text:
Talk:Alexei Stakhanov

Someone please add link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_(folklore) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFA5:42A0:1856:D3D0:2063:CD36 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Untitled
Okay i am talking about the story Animal Farm and i would like to know is Boxer the horse is that the person who played as Aleksei —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.131.191 (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.39.71.98 (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim
I removed the following text:
 * His achievements were, however, greatly exaggerated for propaganda purposes: years later, it was revealed that the numbers had been reached by adding the production of his co-workers to his own total.

I suspect that this is one of the many systematic attempts to smear the Soviet order that were so common in the 1980-1990s. I'd like to see some references if this claim is to be put back. If there are no references, then this is just slander and slander should have no place in a free encyclopedia. Paranoid 20:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the "Propaganda questions" section that Fastfission added. The text is below:
 * Stakhanov's story has often been reported in the United States as an example of Soviet propaganda. For example, in 1985, the New York Times reported that:
 * The history of Stakhanov's feat, however, tells a somewhat different story. The push for a record on the night of Aug. 30 was, in fact, carefully planned and prepared by the Communist Party organization of the Tsentralnaya-Irmino mine in the Donest basin.
 * The mines, short of skilled workers and machinery, were failing to produce their quotas of coal. The party tapped Stakhanov, a little-educated, hard-working peasant-turned-miner, to set a record that would become an inspiration and example.
 * Konstantin G. Petrov, the chief of the mine's party organization, recalled that Stakhanov's wife strenuously resisted his attempt to make her husband a hero until she was silenced with the gift of a cow.
 * To increase Stakhanov's chances, the pattern of work was changed to free him from his usual tassk of shoring up the tunnel as he dug into the seam. Instead, two timberers followed after him, and Mr. Petrov himself held a light to the coal-face.
 * What Stakhanov did, to be sure, was still impressive, especially with the unreliable jackhammers of those days. Contemporaries described the big miner wrestling his hammer for hours, coal dust choking his throat and nose and grinding between his teeth.
 * "I suppose Stakhanov need not have been the first," said Mr. Petrov in an interview several years ago. "It could have been anybody else. In the final analysis it was not the individual face-worker who determined whether the attempt to break the record would succeed, but the new system of coal extraction.
 * "But Aleksei was the first. Why then? Well, because before a record can be set a man has to beleive in its feasibility and in his own powers. We had been looking for just such a stalwart fellow."
 * Other sources have questioned whether the event occurred at all. In the context of the Cold War, however, these skeptical stories may themselves be forms of propaganda.
 * Serge Schmemann, "In Soviet, Eager Beaver's Legend Works Overtime," New York Times (31 Aug 1985), p. 2.

