Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

I have reworked the article. Please kindly review. You nominated it for deletion. Thank you in advance. Adin-Atherton (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi regarding the Leslie Landau article. We have 3 keeps to retain it. As the creator of the article I took would like it to stay. Will you be able to review it again? I spent time on reworking the article and would like to somehow bring it to a close. Thank you in advance. Adin-Atherton (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adin-Atherton, Given the number of keep votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Landau, and the absence of any votes to delete, it's virtually certain that the article will be kept. An administrator or experienced user will close the AfD as keep in a few days. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy New Year Adin-Atherton (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

HAL333: Thanks! All best to you and yours :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: Thank you so much, and same to you! Was great to work with you this year. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AP, sorry that I'm too lazy to find a good image for you, but I wanted to wish you and yours very happy holidays as we enter a new year. Thank you very much for all the work you've been doing, and our interactions have been a pleasure, really. All the best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, Aw, thanks so much. Hope you have a great holiday, and that 2021 turns out to be not quite so horrible as 2020. Great to work with you this year. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi AleatoryPonderings, May your holidays be merry and bright, and hope you have a happy and healthy 2021 Netherzone (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Thanks, and great to hear from you! All the best in the new year, which will hopefully bring much better things than the past one did. Hope that you and your family are all doing well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Elmer Schofield, Across the River (1904), Carnegie Museum of Art.		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2021.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Oneupsmanship: This painting turned the friendly rivalry between Edward Redfield and Elmer Schofield into a feud. Schofield was a frequent houseguest at Redfield's farm, upstream from New Hope, Pennsylvania, and the two would go out painting together, competing to capture the better view. Redfield served on the jury for the 1904 Annual Exhibition of the Carnegie Institute; at which, despite Redfield's opposition, Across the River was awarded the Gold Medal and $1,500 prize. It was not until a 1963 interview that the 93-year-old Redfield revealed the painting as the cause of the 40-year feud between them. Schofield may have painted it in England, but a blindsided Redfield knew that it was a view of the Delaware River, from his own front yard!

Thanks so much BoringHistoryGuy! My very best to you and yours as well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel this article should be kept? I noticed you made some minor additions and this would be pointless if you favor deletion. If you do want to keep it, give your reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Snyder (musician).— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee, I have no strong opinion either way, so I'm not prepared to !vote on this AfD. I often make minor edits to articles listed at AfD, simply because they catch my eye. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Understood.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Barry Lopez, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 05:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Barbara Rose, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lorraine Monk, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TimothyBlue! Same to you. With any luck, 2021 will be a serious improvement on 2020. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello AleatoryPonderings: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Wow, CAPTAIN RAJU — each time I look at this image, I become more and more confused … What are these elves doing? Happy New Year! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 January 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Joan Micklin Silver, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 08:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Joan Micklin Silver.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for your work :>. However let some other people review semi-edit requests so we can be as inclusive as possible. We don't want to be guardians accepting what does and doesn't enter. The only reason we have it semi protected is to stop vandals. Anyway this is just my opinion, feel free do review whatever you want :) just maybe also let other people review edits as well. Thanks! Des Vallee (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Des Vallee, I just reviewed two that I saw; I didn't realize I was monopolizing it. Wasn't intending to take any more—just saw they hadn't been done and wanted to contribute. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, cool. Keep up the good work! Des Vallee (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! An article you have been editing –- The Doctor and Student –- was recently nominated by another user at Did you know, to be featured on the main page. The nomination has now been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk • contribs)

