Jump to content

User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2022/June

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nominating your own articles for deletion...

...is not good use of the time of the editors who are already over-worked at AfD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julian_F._Harrington

Recommend you just drafity and then delete your own article please. CT55555 (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555:, one can't unilaterally draftify published articles, particularly articles that are eleven years old and have been edited by others. So, bad advice, and since the nom was entirely legit there's no call for scolding the editor. Herostratus (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think I was scolding, certainly not any more than you seem to be scolding me. A PROD would be a sensible path forward if anyone is too bureaucratic to consider that someone can't drafity ta 4 line stub that they created because it has a handful of minor edits from others. CT55555 (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Precious
Nine years!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Russ McLeod

Hello Mr. Lambert.

I hope you do not mind a direct question. I came across the article for Russ McLeod and could find no sources to show this person meets GNG. I am not very familiar with deletion discussions on NFL players, so I wondered if you had any thoughts on whether it was worth bringing the article to AfD. Thank you! MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Deletion vote for Easley High School

You voted to delete an article for a Easley High School, which is on the National Register for Historic Places (see [1].) You are the only delete vote thus far, I wonder if you would consider changing your vote so that a WP:SNOW close could be made? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Your delete vote prevents a snow close. Would you consider reviewing the article, which has many, many references and withdrawing your vote? Jacona (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Soviet militants

A tag has been placed on Category:Soviet militants indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Holland McCombs

Holland McCombs may be notable. We would need far better sourcing than we have at present to demonstrate this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source

We have a policy that states that IMDb is not a reliable source. It is hard to believe that it is actually being enforced since we have thousands of articles where that is the only source at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Ani

Please see the discussion I have raised over Lugnuts' behaviour to you. Spartaz Humbug! 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is at [[2]] 18:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
John Pack Lambert (this seems so formal but I will respect your wishes), I don't say anything often unless it's to try and help you. Otherwise I stay out of your way and let you do your thing because I believe it is a positive for the encyclopedia. I think you have wonderfully adapted to the restrictions placed on you and I still hold out hope they will be lifted at some point in the future. However, I will offer some advice now. You can accept it or not, that is your choice. You should read over the comments left by Rhododendrites at the ANI and seriously take them to heart. They are extremely sensible and a fair evaluation of the dispute between yourself and Lugnuts. --ARoseWolf 18:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC) --edited18:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Let me clarify, it is in regards to this statement, "When we have another article that explicitly mentions someone, yes, of course a redirect is appropriate, contrary to what JPL argued in that AfD." Lugnuts may not be correct in their goading, that's a civility issue that can be addressed, but your incorrect comment was based on policy that doesn't exist. My advice is to adjust your responses accordingly and if a proper redirect is proposed then it should be accepted as per policy right now. If you feel policy needs to be changed then propose that at the proper venue. It might not alleviate all the issues but it will give you the sure footing in a discussion turned dispute over policy. --ARoseWolf 18:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Now, because Lugnuts falsely posted on his page an accusation that I was tageting him, someone has proposed that I be punished by banning me from nominating any article created by Lugnuts from deletion. Such an action would reward Lugnuts for his falsly accusing me of targeting him. Which is all the more crazy since I had no nominted an article created by Lugnuts for deletion since last week. It seems people who go around making uncivil accusations against others are rewarded. At least in some cases. I hope there is not a will to impose such a truly over brearing sanction, but the fact that someone even proposed it is not at all a good sign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Norman Raeben

Norman Raeben may be notable, but I do not see that justified by the sources we have. The one source we have would at best support a brief mention in the article on Bob Dylan where we might redirect this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Ray Reeve

I really do not get how we justify an article on Ray Reeve. At an absolute minimum we would need to have sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Robley Rex

Robley Rex was kept at a previous AfD, but I really do not see on what ground merely being among the youngest soldiers in a war and then living a long time makes one actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