My justification for the deletion:
 * 1) First, the quoting was excessive.
 * 2) Second, the size of the section was excessive as well. Devoting 50% of the article to one attack on Stakhanov was too much.
 * 3) The NYT is just reprinting a lie. There are no real references (i.e. to historical documents, letters by contemporaries, etc.).
 * 4) Fourth, I seriously doubt that we need to daub every Soviet-related article with reports of the slander. In 1980s every single aspect of Soviet history and Soviet life was smeared by the anti-communist soviet-haters. Take any Soviet hero - Pavlik Morozov[[, [[Pavka Korchagin, Aleksandr Matrosov, Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, Aleskey Stakhanov - every one was attacked by anti-Soviet propaganda. There are no facts supporting the accusations, just hysterical irrational attacks. It would make sense to write one or several articles about this dishonest smear campaign, but we should not give too much credit to these attacks by including them in every article about the Soviet Union. We have anti-semitism article on Wikipedia, but we do not add an anti-semitic view to each Jews-related article under the guise of POV. Even though one can easily quote pages of vile hateful speech from anti-semitic newspapers (which can be leading German newspaper from 1930-1940s) about every famous Jew. Paranoid 09:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My responses: I am reinstating the text. Feel free to edit it down, or edit the rest of the article up, as you feel fit. Deleting it and all references to the fact that doubt has been cast by mainstream sources is inappropriate and smacks of your own intellectual dishonestly. I could care less about this one productive miner, but I absolutely detest your blatant biases and your inability to be intellectually honest. You count things from mainstream sources as "lies" and don't cite a single source of your own, and make no attempt to accord with NPOV. This is inappropriate. If these were fringe accusations, made only by completely non-reputable sources, you would be justified in minimizing them. Such is not the case. Text reinstated. --Fastfission 12:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) If you find the quoting excessive, please feel free to paraphrase parts of it. It is a relatively small part of an old article, I do not think anybody will care much, and it is well demarcated from the rest of the text.
 * 2) Almost all US sources since the 1980s cast as much doubt on Stakhanov as they do talk about his "deeds". If you want to add more on his deeds, or cut the other section down, please go ahead and do it. Removing in completely does not look like good faith.
 * 3) I have no idea about whether the NYT is "reprinting a lie". What is important here is that the story is not common just to the NYT, that it has been cited to the NYT (that is, we are not saying that it is true, but that the NYT is saying it). Please review what Neutral Point of View is about -- citing the NYT as having said something does not endorse the validity of it.
 * 4) I think appealing to an analogy with anti-Semitism is going a little bit too far here. The NYT is not a pathologically anti-Soviet newspaper, it is not a fringe source of news in the US, it is mainstream.
 * You do not understand. As I said, practically every single Soviet symbol was under attack by the anti-Soviet forces (usually through lies, deceit and manipulative omissions). My point is that it would be intellectually dishonest to insert these attacks in individual articles, because these attacks were not based on facts, but were irrational in nature. Did NYT run an investigation? Did they uncover some original documents? The quoted parts do not mention that.
 * This article is not substantially different from stories reprinted in yellow press in late Soviet Union and Russia. The claim that it was just Soviet propaganda is unsubstantiated. If you consider it intellectually dishonest to include such passages as "Why were two thirds of his children brain dead? Why did he publish "his" papers under his wife's name?  Why did his wife do his math for him, and who did his math after he dumped her for a prettier woman?"  in an article about Albert Einstein, then we shouldn't include vile proofless attacks on people such as Stakhanov. Paranoid 12:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you don't understand. This is not the SS press, this is the NYT. You cannot just delete mainstream opinions you don't enjoy. If you really want to dispute it, post your own sources. Please read NPOV as you don't seem to understand it at all. The NYT is a mainstream source, they supposedly quote someone who worked on the project, it is not fringe, it is not being depicted in this article as "the truth" but "one mainstream take on it, make of it what you will." That is entirely in the spirit of NPOV. The Einstein stuff is conspiracy theory things that are only republished by fringe people and fringe governments, it is not comparable with this. --Fastfission 12:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * About sources: check out Wikipedia talk:Cite sources/Appropriate sources and Reliable sources to get a better idea of what I am talking about. We can't trust NYT in covering a historical controversy. It is simply not a reliable or reputable enough source. In writing an article on Airbus A380 we may use information from NYT, in writing an article on current events we can get facts from NYT, but for writing about Stakhanov it is simply not acceptable. Similarly, it wouldn't be acceptable to quote NYT in an article on Adolf Hitler, Galileo Galilei or Julius Caesar. There is academic press and articles in peer-reviewed journals for that. It is simply unacceptable to include any such claims in Wikipedia based on what is written in the mass-media. Paranoid 13:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Now hold on a minute. I agree with you that mainstream history in the West is filled with lies and misinformation about the USSR. But let's come at this from the perspective of notability. I think the skeptic view of Stakhanov is quite notable, so it should be presented, in neutral terms. The same goes for the sympathetic view. Something doesn't have to be true to be included, because we ourselves cannot sit here and determine the whole truth of the matter, and then report our findings through the article like we're a commission. All we can do is report the notable information available to us in cited, NPOV terms. Everyking 13:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Einstein stuff is a point of view too. Yes, it's a fringe one, but so what? But we both realise that writing "Some people believe that Einstein was a retard and a con artist and all his publications are fake" would be wrong, even though including this would technically mean NPOVing the article.
 * As I said, every single thing about Soviet Union was attacked. The famous "human rights advocate" Kovalev repeatedly stated his believe that there was absolutely nothing good whatsoever that communist regime did. On one occasion the secretary of the Russian Consitutional Court asked for a clarification in disbelief and Kovalev reiterated that. Nothing good at all. Everything that Soviet Union or Communist Parth did was evil, wrong and must be condemned, such is the position of many anti-Soviet figures.
 * If you follow the NPOV principle literally, you must include their unsubstantiated claims in every article about Soviet Union. And that would be a travesty just as bad as including anti-semitic claims in every article about a Jew. Sorry for possibly overusing the scarecrow of anti-semitism, but the attitude of anti-semites towards Einstein (or other famous Jews) is notable too. Anti-Sovietism is not different and should not be treated differently. Note that reasonable criticism of Israel or USSR and factual claims do not constitute anti-semitism or anti-Sovietism.
 * There are simply no facts that could be added. The view that Stakhanov was a labour hero is a mainstream view, supported by historical documents, personal accounts and commonly accepted by reputable historians. The view that it was a fabrication is an irrational piece of anti-Soviet propaganda that was reprinted in many sources, but a lie repeated a million times is still a lie. Paranoid 13:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If both views are represented by mainstream sources then they should both be presented. Hence NPOV. You cannot just delete the viewpoints you think are lies in this context. The reason for distinguishing between mainstream and fringe sources is that anybody can throw together a Geocities website with any POV they want and claim it to require representation. Hwoever if a POV is represented in a mainstream source then it has presumably enough cultural caché to require representation. It is noted, by the way, in Einstein's article that there were movements against him in Germany (in fact an entire article is devoted to the Deutsche Physik movement). Just because an opinion is mentioned does not mean it is defined as factual, and I have gone to great lengths to make sure that this particular opinion has been attributed as belonging to a specific type of source, and have even noted that the sort of skepticism and "debunking" itself needs to be seen within context as well. --Fastfission 16:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Better sources
Much better than the New York Times are newspapers such as "Technical newspaper" or "Dnestrovsky courier"  (both links in Russian). They present the facts without vile personal attacks. Yes, Stakhanov was not a perfect Prometeus-like superhuman. But it doesn't make Wikipedia justice to attempt to belittle him using the anti-Soviet lies.

