresting.  What would be the standard for "intersting though unimportant", about which we might reach consensus per article?  In any case, none of this is specific to this essay, but a question for biographies in general.  LotLE × talk  04:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Inline citation in biographies
I see as a problem with most of the philosopher bios (most of which have been tagged as "B" quality) that additions are made citing an original work and then providing a paraphrase of relevant content. I believe that this is not sufficient. Often you cannot tell if the editor actually read the work, or is simply copying or paraphrasing a secondary source without citing it. It seems reasonable (and per WP:CITE) that if the secondary source is not going to be cited, then it must be assumed that the original was consulted, and the citations need be more than simply stating the title of the work and then paraphrasing without some form of specific notation. I have especially encountered this problem at Immanuel Kant in my attempt to clean it up, and noticed it as a prevalent phenomenon throughout philosopher bios.

I also would like to note that user Sam Clark (above) has made some good points in regard to criticisms, but I see a major point of distinction in that the Rawls controversy involved Rawls, he defended his position, and this is not a secondary source. Most criticisms are secondary works, and even if they are considered as illuminating they can present a slue of problems in regard to NPOV. Amerindianarts 15:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not disagree that the quality of citations in academic biographies is often less than would be desirable. Actually, this is true across Wikipedia.  But I do not see this issue as very specific to this essay topic.  While it is about acedemic/intellectual topics, it's not anything about biographies particularly.  An abstract concept that might have been discussed by a given thinker can equally suffer from a vague citation (and often does).  This concern, I believe is either addressed by WP:CITE, or perhaps some clarification of that guideline can be made... I know the topic of whether and when specific pages are required in a citation has come up frequently on the talk page of that guideline.  LotLE × talk  03:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I think I have overestimated the importance of this essay.  Amerindianarts 06:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, OK... but I think it's a distinction of scope, not of importance. LotLE × talk  06:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe. But the essay places an emphasis on more content of the person's thought, which was its allure.  Some academics and artists were non-writers, so how do you gauge the content of their writings/thought? Secondary opinion? What? In this sense the essay opens a door on scope that needs to be closed, or the "scope" is a mere abstaction.  Amerindianarts 14:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah... of course secondary opinion. That's true of writers as well.  It's not up to us to decide what Mark Rothko's paintings mean, and what he had in mind in painting them.  We need to find external art critics who have commented on his work, and quote or summarize what they say (and give proper citations to them, including page numbers when needed).  The concern you expressed initially does not seem to have anything to do with this question, really (nor with the essay topic).


 * There has been a recent discussion and clarification on WP:NOR about the role of primary and secondary sources; to some extent that addresses your concern immediately above. And the general cite-with-specificity is addressed in WP:CITE.  Perhaps this essay could add reminder links back to those... but the question really to keep in mind is whether a given concern is actually about biographies.  For example, you state that there have been citation problems at Immanuel Kant; I haven't followed that article, but I'm happy to believe you.  How is that a special concern versus what might be at Transcendental idealism or at Critique of Pure Reason? The latter two might refer to works indirectly and/or with inadequate citation specificity, but neither of them are biographies (even if obviously related closely to Kant, who does have a biography).  LotLE × talk  17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts, from science/medicine biography perspective
I'm in broad agreement with this essay. Personal details rarely have any direct relevance in science/medicine biographies, and the balance of the article should definitely focus on research. One example that comes to mind is Hans Kornberg, where there's been an accumulation of largely unverifiable trivia and an excessive focus on categorisation relating to his possible Jewish origins. One exception is that I'd suggest a photograph can be of interest, though they are often harder to obtain than for people more in the public eye.

I've found that without a very detailed knowledge of the work it's difficult to summarise it, let alone summarise it for a lay reader and put it into appropriate context. Going beyond 'research interests include fields A, B and C' can be tricky without a secondary 'tribute' type of reference; however, such articles are rarely written about working scientists unless they receive significant awards. They're also often published in newsletters/magazines attached to learned societies/institutions, rather than reputable and searchable publications.

I have encountered the criticism problem you mention a few times, eg in the article on John Gurdon, earlier versions of which I felt were unacceptably biased towards criticism. I've also encountered an opposite problem in 'popular' scientists, eg David Ho, where many of the claims for his research importance in the current article feel inflated.