An attempt at a compromise

Hi John. I can see you are not happy/keen with the idea of I-BANS, which is fair enough. I've posted my comments here at ANI under the sub-heading of "Observations from Lugnuts". Now I'd expect you'll have very different opinions to the first six points I've raised, but what about the suggestion I've mentioned in the final paragraph (starts with the words "Everything needs give and take...") Thank you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The first thing you need to do is acknowledge that your false attacks on me of hounding articles crfeated by you were false, malicious and rude. One does not compromise by going on the attack, and accusing someone of all sorts of actions that have nothing to do with the scope of the discussion. The scope of the discussion is your rude behavior and false accusations that articles by you are being targeted, when you know full well the goal is to remove sub-stub articles on Olympains that in no way meet inclusion criteria. This is not a compromise proposal, because you give nothing. Now if your proposal was that I could nominate one Olympian article for deletion a week and you would not contribute at all to that discussion, that would be a compromise. What you propose is a less severe limit on my actions and no limit on yours.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@John Pack Lambert & Lugnuts, what needs to happen here is true compromise. Look, I believe you both are here to contribute. You have a difference in opinion on what should be included or not. It's not like this is the first time anyone has had a dispute with the exact definition of the overly vague inclusion criterium. My point is, if you are both here to make the encyclopedia better then you must make meaningful compromises. No one wins if you both get sanctioned further, even if it stops the disruption the encyclopedia still loses because you both are incredibly intelligent, passionate, talented and thoughtful individual editors. I've come to realize that making the encyclopedia better is not including every piece of human history we can possibly throw in here. Neither is it limiting the growth of the encyclopedia to only information written about extensively. There is a give and take, as pointed out by Lugnuts, and the only way we get there is by legitimately coming together, ratcheting down the rhetoric, apologizing for any offense, listening to each other without immediately dismissing the others position and actively seeking to understand other perspectives than your own and respect them. Even if we can not find a way to agree we must accept the good faith legitimate position of others. And you are both legitimate and your position is legitimate. As Star Mississippi said, you both feel you are editing in good faith and honestly I believe you both are. Assuming bad faith in the other person here only serves to weaken the view the community has in your own position. My advice is to take the focus off each other, no matter what has been said in the past either recent or long past, and focus on how you both can improve listening to other positions in a discussion and incorporating it with your own into a solution. Neither of you are going to get everything you want. Make it work or I'm afraid the only destination you both will be headed for is further sanctions. Just my observation but I think the community has had just about enough of all of this from both of you. I haven't commented at ANI because I hope you both can find a way to fix this. Neither of you are a lost cause. I believe you can work together but you have to be willing to. --ARoseWolf 14:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Filippo Sgarlata

  • On the Olympic Art competitors, my review of Category:1901 births just came across Filippo Sgarlata. He was a sculptor who was in the 1948 Olympic Arts competition. That is all our article says. The article was created by Lugnuts. the one source listed, Olympedia, has 3 paragraphs on Sgarlata. From the Olympedia article we learn that Sgarlata lived in the US from 1926-1932. We learn that he was a professor of sculpting in both Palermo and San Luca. He crfeated a gate for a notable building in 1961, and created some works that somehow were deemed to be "in line with fascists ideology". Is this one source enough to have this article survive? Porbably not? Was Sgarlata a notable sculptor? I am not sure, but really wish there was a way to get people to look into it more. I know there is a well developed set of notability criteria for artists, but I am less than sure what it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

1901 births

Category:1901 births has 5,808 entries. I am about to revies it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to me as Mr. Lambert

I would ask that all others please refer to me as Mr. Lambert, unless using my complete user name, preferably written out as John Pack Lambert.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Lambert, you may want to consider changing your username. Jacona (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Or people could either respect his wishes or at least not refer to him by his surname which is both disrespectful and patronising. Spartaz Humbug! 18:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Spartaz, I'm confused...they asked to be referred to by their surname, which I did, but you're saying that is disrespectful? I'm sorry if I've made a mistake, but I don't think I did. Jacona (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Now I see the problem, and this one's on me. I misunderstood your issue, and apologize for the misguided suggestion. I don't believe I have ever referred to you as anything but your username or Mr. Lambert, but if so, I apologize for that too. Jacona (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Artur Amon

Artur Amon was a person on an Olympic basketball team. I cannot remember if he played in one game or none, but it was not significant. Both sources are to sports refernece.com, which has been held to be a database that inclusion of does not show notability. I maybe should have been more clear about the matter when I redirected the article. Now I will have to wait at least until tomorrow and realistically until Monday, unless someone else wants to put this one up for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

1900 births

Category:1900 births currently has 6,096 articles. I am about to review it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Joe Appleton

We do not seem to even know which island in the West Indies Appleton was from. If somone can find more sources on Appleton that would greatly improve the article.

