Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 77

RFC "Bias categories" and whether we can categorize people, groups, organizations, and media under them
Should this RFC from 2011 be upheld, i.e. should it be forbidden that we categorise people, groups, organizations, media under at least the above mentioned categories and "bias categories" in general? (restarted RFC) --Mvbaron (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC) -- Mvbaron (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I hope this is the right place. This is an RFC to re-evaluate consensus from 2011 which forbids categorizing “people, groups, organizations and media” under so-called “bias categories” (and similar categories) and all sub-categories. I suppose this is a BLP issue. Either outcome will have at least somewhat far-reaching consequences: either a number of categories will need to be emptied and deleted, or a great number of categories will be allowed to be filled.

Affected categories: (I label categories that do not seem to follow the above-mentioned consensus explicitly, but all would need cleanup if the ban is to be upheld)
 * Category:Ageism (does not follow consensus)
 * Category:Anti-Ahmadiyya (does not follow consensus)
 * Category:Critics_of_Ahmadiyya (needs to be deleted or filed differently)
 * Category:Anti-Arabism (sub-categories do not follow consensus)
 * Category:Anti-Buddhism
 * Category:Anti-Catholicism (subcategories do overwhelmingly not follow consensus)
 * Category:Anti-Catholic_activists (needs to be deleted or filed differently)
 * Category:Anti-Catholic_publications (needs to be deleted or filed differently)
 * Category:Anti-Catholic_organizations (needs to be deleted or filed differently)
 * Category:Anti-Catholicism_in_Germany (does not follow consensus)
 * Category:Anti-Hindu_sentiment
 * Category:Anti-Islam sentiment (sub-categories do not follow consensus)
 * Category:Islamophobia (does not follow consensus)
 * Category:Islamophobia_in_Europe (does not follow consensus)
 * Category:Anti-Protestantism
 * Category:Antisemitism (massive category, does somehow follow the consensus, subcategories do generally not, but does have a notice on top stating that individuals should not be filed under it. no idea)
 * Category:Homophobia (has been at the centre of the 2010/11 RFC but does in general not follow its own consensus)
 * Category:Misandry
 * Category:Racism (massive category, seems to uphold the ban, but at some point there are categories of far-right, neo-nazi parties that I guess would technically fall under the ban)
 * Category:Sexism

Data:
 * The RFC from 2011 upheld a ban for individuals, organizations and media from being categorized under so-called "bias categories". This includes sub-categories.
 * All (or at least most) of the above-linked categories have either an explicit notice stating that It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-XXX (e.g. Category:Antisemitism) or a banner disallowing the same (e.g. Category:Anti-Catholicism).
 * Most categories do (even though they have the above notice) in fact have people, groups and media categorised under them. (see the list above)
 * Some categories do not have people, groups and media categorised under them. (see the list above)
 * "Bias category" is a bit of a vague term: e.g. why does category:antisemitism fall under it, but category:anti-communists does not?

Relevant discussions:
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_18 (2010, and linked discussions)
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9 (2011, and linked discussions)
 * Talk:Jewish_Defense_League
 * Talk:Project_Veritas
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_24

RFC: Should the above-linked RFC from 2011 be upheld, i.e. should it be forbidden that we categorise people, groups, organizations, media under at least the above mentioned categories and "bias categories" in general?