Going back to the original passage that I removed about "adding the production of his co-workers to his own total". This was clearly written by a twisted mind, a snake, a man with a worm-tongue. This text creates the impression that a team of miners went to the mine and their whole production was false attributed to Stakhanov so that the evil communists could use this for their evil propaganda purposes. Needless to say, that this is indeed a lie.

In reality Stakhanov's feat happened a short time after pneumatic drills were introduced in the mines (te first pneumatic drill was invented only in 1912). They were expensive and valuable. That's why the norms were set per drill. There were plenty of timber-men able to propping the ceiling of the mine (sorry for bad technical English), it was the productivity of coal-miners that was important. Stakhanov demonstrated how it can be drastically improved with division of labour. With the help of only two assistants he exceeded the norm 14 times. Everyone knew that he had these two assistants, it wasn't a secret, nobody pretended that Stakhanov did it alone, but economically and technologically it wasn't relevant - the important thing was to increase the production per pneumatic drill per day.

When people such as that Serge Schmemann twist the facts in such way, they are commiting a crime against the Soviet civilization, a crime against people and a crime against truth. I don't want to see Wikipedia as an acomplice in these crimes... Paranoid 13:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, while I personally favor your viewpoint, I would also like to see the other side represented in some form or another. No need for it to be the NYT, though. Everyking 14:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want to engage this with reputable, verifiable sources, by all means, please do. Feel free to cite and quote and attribute, as I have myself done. Make an effort to be factual and NPOV. If you want to post a rebuttal to the NYT approach, please feel free, but properly attribute it, do not just present it as the self-evident fact that "everybody knew". I believe attribution of facts and opinions should be undertaken as much as possible -- facts and opinions do not just exist "in the air", they are called into action by human beings. If their constructedness is acknowledged, it saves us from the unfortunate position of trying to express "truth" about something neither you nor I have any personal experience with. It is how the historian works. What I am against is attributing the Soviet party line as being the only possible truth -- clearly nobody in this situation was without political motivation. A symmetrical methodology would imply that you recognized that the USSR had at least as much to gain in trumping up achievements as the US did in denigrating them. The Soviets were not exactly known for their impartial objectivity, whatever you think of the US stance. It would be ideal if you could find reputable sources to cite, so that it could be easily checked by others on this Wikipedia portal, but if that's not possible I'm sure it will be possible to find a few other Russian readers to do so (I can't evaluate the veracity of Russian sources at all at the moment). --Fastfission 16:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As I already said, there aren't two valid views. The facts are well known, they are not disputed at all. There are countless interviews, letters, articles in Pravda, the memoirs of Stakhanov and what not. Among all this evidence there is nothing that contradicts the official version.
 * The problem is with presenting the facts. What NYT has done is not find some new previously hidden facts, they simply took the Pravda articles, the interviews with Petrov, and then they selectively omitted everything positive. The result is a giant calculated lie. Just one example is the situation with Stakhanov's assistants. I already explained the situation with pneumatic drills, but NYT chose to take the fact that there were other people working with Stakhanov and put it in such a way as to create the impression that a team of coal-miners worked together and their joint output was attributed to Stakhanov alone. This is a lie, this is distortion and this is not a valid point of view. Half-truths should not be included in this or any other Wikipedia article. Paranoid 18:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should keep the questioning of the official story, but only because it exists and was noteworthy. We should, however, cut it down a bit and tone the supportive language down as the official Soviet-reported story is supported by more evidence, such as private documents, diaries etc. from the time. It is pretty much a fact that Stakhanov did have a great achievement, and the fact that people want to denigrate the achievements of a common working-man simply for the sake of some anti-Soviet government propaganda is very sad. It is the same with many accounts from the USSR which elevated working-men to heroes. The view that many of these were government lies and hoaxes is often treated as a fact by the West, yet we have no documents in the archives that prove otherwise (yet they have documents for KGB activities and all sorts), which does lead credence to the view that many, if not most of these cases, were actually true. The fact that the West hates the USSR, should mean that the achievements of working-men should be put into doubt without a shred of evidence, as is the case with Stakhanov. 90.203.89.62 (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