Weird, what Joe Appleton are you on about? I had a 4th cousin born in the Bahamas who was a musician. Govvy (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
interesting, sounds like my cousin I never knew but heard about, my dad have some old records of his, didn't think he was that notable to have a wiki article. Govvy (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The article is only sourced to All Music. I am less than sure he meets the notability guidelines for a musician. I have not tried finding more sources, and I have to admit I understand music guidelines less well than academic, politician or sports guidelines, so I am not sure if he is notable or not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Nope, I asked, that article is a completely different Joe to the one I know. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Allen Boretz

Allen Boretz has had a tag saying it is unsourced for just about a month shy of 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Forbes

Thomas Forbes is an article that has been posted as having no sources since 2008. I looked through the links to find sources, and nothing was looking to be about him. The name is common enough that it might take a really deep dive through sources to be sure. There seems to be a contemporary businessman with this name, and there are lots of other people with it. My initial search brough up nothing, and we need sources to verify. Not all poets are notable just because they published, but some people have claimed I have over done Proposed deletion nominations, so I am hoping this notice might get some interest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Millard E. Gladfelter

Millard E. Gladfelter was president of Temple University. This almost certainly passes the notability guidelines for academics, since I am 98% sure this is a university at a level that being head of it is enough to show notability. We only have one sentance on him though. We clearly need more content on him. There are links to some sources that almost certainly say more about Gladfelter than what our article says. One can probably also find additional sources that could help expand the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I did add one more source, and a paragraph or so more information. I am sure we should say more on Gladfelter. Here [3] are the google book results. Some of those are primary sources, and so of little help. I can also not access the New york Times obiturary. I am sure the Philadephia papers ran obituaries as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Enrico Garbuglia

Enrico Garbuglia does not have any sources. He is a late surviving war veteran, and that is all. I have been told that this is something some thing is a sign of notability, so I guess if cannot be nominated through Proposed Deletion. I may try and nominate this article for deletion tomorrow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Gunnar Emil Garfors

Gunnar Emil Garfors is an article that has been uncided since at least 2009.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Jules Goldstone

Jules Goldstone was an attorney who worked as Elizabeth Taylor's agent. He gets some brief mention in realtion to her. I have to admit I do not think it adds up to enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Eduardo González Lanuza

Eduardo González Lanuza is a poet for whom we have no sources. There is one source on the Spanish article on him, but one sources is not enough to pass GNG. While poets are often notable, we need sources to show this, which I do not at present see.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Aubrey Otis Hampton

Aubrey Otis Hampton may well be a notable medical doctor. I am thinking it looks like he was. However, the sourcing we currently have on the article just does not to me seem that it quite passes the reliable source test, and even if it does one source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I was able to find and add one source that went beyond what we had. However I strongly suspect there is more out there if someone looks hard enough. Finding information on past medical practioners is not my expertise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Taiwanese cheerleaders

A tag has been placed on Category:Taiwanese cheerleaders indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Elsie Gerlach

If Elsie Gerlach was actually "nationally know and respected for her contributions to pediatric dentistry" she is notable. However the fact that the one source is a publication of her employer does not bode well. We need indepdent, reliable, secondary sources to justify an article. If what the article is true those should be findable, but we need them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder

Despite ANI and some of the loudest voices (which are a minority), your work here is still appreciated. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe my work is appreciated at all. I do not believe it at all. I thought I was working collaboratively with some people to develop a plan to advance some goals, but they are willing to support a proposal that would block me from contributing towards those goals at all. If I say anything more, if I say anything in my defence, or against the bad behavior of others, it is counted against me and people come up with more ways to punish me. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
There are aspects of your work at AfD that are appreciated, and some that are extremely unpopular. I'm not sure you're interested in hearing my opinion on how you could continue your work and have it appreciated rather than contested, but I'll give it a shot. If you choose to follow this advice, I guarantee your work will be much more happily received!
First, I personally find that you've been doing better with your nominations very recently, after a spate in which it appeared to me you were not doing an adequate BEFORE. Keep up the thorough before! Another issue is that you frequently vote in AfDs with rather shallow arguments, and then tend to stick by your delete vote no matter what, even if the article has been clearly improved. It's not supposed to be about WP:WINNING. I personally generally do my own complete BEFORE, including searching newspaper archives, before placing a vote. This takes time, but it ensures that I mostly get it right. It's better to be right than fast. It often appears you are in such a hurry to get your !d votes out there that you don't take time to read the article, look for sources, and develop an informed rationale. Evidence of that can be found in the atrocious spelling and occasional bad grammar in your posts. Take the time to do it right, and you will get respect and appreciation. One final comment: it's normal to be wrong from time to time. Admit your mistakes. Follow up. Don't rush.
I hope you find this helpful. Jacona (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
While there is a proposal with almost no opposition to ban me from participating in AfD at all I do not really find your comments very encoraging. Especially since this proposal comes after my multiple attempts yesterday to began expanding and better sourcing articles. It feels like when I start to try to be more cooperative, people just attack me more. This is especially true, because people often try to use any AfD I start that does not result in a delete as a reason to go on a crusade against me. I do appreciate your comments, but they do not give me much hope with the attempt to stop all my participating in AfD havign such broad support.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Mr. Lambert, thanks for listening. Do not expect a few minutes of behavioral change to greatly affect the attitudes and perceptions who have been watching the previous behavior for many years. Take it one day at a time, and if you work according to the advice I've given you, people will come around. You have to do it right, not fast. You must stick with it, and you can't expect everyone to accept that you've changed your approach all at once. It takes time, and care. Good luck! Jacona (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbcom case request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Johnpacklambert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Fram (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

