On 3/29/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: as a page in a book or the equivalent, it is unsourced. You are not obligated to read whole books when no page is given. The priority needs to go to 4) Remove all unsourced harmful or extremely dubious sounding material and probably extends to removing such material when that is all that is in the article, even if it is sourced. The problem with living bios goes beyond unsourced material. Everything in a bio could be sourced and it might still be an unfair portrait of the person. Then there's the problem of Wikpedia editors hunting down every tiny bit of published material from decades ago, thereby reviving stories that were long dead, or posting something that was published only in a local newspaper, thereby turning it into an international story. But if you try to remove material like that from a bio, or delete a bio entirely because it's inherently unfair, a great hue and cry goes up about censorship, and a revert war begins. Sarah

On 3/30/07 1:24 AM, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: reasonable They should be omitted entirely unless that "controversy and accusations" can be shown to have a reasonable basis in fact or public interest, or that controversy is what the person is primarily known for. It is far too easy to create "controversy and accusations." Example: If geology professor Jon Dough is accused of adultery in divorce papers, does that fact belong in his Wikipedia article? What does it add to our knowledge of Dr. Dough's work in geology? What does it add to our knowledge of the universe that some geologist's wife accused him of sleeping around, and thus wants Splitsville? The answer, of course, is nothing. It's not relevant to his life and work as a geologist and there's no public interest in what his wife said in a court document in yet another divorce case. It might be an accusation and it might be "controversial," but should we be in the business of simply repeating every single accusation ever made about every person? Is that really a "biography" or is it simply a scandal sheet? -Travis Mason-Bushman _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On the contrary, the personal lives of famous scientists have always been interesting to historians, and they've spent many hours in parish registers and city archives to get the particulars.

on 3/30/07 10:21 AM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs(a)earthlink.net wrote: Parish registers and city archives will only give you the what. The problems begin when amateur psychologists try to come up with the why.