New version
Thanks for trying, Fastfission, but it is still deceitful. Is it OK if I post in my blog that your might have been raping little kids and eating puppies alive and then someone else will post this on Wikipedia as a legitimate point of view?

Our goal here is not to present opposing points of view - it's a job for Wikinfo or some such project. We must be neutral and stick to the facts. The selective quotes from Times distort the truth, they even distort what Petrov said.

The fuller quote is here. It's not Times quoting Petrov, it's Times quoting Pravda. And they hand pick the quotes to create an absolutely wrong impression.

I am sorry, but the point of view of NYT has no right to appear in the article. If it is to be included, we must clarify that it is a made-up controversy created by anti-Soviet forces in order to smear the Soviet order. It may sound high-flown, but it is reality. I explained above why the version currently presented in "Validity questioned" is a lie.

I mean, NYT intentionally distorted (or that Serge guy did) the truth. They cherry picked the facts, picked some out of context quotes and tried to cast doubts on Stakhanov's achievement. This is not an opposing point of view, this is a clear attempt to mislead. And yet you quote NYT as if they had a valid position that must be represented. This is nonsense. I appreciate your good faith attempt at re-editing, but I simply can't see how a demonstratively false NYT propaganda can be included in the article.

It may be possible to explain the truth behind these attempts to smear this particular Soviet hero, but I am not convinced that is terribly useful. However, I do not have any objections against that - it's just that currently you simply give too much credit to liars and their falsehoods. Paranoid 16:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The NYT is not "your blog" -- it is a major news source. I'm re-inserting it. If you want to say the Times got it wrong, then cite something that says so! If you think they mistranslated the quote, post your own translation afterwards! You'll get more bang for your buck if you say, "The Times got it wrong, like a lot of people -- here's some proof" than saying "The Times opinion shouldn't be represented at all." The view in the US news is that this guy is a picture of Soviet fraud. If there are counter-views, feel free to post them. --Fastfission 17:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Hatred of labour
I am afraid New York Times journalists and its readers will never understand the dignity of labour. They will never understand how it ennobles the man, how building your own country can be the most honourable thing in the world. Search for "workers" at nytimes.com, you won't find anything. It is expected for a biased capitalist newspaper (with all the talks about liberal bias vs. righ-wing bias you forget that it's biased against the working people). Where are the films glorifying the labour in the US? Of course, when these people see Aleksei Stakhanov, a true labour hero that was respected by millions and who set an example for them, the immediate impulse is to smear his image with dirt, to deny that it can happen, that a "lower-class" man can be respected. This should not be the attitude of Wikipedia. Paranoid 18:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Enough with the rhetoric, please get real about this and stop seeming like so much of a Soviet shill. You'll convince more people if you can quote references than you will by appealing to the NYT as an anti-worker conspiracy. --Fastfission 17:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, Fastfission, you have a point here. I will do as you suggest. Do you have a full text of the article or the online link to an archive copy? To say "The Times got it wrong" I need to be sure that it was they, who cherry-picked the quotes and not, say, you (not that I don't trust you) or someone who quoted NYT article (if you did not get the quote directly from Times). Then I can provide a full translation and other references and explain the situation in more details. P.S. Thanks for defending your point in a relatively respectful manner, BTW. P.P.S. Waiting for the link/text/title (at least) of the article. Paranoid 09:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you send me an email using the "e-mail this user" button, I'll send you the NYT article in response (I have it as a PDF file). --Fastfission 14:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Usage question
Is there any specific reason why the names of the mines are in a different script, viz. "№31" versuses "No. 31"? It looks not only odd but even pretentious, without some explanation for this usage. -- llywrch 19:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I hadn't noticed that. That's how Russians write what in English we'd just write as "No." (as an abbreviation for number) -- I've always thought it was a bit odd since there is no letter "N" in the Russian alphabet (the "N" sound is created by a "Н"). It probably means whoever put the text in was a Russian -- it can safely be rendered as text, I'm fairly sure (it means the same thing). --Fastfission 03:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Father of the Modern Sales Contest
Stakhanovism sounds the the beginning of the modern sales contest. Managers find someone to set an outrageously high target and then admonish everyone to aspire to it. As days dwindle and reality begins to rear its ugly head, those who doubted all along are silenced through terrorism or termination. As the final days arrive, salesmen reach ahead to push product into clients' inventories and convert future sales into the sales contest, thereby increasing production through gimmicktry and at the expense of future productivity. At the close of the contest, mangement is not obliged to reward any increased productivity because the target was not reached, but may do so out of the goodness of their hearts, and the organization then purges itself of anyone who was smart enough to see how it would conclude, even blaming them for ruining the sales effort with their negative attitudes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.0.91 (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Stakhanovism sounds the the beginning of the modern sales contest. Managers find someone to set an outrageously high target and then admonish everyone to aspire to it. As days dwindle and reality begins to rear its ugly head, those who doubted all along are silenced through terrorism or termination. As the final days arrive, salesmen reach ahead to push product into clients' inventories and convert future sales into the sales contest, thereby increasing production through gimmicktry and at the expense of future productivity. At the close of the contest, mangement is not obliged to reward any increased productivity because the target was not reached, but may do so out of the goodness of their hearts, and the organization then purges itself of anyone who was smart enough to see how it would conclude, even blaming them for ruining the sales effort with their negative attitudes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.8.75 (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