ANI

The ANI linked to above now has a proposal to ban me from participanting in AfD for at least a year. This despite the fact my reaction to it so far has been to no longer so vocally oppose redirects, and also despite my decision to avoid going to Proposed Deletion so soon and balancing out articles. It seems that when a milder solution (a two way interaction ban with Lugnuts) was not making headway, people went for the total and complete ban of all participation in the AfD process. I am not sure how this is at all a defendable reaction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

John, FWIW, this is a rare case of me agreeing with you 100%. For the chance of a possible resolution that would be the least-worst (but not ideal) outcome for both of us, would you be willing to back the two-way IBAN? If so, I'm happy to add a joint statement at the bottom of the ANI thread. It might not do any good, but I don't see the harm in adding it. If, of course, you would want that. I don't have an issue if you don't want to support the IBAN either. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
No, the ban is unreasonable and is not tailored to addressing the actual problem at hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough - thanks for replying. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Willem Huender

Willem Huender was the colonial governor of Surinam. That postion alone means we will keep the article if we can verrify he existed, which the one source does. I strongly suspect any 20th-century governor of Surinam (and probably even earlier) there are more sources on. Some may be in Dutch, so harder for English speakers to find, but I suspect there are more sources in English as well. I hope someone finds them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Common name

I just came across an article that the name of the article included William (Bill) etc. I am pretty sure common name means we should either use Bill if that is what he was normally called, or William if that is what most sources call him. The common example is the article is Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton. In this particular case I did not delve into the sourcing, and there may be others, but we really for the common name need to figure which one is the one he was most often called, or is most often called in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Virginia Lathrop

Virginia Lathrop is an article sourced only to a finding aide connected to her papers. This does not seem to really fit the rublic of indepdent, reliable 3rd party secondary source. It also is one, and GNG asks for multiple. There may be sources on her beyond this. This problem of little sourcing seems to have existed for at least 12 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Last surviving veteran cruft

Eino Lehtinen is one of several articles we have on people who got some human interest coverage at about age 105 or so. I am not really seeing that any of these articles are justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Frans Kuijper

Frans Kuijper is an article sourced to two sports tables. It lacks any source that has any prose about Mr. Kuijper. I also was unable to find any additional sources about this individual after doing searches in google, google books and google news archive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Pierre Coquelin de Lisle

Pierre Coquelin de Lisle seems to me an example of why the presumption that all Olympic medalists are notable does not stand up to reasonable tests. There are no sources on this article that have any prose about him. Yes there are some Olympic medalists who became very notable largely because of it, but that does not prove that all medalists in all sports are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

For a longtime Wiki editor, you sure are clueless about finding sources. It's kinda obvious that there's a picture in this article. The picture's page gives a source, a French sports paper.why wouldn't that count as a source? Your buddy, Curly. 166.149.176.61 (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
A captioned photograph of someone from a newspaper is not the type of source that passes GNG. Not everyone who has been pictured with a photo in a newspaper with the caption saying who they are is notable for just being in a photo with a cpation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some SIGCOV of him in French papers (via RetroNews), e.g. [5]. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Gaganvihari Lallubhai Mehta

Gaganvihari Lallubhai Mehta is an article sourced on to a book written by his daughter. Generally such a source would not be considered to meet GNG. It might if its editing was done by reliable editors. There may also be other sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