Pinging users that reverted or discussed this with me recently: -- Mvbaron (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we need a new RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a new RFC... Mvbaron (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Uphold and ban bias categories in general. There's no perfect solution. It's always going to be a headache, and contentious. It's kind of a lose-lose situation. But, in this case generally: better less info than false info. (That goes triple for WP:BLPs). Summoned by bot. Herostratus (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely should not apply to groups, very slightly on the fence on if they should apply to BLPs. WP:BLP does not mean we cannot have factual material about living people if it is "negative". David Duke is in the Category:American Holocaust deniers which is a sub-sub-category of Category:Antisemitism in the United States as he should be. The Ku Klux_ Klan is in Category:Antisemitism in the United States and Category:Anti-black racism in the United States, as it should be. Because those are facts documented by scores of reliable sources, and censoring that fact is not in keeping with our core mission here. We should have high standard for applying such categories. But that does not mean we should not. Slightly more on the fence for actual BLPs, but that should just mean the bar is higher to include, not that it may not include.  nableezy  - 13:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Uphold. For Category:Climate change denial the words "This category is not to be used for biographies." were added after much discussion. It was just too easy to put people in since no citing is required. I think I was pinged because I asked about a possible misuse of categories for a group, with reference to WP:CATDEF, yesterday. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Are categories OK if uncited?Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Categories don't get cited, but they must be verifiable. That is, if a page is in, say, there must be something in the article's prose that states that the person died in 2021, and that portion of text should be cited in accordance with WP:V. It's the same with any other category - if a page is in, the article must have sourced statements that the subject is blind, and that they are a politician. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So in effect they can't just be added on a whime, RS must have said this about the group or person, its must be in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s why the 2011 RFC makes no sense to me. If we can (verifiably) say in the article that someone is a neo-nazi, or a Holocaust denier, or a homophobe - it makes no sense that there’s a global ban of using that very same category for the article. Mvbaron (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Because, first of all, we usually can't verifiably say these things. Most people don't say "yup, I'm a homophobe". We seldom have articles state "Smith is a homophobe". It's usually more like, putting forth some of his statements and letting the reader decide, or writing "Many observers such as X, Y, and Z have accused Smith of being a homophobe" and like that.
 * And then so you also get an unbalanced category. If you have one guy say "The Holocaust was made up. Never happened" and another guy who says "I think we need to question the accepted narrative here. These numbers just don't add up. All I'm saying is that there's a lot of disinformation put out there for political reasons, blah blah blah" They're both Holocaust deniers, but the first one goes in the category and the second one doesn't. Herostratus (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But we do have plenty of people RS say just thaT About, they are Climat change deniers (for example). So if we have RS (and our article says) they are (using your example holocaust deniers) why cant we include that category?Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bilorv listed (see above) the affected categories for this RfC and the relevant discussions. The climate denier category isn't in the lists, so the decisions made about it can't be changed by this RfC, but can be an inspiration for it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * actually this is only a selection and the 2011 RFC is also vague. It applies to the listed categories And so on, and so forth... the RFC effectively applies to all categories that are "bias categories" (whatever that is) plus all sub-categories... Mvbaron (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mvbaron: No it doesn't. People have already !voted. The RfC applies to what you listed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ... don't wikilawyer. the RFC question is if the RFC from 2011 is to be upheld and that RFC applies broadly. Mvbaron (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mvbaron, and Slatersteven, and User:Herostratus as Gulutzan mentions, this RFC is about listed categories, if that affects your position. I note that’s also a practical difference since categories of action (denials) or membership in an organization (nazi) are objective facts but whether someone has a bias is a judgement call.   Beyond that, it also highlights a difference of description - these are categories of what the bias is, not of who has it.  Holocaust denial is not the same category as holocaust deniers.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well but it says "a great number of categories will be allowed to be filled" if we overturn 2011, and the short list of categories is just a few that will have to be addressed there's no consensus to overturn 2011. So lot of categories are in play?
 * So... we could maybe change category names, maybe divide the categories more finely too. "Allegations of Anti-[religion]ism" or "Possible Anti-[religion]ism" or whatever. I don't know if that would help.
 * I looked at a sample, and there don't seem to be any living individuals at the category which is good (and the category pages should basically prohibit that). But right off I see that Death of Christine Dacera is in Category:Misandry, which is one of the categories not characterized as problematic. So, for starters, there's nothing about misandry in the article. Apparently the Manilla Police may have lazily ascribed a natural death to rape and murder and refused to reconsider cos that's how police departments roll; doubtful that the Manilla Police are especially anti-male. My vibe is that the article writer may be on a men's-rights type mission. You don't get these kinds of problems with, you know, "1921 births" or "Detroit Tigers players" etc.
 * It's not a super-easy call because categories do two things, help readers find a class of articles, and also help the reader of individual articles quickly get a handle on what are the key things about the entity. Different needs being shoehorned into one thing. So, tough question. I'm not changing my vote at the moment. Herostratus (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hej, I don’t know what you mean by a “listed category”, could you explain? About the other points: if we uphold 2011, then the category “islamophobia” needs to be emptied of people, organisations and media, and the category “islamophobes” should not exist. which is fine, it’s just not something we *do* consistently- hence this RFC. Mvbaron (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Category:Islamophobes should definitely not exist and Category:Islamophobia should indeed be emptied of living people at least. If for some reason it was allowed to exist, there must be a demand that that the categorization then and there with the precise refs with quotes or something like that, e.g " <--per [particulars of ref], 'I hate Islam'--> ". I'd recommend that for organizations and dead people too. Herostratus (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Uphold mostly for a pragmatic reason: too many articles are added to this sort of categories for which it is quite a stretch to be able to assess objectively that they belong there, or in other words the categories attract too much cases of WP:SYNTH. "Critics of" categories (such as Category:Critics_of_Ahmadiyya mentioned above) might be kept or evaluated on a case-by-case though. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The pragmatic reason you cite is actually a reason for overturning the RFC. The fact that most categories do NOT follow consensus can’t be a reason for keeping that consensus alive, right? Mvbaron (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is the existence of WP:OPINIONCATs themselves. It's a lot easier to police the existence of categories than it is who should/should not be added to them. You typically get people adding all members of a certain political tendency to a category en bloc regardless of whether the article even says anything about that opinion. The classic one for me is "anti-fascism", which seems to be one that people on the far left get added to regardless of whatever opinions they ever expressed about fascism (if any) during their lives. I'd also point people to WP:NONDEF as well, as these categories are too often used to categorise people based on throw-away statements that are not by any means definitive of the subject. FOARP (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for the comment, but I don't quite understand what your reasoning has to do with my discussion with marcocapelle. If this RFC goes to uphold, then we need to empty and delete a great number of categories - and I argued that a pragmatic argument would be to overturn in order to keep with what people actually do (i.e. populate these categories against consensus). Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 4,200 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/Biographies. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RFC: Should the above-linked RFC from 2011 be upheld, i.e. should it be forbidden that we categorise people, groups, organizations, media under at least the above mentioned categories and "bias categories" in general? This would be it. Can I just move the roc template down so that it works? I didn't know that there was an issue with the bot. Mvbaron (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * illustrates the problem. Check that page again after 22:01 (UTC), now that I have made . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, redrose, for your fix. I think I understand now how it works :) Mvbaron (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Uphold -  one might seek to edit the guidance on categories as well to clarify not to categorize people this way.  In general, an article text for a person or organization may mention (as supported) some issue or behaviour which has a bias lebel, but the the person or organization should not have a LABEL category put on them.   WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:LABEL as well as the definition in the categories (e.g. agism) are supports to upholding the prior RFC, and Marcocapelle mentions pragmatism issues.  I think it's just not good categorization and is a slippery slope to name-calling by subjective whim.  For example, I thik it's acceptable for  to include OK boomer but  categorizing every person who ever said it is silly and useless, and gaps in categorization leads to credibility issues of fact or bias.  Similarly, naming one organization leads to questions of why isn't AARP there.   No, it's a good ban to uphold.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Overturn - I am aware of problems with this kind of categories, occasionally, but was unaware of this guideline, which must be one of the most ignored guidelines on WP. The usual problem, as others point out, is over-readiness to include, based on trivial/transient events. What I have also encountered is a situation where an individual was high-up in an undoubtedly racist, extreme-right organisation, but no refs supported THIS individual being racist, but another editor insisted that merely being a 'leading-light' in the racist org made him racist. I took the attitude that inclusion was pointless at best, apart from BLP issues, since the aricle contained no info about this person's antipathies. Despite these problems, the ability to 'group' people or orgs for whom, for example, anti-black racism is a significant factor, is valuable info. Perhaps we should be more precise in our inclusion criteria and stricter in enforcing categorisation of all kinds being a defining characteristic of the individual or group - and of course the article having actual textual content about the person's antipathies which have justified the inclusion. Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pincrete - Surely in the above case the solution is just to put them in the cat for membership of that organisation, and to describe the nature of that organisation in the article? It's not like people are going to have many doubts about what the nature of someone's views are if the article say "X is a senior grand wizard of the KKK, a known white-supremacist group" and is in the KKK-members cat. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, it was a UK fringe-y far-right org which did NOT have a membership category. Had there been, of course, there is all the difference in the world between being a member of X party/organisation - which is/is not a fact, and assuming an individual endorses every belief of that organisation. There aren't many people high-up in any organisation that don't share the core beliefs of that organisation, but we either avoid 'guilt by association' regardless of what people's political beliefs are, or we don't! Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a heavy "right great wrongs" vibe about this. If this was some tiny fash group, such that it was so small that there weren't enough members on wiki to fill a membership category, then why isn't putting "Mark Nobless is a senior member of the English Demonuts, a known white supremacist group according to X" in the article sufficient? I mean especially given how some of these smaller parties get hijacked by (even more) crazies - for example the old SDP, formerly a large UK political party, is now apparently a vehicle for various Toby Young-esque eugenicists.
 * It's very obvious where this ends up: wing-nuts edit-warring by adding every left-winger to the "anti-American" category and every right winger to the "racist, homophobic" category based on their interpretation of what their views actually entail. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Uphold Putting an individual in such a category is a broad negative judgement that WP should not be making. Categories give no room for nuance--if we use them we will have difficulty distinguishing between someone who once used a slur that got into the newspaper from someone who has made a career of bigotry. Categories need to be unambiguous in order to avoid endless disputes about where to draw the line. It can be difficult  enough with other categories--how much acclaim does someone need to be called a "singer"? If a person ran for a primary once in their life, are they a "politician", but an error here is not the sort of thing that can have negative consequences. The basic idea of BLP is "do no harm" and putting someone in these categories would in most cases do them harm. We can of course cover these things in bio articles, and the place to draw the line for what to include  can be difficult enough to evaluate, but at least there will be an immediately visible RS., and some clarity about the evidence.   DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Overturn The decision from 2011 was a poor one, and requires Wikipedians to ignore reality. Such discriminatory practices are always defining. Dimadick (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Overturn As there is (and cannot be) any valid policy-based argument for including a category not supported in the body I think those objections based on this are invalid. If this was the basis of the old RFC it should be overturned. If RS say someone is X so should we, if RS (And only RS count) do not we can't, it really is as simple as that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Slatersteven. The issue I have here is this leads to e.g., everyone who is a member of the communist party being categorised as e.g., an "anti-fascist", even if e.g., they supported the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and thought that the US and the Hungarian insurgents of 1956 were "fascists". Categories are binary, you're either in them or you aren't, so people use their subjective interpretation of the facts to use them to say something about someone that no actual reliable source supports. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Uphold DGG's reasoning is sound. Categories are binary, either you're in the category or you aren't. Rather than litigating every close case, it makes more sense and is more inline with the general spirit of BLP to simply ban these kinds of categories from being used in BLPs. You can write as much nasty shit as you want in the article itself. Mlb96 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Uphold and Extend to all opinion-based categories - What you too often see is people being categorised due to a (possibly temporarily-held) view, or due to a subjective interpretation of that person's view based on membership of an organisation. It becomes a way of saying something that no reliable source actually supports. The area I have seen this most is the near-systematic definition of everyone on the far left as being "anti-fascist", including, for example, supporters of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, or people for whom "fascism" meant the Hungarian insurgents of 1956 or the United States, or many people who never actually took part in any actual anti-fascist activism. By all means say in the article that they criticised this-or-that, or that they were a bigot, or whatever, if the reliable sources say that. If you want to say some one was a racist, then say this in the article relying on the sources, but opinion-based-categories are the wrong place to do this as literally anything can be interpreted subjectively to place people within it or without it. Membership of an organisation is a different thing - anyone who the RS's says belongs to the KKK or the Nazi Party should be added to the relevant category and the reader can easily draw from that what their views are. FOARP (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * PS - can I emphasise right here that we also have WP:OPINIONCAT saying don't do this, and this isn't just about this 2011 RFC. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Overturn if someone is notable for being opposed to something, than categories that reflect this should be in said article. For example Chick tract is well notable for being against Catholicism and Islam, and has garnered a lot of coverage for this. To remove these categories from the article would be damaging to Wikipedia's ability to function as a proper encyclopedia. While a rather weak argument, WP:EDITCONSENSUS also has to be evoked if very few editors can be bothered to follow the 2011 consensus, than it evidently wasn't much of a consensus after all. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that far fewer people ever look at the categories than look at the body-text of the article, and the categories are often spread around thoughtlessly. Trying to build a WP:EDITCONSENSUS out of what is often only a step-or-two above vandalism ("person X belongs to party Y, I think party Y is anti-Z, so I'm going to add person X to the 'racist against Z' category") doesn't cut it. FOARP (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Uphold and extend to all opinion-based categories, per . Adding to a category is equivalent to asserting, in Wiki's voice, that the name of the category is an attribute of the subject of the article, and if WP:VOICE would stop us doing that in the article text, then we shouldn't be doing it with a category. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is already policy. (the old RFC doesn't change anything in your example). BUT the old RFC forbids the reverse. If (per VOICE) we are allowed to add the attribute to the article, then the old RFC nevertheless forbids adding the category... Do you intend that? Mvbaron (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Every time I see this it is typically someone just trying to say something about someone that isn't actually supported by the article, let alone by reliable sources.
