David Goodman wrote:
I agree with your interpretation, and of course the mere question of how articles should be organised does not provide any basis whatever for the removal of any the content from these sections. The reorganization of hundreds of articles is not something to be done overnight, and the burden of those removing such section have the burden of moving the material elsewhere. In fact, I personally have eliminated several such sections, doing just that, as most of the biographical material accumulated there by lazy editors fitted much better in the main portion--and I did delete one or two items which never should have been added.
Although I tend to view trivia sections in a more favourable light than you or John, what I see in the way that you present the subject is that there is room for arriving at a consensus. That is very important in a wiki that holds value in NPOV
The removal of unencyclopedic content does not depend where in the article it is, but as you say, upon its function; Even your first example might well have a section about how the example of certain well-known entertainment figures both indicated and led to the further acceptances of lesbians in the United States. Arguably it is more important there than in the biography--the social change is far more generally important than a person's individual career. To suggest otherwise is a continuation of WP's preoccupation with the basically trivial in a more fundamental sense. I assume you, like me, want a WP that deals fully with significant social issues, not just television personalities.
Sure, as long as a point is arguable, alternatives can still be presented. Dealing with significant social issues and with television personalities does not imply that these two topic areas are mutually exclusive. We can deal with the important stuff without needing to be concerned with what the TV enthusiasts are doing. Fundamentally, each of these trivia sections needs to be examined on its own merits, or lack thereof.
The current bitter disagreements at various places in WP are another example of how well-meaning and sensible people intending to make good and necessary changes in WP are at the mercy of those who over-enthusiastically [support] the same good principles, and also those who misapply them altogether to situations for which they never were intended.
The point is that quick fixes rarely work. Superficially they can give the impression that a lot is being accomplished, but at what price?
Ec