rewrite needed on last graph
the last paragraph of the main section is too repetitive of earlier material; can someone please delete redundancy and move the S. Movement reference to the first paragraph where it belongs? Coughinink 14:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Time - Stakhanov.jpg
Image:Time - Stakhanov.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

George Orwell
Wasn't Stakhanov the model for Boxer, from George Orwell's Animal Farm? - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is now in the article, under "Legacy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.39.71.98 (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

First paragraph's timeline makes no sense
Alexey was born in 1906..Alexey began working in a mine in 1906. Might be a typo but can we have this fixed? I can't find a source on his date of birth, but of course he doesn't start working right at birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell leb (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda
This person was a propaganda tool of the Soviet regime. It was irrelevant whether or not he actually achieved any records - probably he did not. The publicity around him was a typical communist propaganda ploy. Yet this article is written as if it was simply all true, and the fame genuine. This should be correctedRoyalcourtier (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Deal
Many Stakhanovites were beaten or killed by other workers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.39.71.98 (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

First name
His name was Alexey, but he was born Andrei. There is a story in the Eastern block that he was forced to change his first name because the telegram the Pravda received about his first big achievement only contained "A. Stakhanov", and they guessed that it was Alexey :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.21.207 (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

From what I have understood with an automatic translation of the Russian Wikipedia ru:Стаханов, Алексей Григорьевич, this is a legend. Somebody that understands Russian should check. Tcp-ip (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 January 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Alexey Stakhanov → Alexei Stakhanov – WP:COMMONNAME, per Google Books Ngram. —Michael Z. 21:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per link submitted within the nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Alcoholism
Stop removing the paragraph about his alcoholism and the brawl. It is necessary here not to ridicule him, but to show a real person, warts and all. Alcoholism was and is a perennial issue in Russia and it should be of value to note whenever and how it affected famous people. It is not a pretty sight, but such is life. This is not hagiography.

 * Where are the reliable sources for this? When was this removed in any case?? Luganchanka (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 * The source is now as it was then, Stephen, Kotkin. "Stalin: Waiting for Hitler". Penguin Press: 2014, p. 274. I don't know when exactly it was removed, but last time I added it was about a year ago. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alexei Stakhanov


text:
Listvyanka, Irkutsky District, Irkutsk Oblast

Listvyanka (Листвя́нка) is an urban locality (a work settlement) in Irkutsky District of Irkutsk Oblast, Russia, located 70 km from Irkutsk, near the Primorsky Range and the point where the Angara River leaves Lake Baikal. Population:

Transportation
Listvyanka is accessible by bus or ferry from Irkutsk.

Climate
Summer temperatures in Listvyanka range within highs of 77 °F and lows of 54 °F. Normally temperatures drop down below 12 °F.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User talk:Rishartha!!!