José Luis Romo Martín

José Luis Romo Martín may hold the record for most misplaced birth year category. I found this artilce in Category:1900 births, he was actually born in 1954.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Czechoslovak dramatists and playwrights

A tag has been placed on Category:Czechoslovak dramatists and playwrights indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

David Farrow Maxwell

David Farrow Maxwell may well have been notable, but we really need more substance and probably a few more sources to show this. The fact we lack articles on either his predecessor or successor at the American Bar Association either shows its heads are not notable, that people need to do a lot more research in this field, or quite possibly both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Isaac Schour

Isaac Schour may well be notable, but we need something as a source beyond a work covering him created by his employer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Irving Weber

Irving Weber may be notable. However at present we lack any secondary sourcing on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  • After his death the Iowa City Press-Citizen ran a full page-length article on him. There's also coverage here, here, and here (plus there's lots of other articles on Newspapers.com, but I don't have time to go through them). An article in 2000 states he was named Iowa City's "Person of the Century" [6]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Julian Stanley Wise

I do not see how the sourcing we have justifies an article on Julian Stanley Wise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

1899 misplaced

It seems a lot of the articles which I am finding in Category:1899 births really belong in Category:1889 births.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Louise Kugler

Louise Kugler I found in Category:1899 births. She was actually born in 1811. This is a record of misplacement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

1899 births

Category:1899 births has 5,773 entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people on postage stamps

Sorry I missed it, I was about to XfD this. If you DELREV it or nominate it again, do ping me. This is such a failure. At least rename it (I'll do so...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

    • I am probably not going to renominate it, but I will support it if you renominate it. Probably at this point it is best to wait and let some of the other discussions run their courses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Sadie T.M. Alexander

Hello, John Pack Lambert. I note that you changed the description I had edited into the first sentence of the article on Sadie Tanner Mosell Alexander from "pioneering Black professional" to "pioneering African-American professional," but you did not provide any rationale or justification for making this change. The term "African-American" appears in the next sentence, so your edit makes the writing more clumsy. Somewhat to my surprise, I find nothing in WP:MOS suggesting a standard way to refer to the racial identity of an American of African descent, although it is obviously a question that would come up often, so I infer that any non-offensive term should be acceptable. Rather than appear to be edit-warring by changing it back, I thought I would give you a chance to explain first. I await your response. PDGPA (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  • No, this is not a good change. Consistentcy suggests we should use the same term as much as possible. Wikipedia categorizes by ethnicity, not race. We should use "African-American", especailly when referring in ways that can be seen as meaning ethnicity. In the long run it is also way better to use terms that do not use color to refer to people and their ethnicities. I think this is a major improvement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Treating different terms as if they mean the same thing, and using them interchangeably to make an article more interesting is not a good idea. One should not change from using "African-American' to using a different term, unless one intends to indcate a different group or different scope with the other term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    • As best I can tell, you do not disagree with me that there is no uniform policy on this (rather common) issue in the Manual of Style. As I said, I looked and could not find one, and you do not cite any. You say, "Wikipedia categorizes by ethnicity, not race," but offer no supporting authority for that claim. You say this or that is "not a good idea" or "not a good change." That sounds like your personal opinion, which is fine, but not entitled to more weight than mine. My understanding of contemporary American usage is that in this context "Black" and "African-American" do, in fact, mean the same thing and would not be understood by most thougtful readers as suggesting, on the one hand, a literal color (Black people come in all skin tones, after all) or a literal geographic ancestry (we do not refer to caucasian immigrants from Rhodesia or South Africa, nor Arab immigrants from Morocco or Egypt, as "African-American," in other words). In the context at issue -- where the identification of the subject by race is exactly the point (first Black American to earn a Ph.D. in economics; first Black woman to practice law in Pennsylvania, etc.) -- the noble idea that "in the long run it is better to use terms that do not use color to refer to people and their ethnicities" seems to me to miss the mark by a wide margin. So I will take this to the Sadie T.M. Alexander talk page and seek consensus there. Thanks for responding. Your change lacked an edit summary, so I really did not know your rationale. PDGPA (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
      • No, Afircan-American means someone who is by nationality connected to the US. "black" can refer to people in any country and is not limited to people connected to the US. In this context, there could have been a black Canadian, national of some country in Africa, Black British, Afro-Brazilian or any number of other possible people who were not Americans hold a faculty position or graduate. Black and African-American do not mean the same thing, and people need to stop talking as if they do. I have seen to many cases where someone was refered to as the "first black X", when they were really the "first Afircan-American X" and there had been other Black, non-American people do X. The terms do not mean the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should use emigration categories and place names that reflect the reality at the time of an event