@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: Thanks for the heads-up. Tbh, I had no idea that this was going to be nominated for DYK, so I didn't prep it as much before mainspacing as perhaps I should have. I can probably address your comments in the next few days. Fwiw, all the books I cited in the article are available online for free at the Internet Archive, so if you were concerned about any of the citations they should be fairly easy to confirm. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on removing birth year. I was going off of this news article (footnote 2 on wiki), taking the age at which he was recorded and subtracting from 2020. If the birth year thing goes back then maybe it could go with "circa," barring a more reliable source, but upon reflection it doesn't look necessary. Not like the year he was born matters that much. Anyways, just wanted to say cheers mate. RexSueciae (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RexSueciae, Thanks for pointing that out to me. I just added it back using {{birth based on age as of date}}. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh neat! I never knew that was a template that existed. Thanks! RexSueciae (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was the removal of the {{clarify}} tag here due to an edit conflict or intentional? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, It was an edit conflict—sorry! I didn't even notice that had happened. I will restore. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's happened to me too! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jackie Saccoccio, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that gestural abstract painter Jackie Saccoccio experimented with randomness in her works by pouring paint, tilting canvases, and even pressing wet canvases together? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jackie Saccoccio. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jackie Saccoccio), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t change the Birthdate on Ali Alexander, or if I did I didn’t mean to. Also, the fact that he is a convicted felon is as significant as the fact that he is a conspiracy theorist and provides a more through snapshot of his overall identity. Not sure why you’d want to his this, but I think it’s questionable. It’s a relevant introduction to Ali Alexander biography. Cloakjingles (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cloakjingles, Please take this to the talk page of the article. I think calling him a felon is WP:UNDUE in the lede of a BLP, as it's not what he's primarily notable for. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AP, hope all is well. I've just created Justice and Jurisprudence but I fear it's somewhat outside of my area of expertise. I thought it might be in yours and I think it could use a pretty involved copyedit. Can I interest you in taking a look? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, Yes, happy to take a look, and thanks for creating this important article. I'll probably be able to get to it in the next few days. Hope you're well! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 January 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Deborah Rhode, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Canadian Supreme Court case about administrative law granted citizenship to a child of covert Russian agents? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I saw you reverted over one of my edits on the pages for Senators-elect Ossoff and Warnock. The source I have to defend my edits is official government doctrine, from the House Rules Committee website. CRS Guide to Legislative Process in the House -- with the portion regarding Senate seniority highlighted. Just wanted to throw it over to you in case another Anon decides to write over my edits again, at least you know I have a credible source.

Thanks! --Crsbcn (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crsbcn, I'm not sure what you mean. I think the edit I made restored text you had put in? Fwiw, the IP also had a decent source: [1]. One of the two obviously has to be wrong, and I don't know which it is. The rules doc you linked looks old—are you sure it's current? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings Ah I see, sorry for the misunderstanding. And as far as the recency of my source -- so far that's the only one with a .gov domain that explicitly spells it out. The most recent House and Senate Rules sites and documents either omit rules about seniority or are very vague about it. Will keep looking though. --Crsbcn (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Immediately for helping out with Justice and Jurisprudence, but also for general great content work. I belatedly credited you on the DYK nom, so don't be surprised when you get credit. Keep it up! Eddie891 Talk Work 23:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, thanks, I'm blushing! Really appreciate it, and hope all's well :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Doctor and Student, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Doctor and Student by Christopher St. Germain was used as a primer by English law students for over two centuries? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Doctor and Student. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Doctor and Student), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I know that we should use secondary sources by and large, but in this case, I would argue that my wording ("Signal announced that...") fits the policy on using primary sources.

The relevant passage is:

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

I would say that reporting what Signal announced counts as a "straightforward, descriptive statement of facts". I imagine that if I used a secondary source, that source would just say exactly the same thing, which is that Signal announced something – mainly because they probably could not / would not verify those facts themselves.

Thoughts? Counterpoints?

— TARDIS builder^💬   |     16:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TARDIS Builder, I have partially restored the content. I don't think we should cite Signal itself for downloads, because it clearly has an incentive to inflate download figures. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, thanks. In general, I agree. For this case specifically, in that other tweet, they actually show screenshots of the Google Play downloads page with the date and the numbers. Are you thinking they could've doctored those images or something? Despite that they have an incentive, I just don't see how they could fake those screenshots believably (i.e. without getting called out by the community). That's why I judged it okay to use that source. If it does make you uncomfortable, then I imagine it would make others so, and I will see if another source is out there.

— TARDIS builder^💬   |     16:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TARDIS Builder, I am reluctant to rely on a primary source for anything remotely contentious. I think the tweet is fine to cite as an announcement, but not as fact. Moreover, it's sort of unclear what relevance raw download numbers have anyway—what should we infer from the fact the app was downloaded X million times in a day? Best to let secondary sources settle that, I think. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I see the point. I agree that an official tweet definitely does not fact make.

Not in general, but in this particular case, the relevance I see is its tie-in to the next paragraph, which was the service disruption. As for what it means for people's opinions about user privacy, or for competition with WhatsApp – definitely interpretations that require sources secondary.