Please don't blank article which you don't like. Even Pokemon have a place in an encyclopedia, regardless how trivial or childish it is. andy 23:36, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One more and you will be blocked. Hiding vandalism as a reversion shows VERY bad attitude! andy 23:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rishartha!!!


text:
Grammy Award for Best Jazz Performance

The Grammy Award for Best Jazz Performance has been awarded since 1959. Before 1979 the award title did not specify instrumental performances and was presented for instrumental or vocal performances. The award has had several minor name changes:

 * In 1959 the award was known as Best Jazz Performance, Individual
 * In 1960 it was awarded as Best Jazz Performance - Soloist
 * From 1961 to 1971 the award was combined with the Grammy Award for Best Jazz Instrumental Album, Individual or Group
 * From 1972 to 1978 it was awarded as Best Jazz Performance by a Soloist
 * From 1979 to 1988 it was awarded as Best Jazz Instrumental Performance, Soloist
 * From 1989 to 1990 it was awarded as Best Jazz Instrumental Performance Soloist (on a jazz recording)
 * In 1991 it was awarded as Best Jazz Instrumental Performance, Soloist
 * From 1992 to 2008 it was awarded as Best Jazz Instrumental Solo
 * From 2009 to 2023, it was awarded as Best Improvised Jazz Solo
 * Since 2024, it has been awarded as Best Jazz Performance

title: Grammy Award for Best Jazz Performance


text:
George Bailey (It's a Wonderful Life)

George Bailey is a fictional character and the protagonist in Frank Capra's 1946 film It's a Wonderful Life. The character is a building and loan banker who sacrifices his dreams in order to help his community of Bedford Falls to the point where he feels life has passed him by. Eventually, due to difficulties in keeping the building and loan solvent, Bailey falls into despair so deep that he contemplates suicide, until a guardian angel, Clarence Odbody, gives him a valuable perspective on the worth of his life. George finds through Odbody's angelic power and gift what life would be like if he didn't have his wife, Mary, his children and friends, and what their lives and the social structure of Bedford Falls would be like without him.

Bailey is played by James Stewart as an adult and Bobby Anderson as a child, and is loosely based on George Pratt, a character in Philip Van Doren Stern's 1943 booklet The Greatest Gift.

The character was portrayed by Pete Davidson in a 2020 television special.

Early life
In the winter of 1919, George (aged 12, played by Bobby Anderson) and his friends Bert, Ernie Bishop, Marty Hatch, Sam Wainwright, and his brother Harry are sledding on a frozen river. Harry breaks through the ice and George jumps into the freezing water to save him. In doing so, George became ill with an infection that waylaid him for some time and caused him to lose hearing in his left ear.

In May 1920, George returns to his job at Mr. Gower's drugstore, where he first attends to the soda fountain when two customers are a young Mary Hatch and her friend Violet Bick. George announces his plan to be an explorer and travel the world, citing National Geographic as an inspiration where Mary whispers her love for George in his deaf ear. George then finds a telegram informing Gower that his son has died in the Spanish flu pandemic. A visibly distraught Gower directs George to deliver medicine to a customer, but George realizes that, in his distress, he had inadvertently put poison into the capsules. He seeks advice from his father, who is president of the Bailey Brothers Building & Loan, but his father is meeting with Henry F. Potter, one of the shareholders. When he returns to the store, Gower angrily berates him for not delivering the capsules, until George blurts out Gower's mistake. Realizing this would have been fatal, Gower tearfully thanks George, who promises that he will never tell anyone what happened.

Young adult
In June 1928, George (played by James Stewart) is preparing for an overseas trip. He gets invited to Harry's graduation party. Before going George talks with his father about his plans for the future, in which architecture has replaced exploring, but he still desires to leave Bedford Falls and see the world. Peter Bailey explains that the work they have done in the building & loan is a way to make their mark on the world, but endorses George's decision to leave town "if he is unwilling to crawl to Potter". At the high school, he meets Marty Hatch, who reintroduces him to Mary, now a teenager. A rival suitor of Mary's attempts to embarrass George by dunking him into a swimming pool situated beneath the dance floor, but George and Mary take it in stride and the partygoers consider it a splash. While walking Mary home they are interrupted by Uncle Billy, who comes by in a car and says that George is needed as his father has had a stroke.

Three months later August, George is in a meeting with the board of directors of the Building & Loan to appoint a new successor to the late Peter Bailey. Potter argues that the Building & Loan should be dissolved, whereas George recommends his father be succeeded by his brother Billy. The directors tell George that the Building & Loan will only stay open if he agrees to remain and carry on his father's work. George foregoes a trip to Europe and his plans for college, giving the funds saved toward tuition to his younger brother.