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to right great wrongs. It should use place names, and emigration categories that reflect the reality at the time of events. We should also place people in occupation and related categories that intersect with nationality based on the actual country they were nationals of. We seem to under use Soviet, Yugoslav and Czechoslovak categories in this regard. There are probably others. The determination of what polity someone was a national of may not be easy. However we need to avoid presentism in this regard.

The most glaring case of this is Gujarat and Maharashtra are Indian states that were created in 1960. We have too many articles that invoke these state names foe events that happened in Bombay State or Bombay Presidency. There are other issues.

The issue here is complex. I would say we should use current Romanization for Chinese places all the way back, since the change in Romanization does not reflect any change in how the Chinese themselves referred to the place. Livorno should be called such even at times when English speakers called it Leghorn, except in actual quotes.

There are some case by case matters that are going to be tricky. When Constantinople becomes Istabul seems to be an issue with no easy answer. I had a history professor that mocked 19th-century publications for calling it Constantinople when the Turks cane to power in 1453, but it seems that it is not clear that the Turks renamed it in that year. The 1922/1923 name change may be too late though.

Siam becomes Thailand in a clear year. The Iran/Persia usage seems a bit more complex though. Burma as Myanmar seems another that was not a quick change. Rhodesia to Zimbabwe has a clear year.

For categorization there is another question. Some name changes do not reflect a polity change. I do not see a good reason to have Category:Siamese writers to group those from before the name change. In the case of Writers from the Ottoman Empire as opposed to Writers from Turkey we have a clear change of size, government, and massive population exchanges that coincide with the change in name. Writers might be a poor choice, because it us a profession where language used is defining. We limit categorization by that because so many Turkish writers write in Turkish, French writers write in French and German writers write in German among many other categories that if we categorized every writer by language some of these categories would be near mirrors of the nationality categories.

An even trickier issue is ethnic categories that use the same name as nationality categories. So what of a Greek medical doctor who lived all his life in the Ottoman Empire or an Armenian engineer who never left Lebanon? Some of the solutions here may require not always using the common name to avoid total confusion. Although maybe we at some point accept categories with illogical scope.

Some of the answers depend on how bad people see the various results of category structure. Which is the bigger problem. Categories so large that you can never sort through them? Categories so small that they do not group anything? Or articles in too many categories? I know we have never even faced up to the questions, in part because there are no easy answers.

There are in part no easy answers because scope is so hard to figure out. Some of these group names are not fixed but contested.

I am trying to speak in broad generalities, but we will always end up with some fuzzy edges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Douglass Sullivan-Gonzalez

Notice

The article Douglass Sullivan-Gonzalez has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Simply non-notable , fails WP:GNG. Only source cited is a primary source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ HAL333 17:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Olympics overwhelm us

There is a truly huge number of sub-stub articles on Olympians. So much so that you could read the whole set of articles on teams of 10 or more and come away not knowing anything except that those 10 people played in that sport at that Olympics. This is not at all a useful set of information to gain, and leaves no justification for having the articles. There is very little progress being made to change this. In some ways the ability of progress seems unlikely because of pre-1970 amateur rules, and other factors that mean that a good number of people involved in the Olympics before 1970 were not public individuals at all. We do face similar problems with articles on Japanese photographers which often say only "Michiko Kasumi (1905-1988) was a Japanese photographer." Often with just 1 source. I do not know enough Japanese to even know where to start. We have some other problem areas. A good number of our articles on members of state legislatures say very little, and some are several years out of date. Making it unclear if the person has served at all since about 2014. I have to admit that I sometimes wonder if it really makes sense to say every single member of a first level sub-national in a federal system legislature is notable. In some ways that presumption has lead to people turning out huge number of short and not very informative articles. It means that articles on even those who were among the top leaders of a legislative body do not say much. I have been guilty at times of turning out probably too many such articles too quickly. That was in part a response to the at least at one time oddity where in some US states we had articles on all current members of one party in the legislature but very few on members of the other main political party in that state's legislature. In a few cases (cough, New Hampshire, cough) we have I doubt ever even come close to having articles on all current members of state legislatures. The thing is that almost all these people will have been covered in published literature. It might take effort to get good sourcing on some though, but it does exist. Some states, like Wisconsin, have a much further back close to full number of articles on legislators. On the other hand articles on Wisconsin legislators are often very anemic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: I've been back on trying to look at these Olympics articles again... It really is impossible, the number of them. It will take months of work to actually get rid of the ones we don't need. I guarantee you if I BOLDly tried to turn articles into redirects, it would get reverted by Lugnuts. ~XyNqtc 20:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Over categorization