 * For example, nearly everyone in the English anti-fascists category doesn't really belong there because very few of them are actually anti-fascist activists, some did no more than at one point say that fascism was bad, and others didn't even do that but editors have added them to that category simply because they were members of the far-left. In nearly every case nuance is totally lost/ignored by adding them to an opinion category and it is simply the subjective analysis of a single editor that puts them there - do all communists really belong there? Even if they supported the Hitler-Stalin pact? What about people who were at one point supportive of fascism but later opposed it? Does Winston Churchill really belong in this category? I mean sure, he fought WW2, but he was also an admirer of Mussolini, so does membership of this group really make sense? But then what's the point of having a category for anti-fascists that does not include the guy who actually fought the war against fascism?
 * The actual number of cases where reliable sources will classify people uncontroversially by an opinion that lines up exactly with a category that we have on Wikipedia is exactly zero. Much better to classify people by acts/membership of groups where there are objective facts we can rely on. FOARP (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Overturn Because the old RFC is illogical.
 * (A) If it is forbidden (per WP:V, WP:VOICE or anything else) to add the "bias" attribute to the article, then it is also forbidden to add the category (per WP:CATV). (In other words: if we can't verifyably say that a person is X, then we can't categorize the article as X).
 * (B) If it is allowed (per WP:V, WP:VOICE etc) to add the "bias" attribute to the article, then it is also allowed to add the category (per WP:CATV). (In other words: if we can verifyably say that a person is X, then we also can categorize the article as X).
 * So, the old RFC, which banned categorizing anyone (verifiable or not) as X, does nothing in case (A) - policy already forbids adding the category. And in case (B), it runs counter to WP:CATV - we are allowed to say that a person is X, but we can't categorize said person as X.
 * Additionally, current editing practice does not respect the 2011 consensus - it seems consensus has changed since --Mvbaron (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Current practise" includes a lot of basically vandalising pages by adding people to "bad categories"/"good categories" that aren't detected until years later because people tend not to look at the categories articles are in. As far as I can see opinion categories are being widely used to heap praise/criticism on people that the references cited in the articles do not support and it's much better to simply ban opinion cats for at least BLP and probably bio articles in general. FOARP (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Uphold and remove people from it. I will grant that it's possible that there might be an "Activist" category as defining, but that should be a separate category - e.g. Anti-Catholic activisim, for when this is a major focus of the person's life, and not merely having "usual" anti-Catholic views for the time and place.  These categories are a BLP minefield if not treated very carefully, and should not have specific people in them unless, again, they're an outright activist about it.  Categories should not be used if there's any doubt about their applicability, and this is definitely a case where there's more harm than good.  SnowFire (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Overturn - I don't buy the argument that categories cannot be policed. Every change is clearly marked in the history, it's pretty easy for anyone with a page watched to see categories being added or removed.  And for the sake of argument, even if I accept that it is difficult to police this, this policy does nothing.  Because if it's difficult to police, then with this policy it's STILL difficult to remove. Without this policy, all we're doing is saying that when you find such a category added, we should analyze whether it should be removed instead of knee-jerk removing it.  So it comes down to this: is the claim of the person being part of so-and-so category verifiable?  Is there enough RELIABLE sourcing to declare that a person is notable for being anti- whatever?  Is this information, in fact, part of the article, or more relevantly, the LEAD of the article?  Perhaps even the opening sentence?  If so, then we should be able to categorize the person under the category just as well as anything else.  BLP can, and should, be given more scrutiny for this.  We could make a rule that consensus should/must be obtained first before adding the category, but there should not be a blanket ban. Fieari (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm starting a discussion section because I believe that there are some points that need to be debated, and consensus found. Can someone !voting "uphold" please explain how a blanket ban on categorization helps prevent vandalism? I notice some arguments stating that, as it is, people ARE being categorized despite the ban, so we should uphold the ban. This argument makes no sense to me. If a bad edit is made, it can be unmade. If we can notice BLP being added to categories for the sake of this RfC, we can notice them other times. And if we can notice them and remove them, we can also notice them and rationally determine whether the reliable sources support them being in that category as well. I don't mean this to be a rhetorical question... I just don't see the counter argument to this. Fieari (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this discussion Fieari. I disagree with your characterisation of the Uphold arguments. Specifically, our argument is that the way in which this rule is presently being flouted shows the good sense of it. People are adding opinion-categories to bio articles, including BLP articles, for which there is no basis at all in the actual article, let alone in the reliable sources. Typically these are based on an OR interpretation of what one editor believes the opinions of the person who is the subject of the article are/were. Categories are much less likely to be policed as people tend not to look at them, so there is a high risk of inaccurate and down-right defamatory categories being added to someone's article.
 * Throwing this to individual page discussions is simply an invitation to individual editors to edit-war inaccurate/defamatory categories into bio articles, knowing that the standards for having a category are de facto laxer than those for baldly stating in the article that X person was anti-Y (see above where people are saying "I couldn't find anything saying this guy was actually anti-ABC but he was a member of XYZ so I think it's OK to add him to that category").
 * Upholding this rule (and extending it to all opinion categories) would confirm that such categories can be removed and the problem (including the legal risk) averted. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If Categories are much less likely to be policed then adding an additional rule (the rfc in question) to the already existing WP:V doesn't change anything. Upholding this rule (and extending it to all opinion categories) would confirm that such categories can be removed - this does nothing, undue categories are already forbidden per our standard rules. Mvbaron (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Restating what Mybaron just said... without this rule (that I !voted to overturn), anyone can remove the categories and we can confirm that they can remove the categories with the existing core principle of "verifiability". With this rule, we are forbidden from adding categories that do meet the standards of verifiability.  If an edit war ensues, the person removing a bad category has policy on their side already.  The incorrect party would have to argue for verifiability, not truth, not OR.  If there's an edit war, they're not arguing on the talk page.  If they are arguing on the talk page, policy and references can be cited.
 * On the other hand, if they have sneakily put in the category and no one noticed... no one has noticed! Whether this rule is in place or not, no one has noticed, and it might as well be "sneaky vandalism".  The rule changes nothing.  Without the rule, you can still remove these bias categories. The trouble only appears when there is strong, uncontroversial, third party reliable citations regarding the anti-whatever position. It does our encyclopedia disservice to not have the categorization for those. Fieari (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