In 1932, George and Uncle Billy are waiting at the Bedford Falls railroad station for Harry to come home from college, when Harry arrives with his new wife, Ruth. Her father has offered Harry a job, which means he would not be taking George's place at the Building & Loan. Harry says that he will keep his promise to allow George his chance at the university. However, George cannot bear to allow his brother to throw away such an opportunity, so he remains in Bedford Falls. While the family is celebrating Harry's return, Ma Bailey mentions to George that Mary Hatch is also back from college and he should pay her a visit. He eventually goes to Mary's home to visit her, only to find that she is being courted by his friend, the now wealthy Sam Wainwright. However, George is encouraged to pursue Mary by Mrs. Bailey, who has concurred with Mrs. Hatch that while Sam would be a good provider, his constant absence would be problematic for Mary.

Pre-war
A few months later, George and Mary are married. Their plans for a honeymoon in New York City and Bermuda are interrupted by a run on the banks which also affects the Building & Loan. Potter's bank calls their loan, and panicked depositors want their money, threatening to take their business to the bank. As a stockholder, Potter threatens to shut the Building & Loan if they are forced to close early. Mary and George use the money saved for their honeymoon to keep the Building & Loan solvent.

In 1934, thanks to the Building & Loan, the Martini family move out of 'Potter's Field' to the new 'Bailey Park', (this home is the only original building from the movie that still exists) a residential development created by George that proves successful enough to seriously threaten Mr. Potter's rental interests. Potter offers George a job. Although this would bring a significant increase in social status and salary, as well as opportunities for travel, George declines. George returns home to learn that Mary is pregnant. Their first child is a son, whom they name Peter after George's late father. Their second child is a daughter, Janie.

The war years

 * 1939–1945

During the war years, George and Mary had another two children, a daughter nicknamed "ZuZu" and a son, Thomas. George was classified 4-F by the draft board due to his ear. Ernie became a paratrooper and parachuted into France on D-Day. Marty helped capture the Bridge at Remagen, Sam produced plastic hoods for planes, and Bert went to Africa to fight, where he was wounded and eventually got the Purple Heart and Silver Star. While all of this happened, George served as an Air Raid Warden. Despite having to look after four children, Mary still had time to run the United Service Organizations in the town, and Mr. Potter became head of the draft board. It was Harry Bailey who had the crowning achievement of Bedford Falls. Harry, who became a Navy pilot, engaged in a risky interception of a kamikaze that was about to attack an Army transport, saving the lives of fifteen soldiers, to which he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Post war

 * Christmas Eve 1945

On Christmas Eve morning, Uncle Billy is on his way to the bank to deposit $8,000 of the Building & Loan's cash funds. Holding a newspaper which has Harry on the front page, he greets Potter and taunts him about Harry’s success in the war. Potter angrily snatches the paper, but Billy inattentively allows the money to be snatched with it. Potter notices the money and keeps it, knowing that misplacement of bank money would result in bankruptcy for the Building & Loan and criminal charges for George. Confused and embarrassed, Billy tells George that he has misplaced the money, and doesn't know where it is. George is extremely worried, especially with the bank examiner just outside the room. George and Billy go through the town taking every step Billy took in the morning and it goes to a dead end. George later goes home, and Mary knows straight away something is wrong with him. To add to his anger, he finds out his youngest daughter Zuzu has come home with a cold, which George blames on her teacher. When the teacher calls, he berates her on the phone. His frustration culminates into smashing models of bridges and buildings he had made in his earlier years.

A desperate George appeals to Potter for a loan. Potter sarcastically turns George down, and then swears out a warrant for his arrest for bank fraud. George, now completely depressed, gets drunk at the bar owned by his friend, Martini, where he silently prays for help. He also gets a punch to the face from the husband of Zuzu's teacher, who is drinking there. The belligerent husband gets thrown out by Mr. Martini, the bar's owner and the patriarch of one of the families who moved into Bailey Park. Mr. Martini angrily says that any man who would raise his fists to George is never welcome here. George drunkenly drives his car into a tree and comes to a bridge intending to commit suicide, feeling he is "worth more dead than alive", echoing Potter's mocking of George's life insurance policy. Before he can leap, another man jumps in first and pretends to be drowning. After George rescues him, the man reveals himself to be George's guardian angel, Clarence Odbody. George does not believe him, and he bitterly wishes he had never been born. Inspired by this comment, Clarence shows George what the town would have been like without him.