— TARDIS builder^💬   |     17:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 January 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Marielle de Sarnez, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ref used (94) clearly states that Rev Black was the unit's chaplain. He was not the unit CO (that was Lt-Col Dan Sutherland). If you need another ref, then M. Stuart Hunt, Nova Scotia's Part in the Great War (Halifax: NS Veteran Publishing Co, Ltd, 1920) has a chap on No. 2 (pp. 148-153). P. 149 lists all the officers, including the CO and the chaplain who, as an Hon Capt was not a commissioned officer. You can also check my article in Legion magazine "Pride & Prejudice at the Front" Jul/Aug 2016, pp. 20-27. White's Hon status is described on p. 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.51.1 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please put your citation in the article. It is not acceptable to add contentious material without citing a source. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why correcting an entry IAW the stated ref (94) is "contentious material." I am merely correcting a mistake IAW with the ref provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.51.1 (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reference states "The Black Battalion's chaplain was Reverend William White, who had also played a leading role getting the unit formed. He was given the rank of Honourary Captain—one of the few Black commissioned officers to serve in the Canadian Army during the war." I have changed the article to conform with that quotation. Wikipedia has very rigorous citation standards; material must exactly reflect the cited sources to be included. See WP:CITE, WP:OR, and WP:RS for more details. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Katherine Garrison Chapin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people start AFD, in good faith, read the comments other people leave, and give them full consideration.

If those comments are convincing they go back to the AFD, withdraw their nomination, acknowledge they came around to keep. Sometimes it is not the keep arguments that win them over, but the improvements made to the article.

I encourage you to be one of those people.

You replied to my comment, quoting WP:Who is a low-profile individual.

Excuse me?

BLP1E has three numbered criteria, all three of which have to be satisfied, before BLP1E should be applied. You REALLY need to understand this before you ever invoke the authority of BLP1E

The second of those three required criteria begins "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a '[[Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual|low-profile individual]]."''

So, Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual is only relevant when the individual "remains, and is likely to remain" low profile.

You aren't REALLY claiming this brave man, honored at the inauguration, has remained a low profile individual, are you?

Listen, it is not my intention to bludgeon you, but I think it is clear you made a huge mistake here. I'd say nothing if I had any reason to believe this as going to be the last time you ever participated at an AFD.

But I strongly suspect you have misinterpreted BLP1E at other AFD in the past, and will do so in the future.

I do my best to own up and acknowledge when I made a mistake. It would be best for the project if we all did that, every time, even when other contributors had been mean to us.

But, if you can't do that, at least be a lot more careful in future, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, I think it is clear that Goodman's notability comes from a single event: his actions at the Capitol storming. Criterion 1 of BLP1E is therefore satisfied. Criteria 2 and 3 are less clear. I think the best case for why BLP1E doesn't apply here is criterion 3, because his role (it has become clear) was substantial and has been well-documented. I think it is too soon to say whether he will be low-profile in the future; we'll presumably discover more in the coming days and weeks. In sum, I don't think it's clear that [I] made a huge mistake here; I made a good faith nomination, the rationale for which became less persuasive over time, especially given his role at the inauguration (which was, AFAIK, not known when I made the nomination). You disagreed with me, as is your right. As it turns out, more people agreed with you than with me. Please also AGF with respect to my citation of BLP1E in the past; you are explicitly assuming bad faith because you haven't provided any evidence that I misinterpreted it in other cases. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, are you acknowledging the inauguration was a separate event? Then BLP1E wouldn't apply as there are now 2 events. If you don't acknowledge it as a separate event then he no longer qualifies for the temporary aspect of BLP1E.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

So, you didn't anticipate Goodman being honored at the inauguration? Okay, that's fair. But as soon as you learned he was honored, did you consider withdrawing the nomination? No one would criticize you if you wrote in the AFD what you wrote above, "When I started this AFD I didn't anticipate he would be honored at the inauguration. Now that he has I withdraw the AFD." Geo Swan (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, Of course the inauguration was a second event, although I'm not sure it would qualify as a source of notability in itself (people who guard vice presidents in other contexts, such as Secret Service agents, are not notable by virtue of that fact alone). I did consider withdrawing the nomination, but decided against it because by my understanding of standard AfD practice, noms that have received !votes other than keep are not eligible to be withdrawn. Instead, I noted several days ago that I would change my vote to keep per WP:ANYBIO if he received the Congressional Gold Medal. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the RS coverage that makes the difference. I came to the AFD at 11am this morning, when I watching CNN, and they celebrated his recent honors. Another AFD contributor noted that CBS had also honored him. His role at the inauguaration wouldn't matter, even if his bosses told him choosing him was in recognition for his heroism, it would not earn him an iota of notability, if RS hadn't chosen to also honor him, by describing his heroism, his recent promotion to their viewers, and explained that choosing him as a ceremonial guard to the VPOTUS was also an honor. So, it is the RS coverage that makes the difference.

You are correct, an AFD that has some delete opinions will remain open, even after the nominator withdraws the nomination. But, that is not a bar to withdrawing the nomination. I'd urge anyone who left an early delete opinion to reconsider, if they see that the nominator found new development triggered them to reconsider. I think they really owe it to themselves, and to the project, to follow the nominator's example. Just my opinion, I know.