To what extent is a non-notable master's thesis by the subject worth mentioning in an article?
Hi! I am currently editing an article where there are 2 paragraphs worth about ~1400 characters dedicated to her master's thesis. The thesis is not notable nor influential in and of itself. How much space should it be given in the article? And a secondary question, should its abstract be copied into the bio as a quote? Thanks in advance for your response. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  15:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for the late answer, you will find the policy about that here: Reliable_sources, where it says: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. In other words, they are not reliable unless specifically shown to be (by other reliable sources). Short link: WP:SCHOLARSHIP Best, -- Mvbaron (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , I don't think this answers Santacruz's question. As I read it, 's question is not about whether it's a reliable secondary source, but whether an article about a notable person should contain 2 paragraphs about the thesis.  That is, if a person is notable, is their work notable enough to be mentioned?  Notable, not reliable.  I think the answer could be found in WP:NOTINHERITED, but I actually think this is better answered case-by-case by the article's authors, or perhaps by an RfC.  Because it could be a notable part of the person's career or outlook, which would be useful in describing the notable person... or it might not be useful.  Case-by-case, as I said. But WP:NOTINHERITED would be a useful essay to read regardless, and might influence the direction of consensus. Fieari (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure about that. If the master's thesis is not notable (and therefore not reliable), then it shouldn't be used in the article simply per WP:V and WP:RS. We can't cite the master's thesis (per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and there are no secondary sources, so how is any more than a mention of it justified? I can't see that. The essay you mentioned WP:NOTINHERITED seems to be about arguments at AdF. Not sure if that applies here. Mvbaron (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some confusion about the terms "notable" and "reliable" here. Notability is the test we apply to decide whether a topic should have its own article in the encyclopaedia. It has no bearing on what points we cover within an article. Reliable sources are sources that we trust to verify the content of an article. A source does not have to be notable to be reliable, and the vast majority aren't.
 * This actually has nothing to with notability or reliability, but is a question of due weight. That is, do independent biographical sources about the person commonly put a lot of weight on their master's thesis? If so, then we should too. If not, then we shouldn't. The notability, reliability, influence, etc. of the thesis itself doesn't matter: only what others write about it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for using the wrong term. Much appreciated, . Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  10:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead for master's theses their reliabality is exactly measured by their notability. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. But yeah, agreed on everything you said otherwise, WP:DUE is relevant. (This discussion is about Sharon_A._Hill btw for context.) Mvbaron (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is wikijargon. It's unrelated to "significant scholarly influence". Sometimes influence is a factor in determining notability, but you'll confuse everyone and wind up with arguments that don't make sense if you use "notable" to mean anything other than "what's been written about sufficiently to have a Wikipedia article about it" (a very different bar than the influence a particular paper might have). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy/archive1 Featured article review
User:Nutez has nominated Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion notice regarding Sharon A. Hill's article
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Sharon A. Hill regarding possible removal of content. The thread is Discussion_on_her_opinion_piece_on_Paranormal_State. Thank you. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  15:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Epaminondas Featured article review
User:Hog Farm has nominated Epaminondas for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Josquin des Prez Featured article review
I have nominated Josquin des Prez for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Baby Queen article
The article on Baby Queen has been expanded by more than 2000 words in the last few weeks, would anyone be able to give feedback / update it from stub class? Lornaliq (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion "Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 10"
You are invited to join the discussion at Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 10, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Tol (talk &#124; contribs) @ 20:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