Why are any articles on people born in 1898 in any 19th-century categories? Generally categories for century plus something are meant to be for those who were doing significant things in that regard, so it makes no sense to place anyone in such a category, except maybe a few very young child actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrong birth listings

The worst birth listings I have seen are those that use neither the name of the place now nor the place when an event occured. Such as the article that said someone was born in Prague, Czechoslovakia in 1998. Czechoslovakia only existed from roughly 1918 until 1992. So the listing is not right at the time of the event nor at the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

1898 births

As I am about to review Category:1898 births it has 5,943 entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Stephen S. Attwood

Stephen S. Attwood may be notable but we would need better sourcing to show that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Actor Tedrick B Martin

Hey I’m Actor Tedrick B Martin Born in Monticello, Mississippi on January 9th 1975 I am known for the films DARK SIDE OF FOOTBALL AND THE WALK 2022. I currently live in Calabasas, California and I often come home to Biloxi, Mississippi for vacation.

Email: martin.ent1@icloud.com

Best Wishes Tedrick B Martin Tmart1975 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Lloyd Kelsey

Lloyd Kelsey did tug of war at the Olympics. I see nothing that actually would make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Redirected. Cbl62 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

1897 births

The category 1897 births currently has 5,534 entries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

John Decatur Messick

John Decatur Messick was a university president. We clearly need more sourcing on hiim. We also need to say more of substance in the article. It really should be more than just one paragraph.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Lillian Miller

Lillian Miller was evidently a "regular audience member". I do not really see how that is a sign of notability. The sourcing does not really rise to anything that would pass GNG either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Good discussion. To preserve it, I've copied it to Talk:Lillian Miller. Cbl62 (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Margaret Rowlett

Margaret Rowlett may be notable as an artist and or as a painter. However we need better sourcing than just the finding aid to her collected papers at a university to show this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Spencer Stewart

We clearly need more text on Joseph Spencer Stewart. More sources would not hurt either. We need more than 1 sentence on this university president.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Correcting birth dates

Mr Lambert, when you are going through pages in a birth year category such as Category:1897 births and you encounter a discrepancy between the birth year in the page body and the birth year in the category, how do you determine which one is correct?

As an example, you changed the category for Babe Dye from 1897 births to 1898 births. Looking through the history, the birth date started as 1898 but was changed to 1897 by Connormah in 2017. The birth date was changed back to 1898 by a different user in 2020, but that user didn't change the category. I did a Google search and both dates come up - how did you determine which was the correct birth date? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume text is more correct, especially when there are multiple statements in the text. In this case I would go with just saying 1890s birth. I will probably edit it to show this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This multiple dates issue and no clear one is why I put some articles in year of birth uncertain. We have no other way when there are multiple possible centuries of birth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Further on uncertain birth years. If we can place a range in a decade, I use the decade. If only a century, I use the century. We do not gave 1st, 2nd and 3rd millenia birth categories. So if the person is said to have been born in 1898 or 1901, I go with year of birth uncertain. I just realized that since 1900 was in the 19th century (there is no year 0) I could put someone born in 1899 or 1900 in 19th-century births. I will keep that in mind going forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

If I understand what you are saying, you compare the date in the body of the page and the date in the category and change the category to match the body - is this correct? You don't go through the history of the page to see why the dates are different or when they diverged? You don't try to determine if the dates are correct by looking at the sources? Is that a fair assessment of your process? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert: Can you please comment on my understanding of your process? Have I missed anything? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert: I have reported our discussion here since you are not responding to my questions. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Philip C. Duschnes

