User talk:DoctorKnockersMD

some more about that discussion...

hello DoctorKnockersMD - i've decided to move these remarks to your personal talk page rather than the page on the Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem article, but it's all related to that discussion, and my aim is to help you navigate the disagreement over what should be included in the article:

it's excellent that you understand that the subjects of wikipedia articles don't "own" the articles or have more right than others to decide what goes in them. this applies to articles about "sensitive subjects" as well; and please bear in mind that for some people biographies are "sensitive"; for others articles about their nationalities or businesses or sports teams or music groups are "sensitive"; but it's wikipedia's aim to maintain the policies of neutral point of view and verifiability in all these cases anyway.

i hope you can also see that it was not the other editor's intent to offend; he/she considers the fact notable and pertinent, while you disagree. disagreements on wikipedia are resolved by consensus. but please assume good faith - it genuinely would strengthen your position if you'd avoid sounding like you're accusing the other editor of some kind of conflict of interest.

i hope that helps. and again, if you want to request more input on this issue, the instructions for initiating a "request for comment" are here: WP:RFC. if you want assistance with that i or some other editor would certainly be glad to help - you can let me know here on your talk page (i'll keep it on my watchlist for a while, so i'll see any reply you leave here) or on the Talk:Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem page. Sssoul (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. As understand it, Wikipedia aims for relevance and neutrality. I still fail to see how this information is relevant. As for citing wikipedia based information, I really dont know the site that well. I did read however, that the policies are descriptive, not perscritive. This leads me to back up my ideas all the more. Also, you see that Orange Mike told me that if a person were not notable to have a article about themselves on the site, they do not belong on such a list. Can you further explain that policy to me.

first, just to make sure you know: if you click on the blue words in what i wrote above, they'll lead you to pages that explain the policies i'm talking about, and i think that would be very helpful to you. next, i think Orangemike is a better person to ask for more details about the guideline he referred to, what kinds of articles it applies to, etc. you could ask him on his talk page, which is here: User_talk:Orangemike (click the "new section" tab at the top to contact him there), or on the Talk:Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem page. and please remember to "sign" your posts on talk pages (including your own!) with the four tildes ... Sssoul (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a "famous alumni/residents/congregants/whatever" section of an article, the persons should be notable enough that there is (or should be) an article about them in Wikipedia. Thus, an article about a town, university, etc. will only list those people who are notable for themselves. Mere chronological listings of non-notable holders of an office are generally considered unnecessary, and tend to be deleted; that kind of data is for a congregational history book/pamphlet. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do you mind telling the others of this. They seem to deem this information relevant. Also, how do I create a wikipedia hyperlink?DoctorKnockersMD (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all common knowledge. To wikilink to any notable topic (such as "hamsters") you simply put the word between two left [ and two right ] square brackets, thus: hamsters. (To see the code that generates the blue link, you need to look at it in the edit box of this page.) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemike, if you could point out the guideline or policy that specifically encourages following that criterion in the text of articles (as opposed to lists), that would be really helpful, please and thank you. i'm aware of WP:BIO#Lists_of_people, but the disagreement over the Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem article doesn't involve a list of people. (i'll put this question on the Talk:Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem page as well.) Sssoul (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit: okay sorry - i see that the other editor has modified the article and that it now includes a "notable members" section, which i guess technically can be considered a list; and that means the guideline WP:BIO#Lists_of_people could reasonably be cited as relevant to the disagreement. on the other hand, the WP:BIO guideline also states explicity that the criteria for including mention of a person in a general article are not as stringent as the criteria for having a biographical article; and the other editor *does* have a secondary source that supports the notability of the individual in question.

i hope that - and the other wikipedia policies & guidelines i've pointed out to you - helps some in your discussion of this disagreement, and that a consensus can be reached to resolve the dispute. i'm bowing out now ... oh and DoctorKnockersMD: you're welcome for the help - in accordance with WP:AGF, i assume you meant to say thank you to the editors who have been trying to be helpful 8) Sssoul (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Thank you all for the help.DoctorKnockersMD (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]