religious figure infobox
FYI has been proposed to be merged into Infobox deity -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Has it, where?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Follow the merge tags on the two templates, and you arrive at Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 8 -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion is at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_8. Peaceray (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Zelda Fitzgerald under FA review
Zelda Fitzgerald has been nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Flask (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Cliff Clinkscales
I have nominated Cliff Clinkscales for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 21:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated Michael Woodruff for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Infobox comics creator - proposal to change coding
There is a proposal at Template talk:Infobox comics creator that members of this WikiProject may be interested in. Nthep (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for George Fox
I have nominated George Fox for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Christopher C. Kraft Jr.
I have nominated Christopher C. Kraft Jr. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

==Discussion at Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. § Request for comment: Is it permissible to use "African American in lead" sentence?== You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. § Request for comment: Is it permissible to use "African American in lead" sentence?. Sundayclose (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of VP proposals on NSPORT, athlete biographies, and demonstrating notability
Editors may be interested in this RfC and the (more active) subproposals starting here regarding whether an athlete bio meeting an NSPORT subguideline must demonstrate GNG if challenged at AfD, have at least 1 piece of SIGCOV sourced from creation, etc. JoelleJay (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

A bio with a quotations section
Some advice please. In Draft:Brandon Wilson (writer) there was as section of quotes by the writer, which as part of cleanup. The draft's author (also the subject of the article) and pointed me to Phil Cousineau. While WP:OTHERCONTENT, is having such a section in a biography normality, or an anomaly? I think the latter? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an anomaly, it should be transplanted to Wikiquote and then interwiki linked (as with commons categories). Kingsif (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Manny SD Lopez
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Manny SD Lopez that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 16:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Help finding sources
Hi! I can't find any sources (google, google scholar, jstor) on Louise Veltin and the NYT source on the article failed verification. I'd hate to nominate it for AfD for sources to come up during the discussion but genuinely can't find any right now. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 13:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a NYTimes brief piece "MISS VELTIN EULOGIZED.; Memorial Service Is Held for Founder of Girls' School" at . Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And I think (but am not positive) that this is the piece linked in the current article.  OCR seems to have failed badly on this one, making it hard to search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, :) I don't have access to NYT to read the pieces, but I'll add them to the talk page in case someone finds them in the future that does have access. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 20:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

John Antioco: Infobox and Early life request
Hello Biography members! I'm looking for some help with John Antioco's article. The current version of his page is really spare and lacking in information. I've made an initial edit request, which you can see on the article's Talk page, to fix up the infobox and add a brief Early life and education section. I run a small consulting firm that has been contracted by Mr. Antioco to improve his page and cannot make these edits myself, so I'm hoping someone on this WikiProject might have an interest in reviewing my request. If that's the case, I would greatly appreciate the help. Thank you! Daryl at McGriffin Media (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Attempt to reach consensus on all medium/psychic BLPs
I have started a discussion over whether whether Wikipedia should describe psychics or mediums as "claimed", "self-purported", etc. I am hoping to reach a sitewide consensus w/r/t biographies of this type, and as such, I think it is of concern to this WikiProject. Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR notification
I have nominated Black Francis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

GAR
Health and appearance of Michael Jackson has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Quaffel (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sharon A. Hill has an RFC
Sharon A. Hill has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A look in, invited
...at the John-Henry Krueger article, which was related as "stub" class, before the recent major re-write. I would appreciate a look in, to see if that class might now be elevated. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:2116:D61F:ECC0:1821 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Missing assessments
I would like to ask the team to please assess my following 4 BLPs from 2016 until 2022, as i cant do it myself! Rudi Domidian, Georges Jeanclos, Clayton Sam White, Eric Gauthier (dancer). Thank you !--Wuerzele (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Help on first article
Hello, I addressed some feedback a while back for a draft I made about Intuit’s current CEO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sasan_Goodarzi). Any help with feedback on this page would be appreciated. Thank you! JenHart1981 (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Organized interference at Wikipedia by the Zemmour campaign for President of France
Multiple articles are being edited by members of a task force attached to the Eric Zemmour campaign for President of France. Please see WP:VPM. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Help required with author bio
Hi folks, my Wikipedia article Draft:Harrison Christian was pinged for not having enough secondary sources. I've added a few more and I'm wondering if this is enough, or it still need more. Thanks
 * Before even really looking at secondary sources, this is an author bio for an author of one book that doesn't seem to even meet NBOOK. It has no chance. Wait until the author is actually notable, or I have a half dozen friends you can also write drafts for. Kingsif (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:James Reid (actor)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:James Reid (actor) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC notice
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Meat Loaf § RfC: Cause of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Boyz on Block
Draft:Boyz on Block Is this good to go? Someone approve or reject this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil4517 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Janani Iyer
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Janani Iyer that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 18:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hitori Gekidan
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hitori Gekidan that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 04:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

People who have been tested positive for COVID-19
Is specifying that X person has been tested positive for COVID so necessary? I honestly no longer believe it's necessary especially when the person has been asyntomatic. Dr Salvus 16:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot depends on context, and how RS treat it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , do you have any examples? Dr Salvus 16:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, as I have no idea what YOU are talking about. I have not looked into this, I assume you have.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If multiple reliable and independent sources cover the positive test result it may be covered in enough reliable and independent sources for it's inclusion to be appropriate. It's very difficult to give examples without knowing the sources and general context. For example, a positive test before someone goes to do a show may be covered in several reliable and independent sources (such as a news outlets) because the show was cancelled. On the other hand, a gossip magazine based on rumors about a positive result would not be reliable enough as a source. Therefore, giving policy based answers to your question will require details about what article and what sources before further useful advice can be given. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As in all cases, verifiabiility does not guarantee inclusion and Wikipedia is not a place for all possible information. If a biography is very short, shoehorning in the factoid that a singer or athlete tested positive may violate WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION in giving disproportionate coverage to relatively trivial aspects that are not related to a subject's notability, even if myopic news outlets grant a day's worth of titillating coverage for that sweet ad revenue. As the article becomes more fleshed out, then it might be more acceptable to add a mention, as long as it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. Far too many biographies (of living people or dead) are absolutely chock full of trivial garbage and recentism, because too many Wikipedians falsely believe their job is to compile everything ever published about a subject, with no consideration of whether the information makes sense as written or should be in a lasting encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This felt like a repeated question: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 76.
 * My stance is similar to the rest here thus far: if the infection has no real or lasting impacting to the person, I don't think it is worth mentioning. Getting covid-19 isn't no novel anymore (speaking from experience), and the impact on one's life may not be as burdensome as it was on those who were at the onset of the pandemic. – robertsky (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless special note of it has been made, there's no more reason to mention that someone has tested positive for COVID than that they have had the flu or chickenpox. It might make sense for people afflicted early, back when it was treated as especially newsworthy and when there was a great deal of reaction (Tom Hanks, for example) or where some controversy arose around it (perhaps someone noted for opposing the vaccines on the grounds that they're harmful who was then hospitalized with COVID), but not generally. Having tested positive for COVID isn't a box that needs to be checked. Largoplazo (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Kind help with improving this page
Dear all, I hope that you are all fine? Please note that the Wikipedia page of Yonov Frederick Agah, was moved to the draft space. It was stated that "incubate in draftspace, BLP for active diplomat that badly sourced. Great article apart from that". In this case, as Wikipedia articles that have not been improved on will be deleted after six months - I wanted to kindly request help in improving the page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yonov_Frederick_Agah thank you. Planetearth285 (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Duane McRuer Draft Article
Hi folks, I am trying to improve the draft article on Duane McRuer (late aircraft controls engineer; National Academy of Engineering). Can you please take a look and provide any advice on how to make it better? Thanks so much. Jbgeddes3 (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate use of "best known for" - suggestion for MOS:BIO
Forgive me if this has been previously discussed/resolved, and point me to the discussion/resolution if so.