Mr Lambert, you changed Philip C. Duschnes' birth year category from 1897 to 1890s births. What research did you do for this change? According to the book "Dictionary of American antiquarian bookdealers" Duschnes was born in 1897 (although no day or month is provided). It is possible to find the full birthdate of 26 March 1897 in geneological records. I offer that source only for the purposes of this discussion, not as a source for the page. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The view that we can only say that Duschnes was born around 1897 has been what the page itself expressed since its cretion. I would not trust that source you offer at all to source such. We do not have to be more precise than we can be, and we lack any reliable source that gives more than a general sense of when Duschnes was born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
What research did you do before you made your edit to the category? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Opal Kunz

Mr Lambert, you removed two birth year categories from Opal Kunz and replaced them with 1890s births. What research did you do to find a correct birth date? This one is slightly more complicated in that there is a discrepancy in dates on documents. The page originally said Although her Social Security record indicates she was born in 1894, her burial record indicates she was born in 1896 but was clumsily reworded to say simply Opal Logan Giberson was born in 1894 or 1896.... Kunz was a well-known figure - I don't think there is any dispute that Kunz was born in 1894 (as can be seen on her headstone). What research did you do to find a correct date? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

    • If social security records say this person was born in 1896, than there is clearly a disupte about the year of birth. A grave stone is not generally considered a defintive source on when someone was born. Social security records have many of the same flaws though. What you presented shows that at least until someone marshalls better sources, the best we can say is this person was born in the 1890s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
What research did you do before you made your edit to the category? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Julia Adler

Mr Lambert, you changed Julia Adler's birth year category from 1897 to 1898. What research did you do to confirm that birth year? There is only one source on the page, this obituary in the New York Times. That article states Adler's birth date as "July 4, 1897". Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Various editors have seemed to debate whether Adler was born in 1897, 1898 or 1899. I think I will just move it to 1890s births and leave it to other editors to try and find more definitive sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
What research did you do before you made your edit to the category? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Could you show evidence of any debate about the birth date? I see nothing on the talk page. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The changes were done as edits to the page itself as can be seen from its history. A change from one year to another in the text constitutes an assertion that the newly offered year is correct. Now it would probably be better if people explained their edits, cited sources and did related such actions when they made these changes. However they did make these changes to the article over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Cyril Chambers

Mr Lambert, you changed Cyril Chambers birth year category from 1897 births to 1890s births. You left the page with a birth date of both 1897 *and* 1898. What research did you do to find the correct birth year? It seems very likely that the 1898 year was simply a typo when Frickeg expanded the date in the text. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Louise Little

Mr Lambert, you changed the birth year category for Louise Lttle from 1897 births to 1894irths. What research did you do to establish that the 1894 date was correct? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The article had 3 different places that all stated she was born in 1894. This source [12] used in the article gives her birth date as 1894. The only place that said 1897 was in the category itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • digging further I was able to find a March 2022 New York Times article that states Little was born in either 1894 or 1897. I have included this I formation in the article on Little and changed the Category to 1890s biths.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Johnpacklambert Did you "dig" at all before making your edit? I mean did you look at anything that wasn't on the page? Did you look at the page's history? Did you do a Google search? What research did you do before you changed the birth date category? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Elwood Towner

Mr Lambert, you changed Elwood Towner's birth year category from 1897 to 1890s births. You also replaced the June 3, 1897 birth date that was on the page and replaced it with "c. 1897". What research did you do for this change? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Federico Martinengo

Mr Lambert, you changed Federico Martinengo's birth year category from 1897 births to 1899 births. What research did you do for this change? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Eleanor Winthrop Young

Mr Lambert, you changed Eleanor Winthrop Young's birth year category from 1897 births to 1895 births. What research did you do for this change? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Question

Have you ever met any Latter-day Saints born in Africa? If so, which countries were they born in? AmericanEditor350 (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Roy Davidson (special effects artist)

Roy Davidson (special effects artist) is an article sourced only to IMDb. I also have to admit that I am less than convinced that someone nominated for an award who did not win it becomes notable. We would need more sources and more substance to the article to justify keeping it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

John Dilleshaw

We really need an additional source beyond Allmusic to fully show John Dilleshaw is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

1900 births

I am actually surprised there are not more people in Category:1900 births that we only know they were born about 1900. Although since I do not look deep at sources in all cases, some of the no date entried might really be that. However most people seem to actually have been born that year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

1896 births category

Category:1896 births currently has 5,579 articles in it. I am about to review it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

1895 births

Currently there are 5,511 articles in the category Category:1895 births. I am reviewing this category and the 1896 births category at the same time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archives/2022/June&oldid=1114238751"