I've found both of these bias issues are more of a problem in articles about topical areas, such as cloning, evolutionary genetics & HIV. A lot of articles on scientists outside buzz areas don't attract many edits, or just don't get created in the first place -- the coverage of scientists in the UK is very thin. Espresso Addict 06:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that scientists whose work is "topical" to a general audience tend to get more of the unencyclopedic personalistic stuff. Popular publications are much more wont to describe scientific work as either "groundbreaking" or "dangerous" than are scientific publications, and readers of popular publications are less likely to genuinely understand the underlying scientific questions.


 * I wouldn't mind seeing some warnings added about the danger of "fanboy-ism" in biographies. I've personally encountered more on the criticism side of the problem, but I've seen some of the fandom stuff as well.  FWIW, I find that almost every editor who puts in ad hominem pseudo-critiques of an academic turns around and accuses the other editors of being "worshipers" or "accolytes" or the like of the biography subject, even (or especially) when the descriptions are detailed and neutral (and therefore not condemnatory... but neither are they laudatory).


 * If you feel, Espresso Addict, like adding some good neutral phrases about avoiding inflated advocacy claims, I think the essay could be improved. It's easy to use superlatives when trying to impress readers: "the most important contribution to...", etc.  There is already a guideline about avoiding peacock phrases out there, but a reminder and rejoinder of that couldn't hurt in this essay.  LotLE × talk  14:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But see, a medical doctor's personal life, personal statements, are not entirely relevant to his profession. When a PROFESSOR says these things, it's an entirely different case--he/she is educating our children, or supposedly doing this. There's no immunity there. If someone cared to make statements about their personal lives, then it's notable. People seem, across the board, to care less about scientists' personal lives because unlike philosophers or humanities people in general, they don't subject the world to a conformist philosophy based entirely around their personal lives and petty subjective experience. The humanities people open the door--Bell Hooks, Foucault, they talk about sex, justice, so let's see how they act out these things in their lives. They want a schism between the author and the person--they must not be reading their Foucault!-Kmaguir1 19:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahem... Nonsense. Scientists and doctors talk about sex and justice all the time.  Just not in the way that philosophers do.  The claim that philosophers "subject the world to a conformist philosophy based entirely on their personal lives" is rubbish.  There is absolutely no evidence for this ridiculous claim.--csloat 20:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest my counteressay, linked about midway on this page.-Kmaguir1 19:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked, your counter-essay didn't make this distinction between (good guys) medical doctors who keep their personal beliefs out of teaching, and (bad guys) humanities academics who 'subject the world to a conformist philosophy based entirely around their personal lives and petty subjective experience.' But even if it does, that doesn't make the distinction any less absurd. There is one question about the content of some individual thinker and teacher's thought. There is another one about how well that individual lives up to her own account of the good life. There is a third one about how well that individual lives up to your account of the good life. The answer to the second question, in my view, is not often particularly relevant to WP biographic articles; the answer to the third question is never relevant. If you're concerned about people who dispute your ethical beliefs 'educating our children', then there are plenty of pressure groups you can join, but WP biographical articles are not the place to boost them. Cheers, Sam Clark 14:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

status?
What is the status of this project? csloat 06:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

reviving this project?
If this project is still alive, I'd like to suggest that biographies of academics ought to separate out actual criticism of their work and "popular" criticism from politically motivated sources that often come across as character assassinations. It is terrible to see academic biographies in Wikipedia made up largely of quotes from op-eds, or worse, from sources such as FrontPage Magazine (a journal devoted primarily to such character assassinations). While there may be a place for reporting such attacks, they should not make up half of a biography page on a scholar. I think only in very extreme cases where a scholar has thrust themselves into the general public arena it is reasonable to have a short section devoted to "Popular criticism" or something of the sort. Such a section could include a brief summary of some of the attacks. But we should really discourage the kind of extended analysis of every negative comment someone can find in FrontPage or Human Events or wherever. If anyone has any suggestions for how we might enforce such a rule (or whether such a rule is desirable) please respond here. Thanks! csloat 23:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's not necessarily a clear cut line--journals like Nature discuss political implications as well. But I agree with you in some of the cases that I think you have in mind, and we might well try a separate section, though I wouldn't call it "popular" but perhaps "political" or something of the sort. I just tried academic/popular distinct for some book reviews. Some of this is unavoidable as WP is organized, so we ought to find ways of living with it. DGG 03:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)