The nearly ubiquitous use of the phrase "best known for" in bios, particularly in the lede, does not strike me as encyclopedic style. The phrase is trite and superfluous. Generally, a person's reason for notability can be stated directly without saying "best known for" or "primarily known for". There _are_ some instances where using such a phrase is appropriate and useful in context, but currently I think they are way overused (an example of appropriate use of "best known for" is the biography for Bunny Berigan).

I would like to hear other opinions on this before adding it to MOS:BIO, and also to this article. Blainster (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. A case in point is an actor "best known for" some list of films or television progams, which sometimes include more than just two or three and lead me to wonder whether there's a reliable source that will document that, among all the world, these are the productions for which this person is best known—or are these just the productions in which this editor has seen the actor? I suspect the truth in many cases is the latter, or close to it; either way, it's largely subjective, WP:OR. One could write "who has appeared in X, Y, and Z". It might still be up for debate on the talk page whether those are the best examples, but at least the text won't be making a subjective assessment. Largoplazo (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Received popular acclaim for" might be better wording as it kind of forces editors to provide sources describing that acclaim. Just a thought, though. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 20:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's arguably even worse. Just remove any unsourced editorializing that you find in biographies, such as editors listing what their personal favorite roles are. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This was indeed discussed some years ago but I can't find the discussion. Often simply deleting the word "best" leaving "known for" is an improvement and I sometimes make this change myself. It greatly annoys me when an actor, enormously famous some decades ago, is noted as best known for a routine role in, say, Dr. Who. Thincat (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless "best known for" is sourced (which is rare), I assume that it is the opinion of the editor who wrote that part of the article. A lead might say that actor X is best known for his role in a certain television program, but if I never watched that program I would know the actor better for a different role. For entertainers with long careers, some readers would remember them better for recent roles on TV, while others might remember them better for their work in films years ago. Too many variables exist to assume that everyone has the same perspective. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I attempted the addition, but was immediately reverted. Let's hear from that editor. Blainster (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Reverter here. As a start I think this discussion should be advertised in a few other places - MOS at the very least. I had no way of knowing this discussion had even happened when I saw the MOS change pop up on my watchlist. Given how widespread usage of this phrase is, it possibly even warrants an RfC.


 * I do not think it is a good idea for the MOS to proscribe certain phrases entirely - that seems like far too much instruction creep. In this particular case, I've always found the objections to this phrase a bit baffling. Sure, it is almost always best avoided when someone has a substantial body of work, but there are surely plenty of clear-cut cases. (The following sourcing is pretty much entirely "first page of Google" and is meant to serve as an example of how easy it can be to source this stuff.) Renee Falconetti is best known for The Passion of Joan of Arc (the article currently uses the substantially more awkward phrasing "notable for"). Tekla_Bądarzewska-Baranowska is best known for Maiden's Prayer. Harper Lee is best known for To Kill a Mockingbird. Frankly even citing some of these is a bit fussy given how self-evident they are. If there are objections to particular usages, I would say it is better to discuss them individually rather than attempting a blanket prohibition on a phrase that is often the clearest way of expressing something. Frickeg (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, Frickeg. I didn't make the change until there seemed to be concensus.

I am all for wider discussion. Go for it. I agree that there are many places where the phrase is appropriate, as stated in my original post. If it is needed to distinguish among a group of things, fine, otherwise it shouldn't be used.

Some points:
 * MOS:BIO is of course a guideline, not policy, so the added instruction is not meant to be proscriptive. It's just meant to be the default.
 * In cases where a person is known for one thing, the phrase is superfluous, as in the example of Harper Lee. Just say "Harper Lee wrote the best-selling To Kill a Mockingbird"
 * In cases where the noteworthy item(s) is/are common knowledge, it is better to state directly: "Mark Twain wrote the popular books Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer".
 * I think that the phrase is often used as a writing crutch, probably copied from other articles.
 * It would be nice if a team of us could work to reduce the extreme overuse of the phrase.

"Notable for" should also be deprecated for similar reasons. It could have easily ended up as boilerplate in every single bio! Blainster (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. As the one advocating change, it would be better if you initiated some wider consultation. I hope you will restore the status quo ante for the time being as I think at the very least the phrasing could be worked on.


