From: Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:48:44 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This sounds sensible. Perhaps what we need some where is a list of
what
would be "standard" information in a biographical article.
Essentially
we would be looking at the kind of boring data that would be found
in a
"Who's Who" that chose to include the individual: date and place of birth and marriage, where they went to school, etc. Any of ths
stuff
could still be disputed, put it would be presumed valid unless that
happens.
Actually I think this is a good litmus test for whether an individual is encyclopaedically notable. If there are no sources for basic biographical data other than the individual themselves, in other words if there has never been a reputably published biography or profile, then I don't believe we can have an article.
This would include minor actors and exclude famous scientists. Even scientists who have a large number of scientific achievements are rarely the subjects of published biographies. Being famous enough to get a mention in newspapers doesn't help either, since such articles rarely provide information like place of birth.
Zero.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:51:33 -0800 (PST), zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
if there has never been a reputably published biography or profile, then I don't believe we can have an article.
This would include minor actors and exclude famous scientists. Even scientists who have a large number of scientific achievements are rarely the subjects of published biographies. Being famous enough to get a mention in newspapers doesn't help either, since such articles rarely provide information like place of birth.
Many notable scientists are profiled in pop science and other journals. And a fair number of those who have not, really should not be on Wikipedia. Take Piotr Blass, for example. He re-created his article about ten times before we finally banned him.
Guy (JzG)
On 19 Jan 2007, at 09:30, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:51:33 -0800 (PST), zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com wrote:
if there has never been a reputably published biography or profile, then I don't believe we can have an article.
This would include minor actors and exclude famous scientists. Even scientists who have a large number of scientific achievements are rarely the subjects of published biographies. Being famous enough to get a mention in newspapers doesn't help either, since such articles rarely provide information like place of birth.
Many notable scientists are profiled in pop science and other journals. And a fair number of those who have not, really should not be on Wikipedia. Take Piotr Blass, for example. He re-created his article about ten times before we finally banned him.
I've had some experience of this from the other end. A lot of the content of the article about me is sourced from my father's website. When you look at the list of publications to his name you might conclude that he is a reliable source for the information he gives, more so than the official alternative, which is also available:
I have also had dozens of articles published about me in the press and on the internet, which I can locate far more easily than the average editor, particularly those that predate Google and even the Web.
I have been toying with the idea of whether to drop some hints, or to let sleeping dogs lie.
zero 0000 wrote:
From: Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net
Actually I think this is a good litmus test for whether an individual is encyclopaedically notable. If there are no sources for basic biographical data other than the individual themselves, in other words if there has never been a reputably published biography or profile, then I don't believe we can have an article.
This would include minor actors and exclude famous scientists. Even scientists who have a large number of scientific achievements are rarely the subjects of published biographies. Being famous enough to get a mention in newspapers doesn't help either, since such articles rarely provide information like place of birth.
Conference and conventions publish biographical data, I know the source is generally the person, but they should be reputable as sources. Magazines like New Scientist often profile scientists too, although my subscription lapsed a few years back.
Actually I think this is a good litmus test for whether an individual is encyclopaedically notable. If there are no sources for basic biographical data other than the individual themselves, in other words if there has never been a reputably published biography or profile, then I don't believe we can have an article.
I would see no problem with an article about a scientist which was entirely about his professional contributions, and didn't so much as mention a date of birth, middle name or anything vaguely personal. The article should be primarily about their work, and that "biographical" information is purely incidental.
I suspect that for very early scientists (eg, 1700s or earlier) we may be in this situation anyway.
Steve
On 25/02/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I would see no problem with an article about a scientist which was entirely about his professional contributions, and didn't so much as mention a date of birth, middle name or anything vaguely personal. The article should be primarily about their work, and that "biographical" information is purely incidental.
For many medieval (or earlier) figures known for their work, not their life, we're in exactly this state - all sorts of significant characters where we can guess what country they were born in and have a decent stab at what decade, but unless they attracted someone to write a short biography of them *and* had that survive, you're not going to get much more.
Steve Bennett wrote:
Actually I think this is a good litmus test for whether an individual is encyclopaedically notable. If there are no sources for basic biographical data other than the individual themselves, in other words if there has never been a reputably published biography or profile, then I don't believe we can have an article.
I would see no problem with an article about a scientist which was entirely about his professional contributions, and didn't so much as mention a date of birth, middle name or anything vaguely personal. The article should be primarily about their work, and that "biographical" information is purely incidental.
I suspect that for very early scientists (eg, 1700s or earlier) we may be in this situation anyway.
As it happens, contributors to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography have done primary sources legwork for many of the earlies, digging through parish and city records and the like. Result is kind of a patchwork though, so for instance we know that a scientist was born in one city, married on a specific date in another, and was later on a university payroll in a third city, but we have no information on when or why he moved.
Stan