You will see nominators withdrawing their nomination, or otherwise signalling they changed their mind, even when there are other delete opinions.

Of course a Congressional Medal of Honor would make this AFD moot, as a Medal of Honor measures up to one of the rare, narrow notability factors that makes an individual notable all by itself. That is from WP:SOLDIER - the highest award for bravery or any nation makes someone notable.

I have had a lot of discussions over medals with the people at the military project, who started and maintain SOLDIER. It is the position of some of them that medals like the Medal of Honor, or Victoria Cross count very high, and that all lesser awards count for nothing.

I strongly disagree. About half of the wikipedia's articles are biographies. People who check these things said this. How many of the individuals who have standalone BLP articles had their notability established solely by measuring up to SOLDIER, or WP:POLITICIAN? I dunno. A small fraction. Let's say, for the sake of argument, it is one percent or less. That means that more than 99 percent of standalone BLP articles had their notability established by adding up multiple notability factors.

You wrote: "I'm not sure it would qualify as a source of notability in itself..." IMO everything counts.

CBS 60 minutes broadcast a segment on Bob Dole, about a decade ago, that spent a large amount of time on his war record. Dole was what Sergeants called a "90 day wonder". During peace-time, in the 1930s, the USA's small peacetime Army was mainly commanded by officers who had studied how to be officers for four years at West Point. In peacetime even platoon commanders were likely to be West Point grads. During World War 2 there was a need for hundreds of thousands of junior officers, who got a crash course in how to be an officer. You guessed it, that crash course lasted 90 days. And experienced seasoned Sergeants who had to serve under them, felt a great tension. They hoped to get a guy who was sensible enough to defer to their judgment and experience, not try to show off their authority and give bad orders that got people killed. They hoped to nurse their "90 day wonder" through their first few months, keep him from being killed, until he had enough actual combat experience he was unlikely to give really bad orders that got people killed.

You may not know Dole only has one good arm. I knew that, when I watched the segment. I didn't know his other arm was crippled, in Italy, when he was a "90 day wonder".

The segment featured his platoon Sergeant, who managed to keep Dole from being killed. They were still friendly. Sarge clearly still saw himself as a kind of mentor to a younger, less experienced man.

The reason I bring Dole up is that his Purple Heart, the medal earned for a serious wound, was his highest medal. Dole is clearly a notable guy, but, if he were on the cusp of notability, the Purple Heart that reflected that his arm was crippled while he was in combat, defending his country, would be of sufficient significant notability to weigh in when calculating whether he met our inclusion criteria, even though hundreds of thousands of non-notable people also earned Purple Hearts.

Thanks for being a good sport about this. I have a user essay on how every question every disagreement is a teachable moment. My interest in a long discussion is explained there.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan: I always find notability rather a difficult concept to get a handle on. On the one hand, it's very simple: if there's enough coverage in the right sources, the topic is notable. On the other hand, it's very complex: we have zillions of SNGs, some of which (like WP:NFOOTY) I think are grossly overinclusive and others (like WP:NPOL) I think are grossly underinclusive. I'm not quite sure how BLP1E fits into this scheme. It seems almost like a defeater to GNG: the person would be notable in virtue of the coverage they got, but for the fact that it's in the context of a single event. (I'm not sure if you've participated in the RfC over at WT:N about revising the SNG guidance, but it might be of interest.) This is all to say: thanks for your detailed comments, and I hope to see you around AfD in the future :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I started about one hundred article on the Citizendium, back during its golden age. I liked it. The thing that first attracted me to try it out was that they did not have a notability policy. Instead they had a maintainability policy. It was similar, but it allowed use of references that were stable and reliable, that would not be considered well known enough to be notable reliable sources here.
• The view you expressed here, "the person would be notable in virtue of the coverage they got, but for the fact that it's in the context of a single event..." You know that is a commonly used interpretation, and one that really concerns me because I think it is in conflict with the actual wording of BLP1E. Coincidentally, I just raised this at WP:BLPN#Individuals, like Jake Angeli, who were connected to the 2021-01-06 attempt to seize the US Capitol building a few days ago. Some contributors who agree with my interpretation are cross with me, because they don't remember encountering the view you voiced.
• BLP1E's actual wording requires the BLP1E individual to meet three named criteria. Wait a second! I am repeating myself! This is how I started this thread.
• I just moved that user essay to WP:Teachable moments. If you have the time, I'd be interested in your opinion of the discussion at WP:BLPN#Individuals, like Jake Angeli, who were connected to the 2021-01-06 attempt to seize the US Capitol building, either here, or at BLPN. Part of WP:Teachable moments is that I have to be open to considering I might be wrong, and you might be right.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]