 * If the instruction is not meant to be proscriptive, it shouldn't say directly "avoid". Perhaps there could be a note to use caution, but I still think this is instruction creep. The MOS is already absurdly overstuffed - the last thing it needs is to be expanded further. It is your opinion that the phrase is "tired" or a "crutch", but it's pretty standard encyclopedic language, including in Encyclopedia Britannica (blacklisted apparently (!?) but search "best known for"). I don't necessarily agree that your alternatives above are any better, and we should allow some flexibility for our editors in these areas. Frickeg (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Well said. I appreciate your stance and will reword as a caution. Blainster (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted. Why does the wording need to change? GiantSnowman 17:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Not my preference, but I was acceding to Frickeg's suggestion above to make it a conditional rather than imperative statement. I'm good with your revert. Blainster (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly am not, and I thank Johnbod for restoring the status quo. Frickeg (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose adding anything at all on this, firstly to avoid prescription creep, and because used correctly it is a useful & entirely encyclopaedic thing to say. I added one today, to Sir William Temple, 1st Baronet as "He is best remembered today for ..." something very different to what he was mainly known for in his lifetime; those things are now unknown to all but doctoral students.  I disagree that there is "nearly ubiquitous use of the phrase "best known for" in bios" (from the top) - if anything we could do with more of them. Johnbod (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In whose view is he 'best remembered' for X? GiantSnowman 13:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The authors of modern books. After examining a google books search, I've added another thing, and now say: " He is best remembered today for two aspects of his life after retirement: a passage on the designs of Chinese gardens, written without ever having seen one, and for employing the young Jonathan Swift as his secretary. The first is sometimes given as a early indication of the English landscape garden style, praising irregularity in design." His diplomatic career and brief political importance, as well as his writings on politics, are now strictly for Phd students. I (backed up by others) have removed the addition to the MOS btw; it can't be said to have achieved consensus here (yet anyway).  Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree that it is generally bad writing, but WP:SOFIXIT is sufficient. We don't need to proscribe every possible bad way people can write.  If you find such a phrase used inappropriately, just edit the article and make it better.  We already have rules in place that allow you to improve Wikipedia articles.  We don't need to be this specific.  -- Jayron 32 18:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR for J. R. Richard
I have nominated J. R. Richard for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 22:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

RFC
There is a discussion at Talk:Jim Henson that members might be interested in. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Adolf Eichmann
Interested editors are invited to participate! --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ivan Olshansky
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ivan Olshansky that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 19:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lizzy Clark
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lizzy Clark that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 19:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Johan van Zyl (businessman)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Johan van Zyl (businessman) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 20:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Austin Russell (entrepreneur) COI edit requests
Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Austin Russell (entrepreneur). Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mohammed Tabet
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mohammed Tabet that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 18:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gwenwynwyn ap Owain
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gwenwynwyn ap Owain that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 18:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eric Bugenhagen
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric Bugenhagen that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 22:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about images of recently deceased
I started an RfC discussion (well, not yet RFC-tagged) about using images of recently deceased persons. Link: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --George Ho (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Now RFC-tagged. --George Ho (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Prince Pavlos of Greece
Hi! I am quite surprised by something which appears in Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece. It says: "but the [marriage] ceremony proved to be legally invalid and had eventually to be repeated civilly (not normally required in the UK) in Chelsea because of an obscure law requiring that marriages in England be conducted in English" and the sentence is referenced by Marlene Eilers's book Queen Victoria's Daughters. I usually trust Ms Eilers but this is quite surprising and I can't find other reference of this. Can someone verify this point? Thank you very much! Konstantinos (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Possibly conflicting MoS guidelines
Hi there! There's an ongoing discussion about the applicability of the biography MoS in professional wrestling articles on. Would love to get this WikiProject's members' thoughts on that. Thank you in advance! KyleJoan talk 21:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyone working on past politicians of Michigan? - WikiData now can assist duplicate detection for state legislators - 4 pages need accuracy check
Hi, if you work on Michigan's state level legislative members you might like to know you can query and create lists via listeria for past House and Senate members now that are associated with Wikidata items, not all items have pages. The detail is not yet there for term verification yet. We could use help in verifying 4 pages for accuracy and correct categorization/content of the pages: see mentioned Qids unable to be resolved found in the senate or house legislative categories. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

John Antioco: Career section edit request
Hello there! I'm a COI editor here on behalf of John Antioco, whose Wiki page I'm trying to improve. Mr. Antioco has had a robust career that includes c-suite and CEO roles at 7-Eleven, Circle K, Blockbuster, and several other large companies. The current version of his page hardly includes any information on these tenures, so I put together a new Career section that I think is well-sourced and provides lots of notable details from those jobs. I was wondering if anyone on this WikiProject would help me out by reviewing it? The draft is available in full on my user page, and you can see my initial Career edit request on the John Antioco talk page. Any assistance would be much appreciated! Thank you. Daryl at McGriffin Media (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Triumvir monetalis
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Triumvir monetalis that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 03:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kornbread Jeté (2nd nomination)
I would appreciate any input from editors experienced with WP:BLP!E policy. All opinions are welcome. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:T.J. Power
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:T.J. Power that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 01:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Members of the Senate of Southern Ireland
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Members of the Senate of Southern Ireland that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 20:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Raj Kumar (professor)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Raj Kumar (professor) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 20:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Macfarlane Burnet Featured article review
I have nominated Macfarlane Burnet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Emily VanDerWerff § Emily St. James
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Emily VanDerWerff § Emily St. James. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Neri Oxman
Hello! Stephanie here, representing OXMAN on behalf of Neri Oxman. I've registered a Wikipedia account so I can submit requests to improve her entry on the article's discussion page. I've avoided editing the article myself and I've been working with User:Sj (who achieved Good article status in 2017) to review suggested changes. There are a couple requests on the discussion page which I hope Sj can revisit, but I'd like to extend an invite for others to provide feedback as well, since progress has stalled.

I understand there's no rush here, but I could use some reassurance I'm following the correct procedure for proposing changes. I'm using the "request edit" template, but perhaps an editor who is interested in biographies could take a look? My most recent request, which has not received any feedback, is to improve the Bibliography section. With gratitude, SM at OXMAN (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Friska Viljor
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Friska Viljor that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 00:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)