In this alternative scenario, Bedford Falls is instead named Pottersville, and is home to sleazy nightclubs, pawn shops, and amoral people. The bar George frequented is now run by Nick, whom George knew as a bartender to Martini, but now has a gruff personality. Mr. Gower was sent to prison for poisoning the child and is despised and homeless. George's friend Violet Bick is a taxi-dancer who gets arrested. Bert is still a policeman, albeit with a darker personality and more brutal in his duties. Ernie still works as a taxi driver, but now desperately poor due to divorce and his family forsaking him. Uncle Billy has been in an insane asylum since he lost his brother and the family business. George's own mother, a woman defeated by the world, fails to recognize him. George then goes to Bailey Park, which is now a cemetery. Harry is dead as a result of George not being there to save him from drowning, resulting in the deaths of the servicemen not saved by Harry's heroism. (A deleted scene exists in which George learns why the bar is Nick's and not Martini's; George finds the graves of the Martini family near Harry's and realizes the family perished in a tenement blaze as George was unable to provide them affordable housing to move out of Potter's slums.) Mary is a shy spinster who works at the public library. When George desperately tries to convince her he is her husband, she considers it creepy and intimidating and yells for help. Her cries are answered by Bert, who thinks nothing of opening fire on George as he flees.
 * Alternate Universe

George runs back to the bridge and begs to be allowed to live again. Bert shows up at the bridge. When Bert is not there to arrest him but glad he has found him as everyone was worried to his whereabouts, George joyously hugs Bert then runs home. Running through town, George is overjoyed to see it is once again Bedford Falls and wishes everyone he passes a Merry Christmas, even Mr. Potter. Mary, Uncle Billy, and a flood of townspeople arrive with more than enough donations to save George and the Building & Loan; Sam Wainwright extends a $25,000 line of credit by telegram. As they celebrate, the town's sheriff tears the warrant for his arrest and joins in the festivities. Harry also arrives to support his brother, and toasts George as "The richest man in town.” In the pile of donated funds, George finds a copy of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer inscribed, "Dear George: Remember, no man is a failure who has friends. P.S. Thanks for the wings! Love, Clarence." A bell on the Christmas tree rings, and his daughter Zuzu says, "Teacher says every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings!" George agrees and looks up to Heaven, realizing that he truly has a wonderful life.
 * Return to Life

Contemporary reception
Bosley Crowther, reviewing for The New York Times, described Bailey as "a young fellow who wants to break away from his small-town life and responsibilities but is never able to do so because slowly they close in upon him". Crowther said Frank Capra's character as "a personable fellow who wants to travel and do big things but ultimately finds himself running a building-and-loan association in a one-horse town, married and locked in constant struggle with the greedy old banker of the town". Kate Cameron of New York Daily News described Bailey as a "guy who wished he had never been born, when the going gets too tough, and was permitted to see what his home town would have been like without him". Variety's Bert Briller wrote, "At 30 a small-town citizen feels he has reached the end of his rope, mentally, morally, financially." Briller said of the guardian angel showing him the impact of his life, "The recounting of this life is just about flawless in its tender and natural treatment."

Crowther commended James Stewart's performance as Bailey, "As the hero, Mr. Stewart does a warmly appealing job, indicating that he has grown in spiritual stature as well as in talent during the years he was in the war." Cameron said, "[Stewart] carries most of the burden of this long picture on his still slender shoulders and for the most part gives an endearing performance." The Hollywood Reporter's Jack D. Grant wrote, "James Stewart is distinctively Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey, his initial role in Hollywood after five years in the armed forces."

Analysis
A large number of interpretations of It’s a Wonderful Life have been advanced, and as George Bailey is the protagonist, many of those interpretations hinge on interpretations of his role in the film. Bailey is conventionally interpreted as the hero of the film, and he was listed ninth on the American Film Institute's 2003 list of the 50 greatest screen heroes. While the film shows some obvious instances of heroic behavior in Bailey’s youth, such as saving his brother Harry from drowning and preventing Mr. Gower from poisoning a customer, doubts about the worth of Bailey’s adulthood actions turn into the central question of his life. Bailey’s deficiencies as a hero are highlighted by the facts that the film’s climactic scene portrays Bailey as the person being rescued and that “Capra was forced to invoke a deus ex machina, a guardian angel, to convince Bailey of the worth of his life.”

Citing generosity as Bailey's most admirable trait, Time magazine lists George Bailey among their top ten movie dads.

title: George Bailey (It's a Wonderful Life)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists

Creating minimum inclusion criteria for lists involving subjective categorization
For lists involving subjective categorization - such as List of video games considered the best and List of massacres in France - there is the risk that we place WP:UNDUE emphasis on a minority view, as well as the risk that we engage in WP:OR by including as comparable two topics that no reliable source would say are comparable.

Some articles, like List of video games considered the best, address this by requiring that multiple reliable sources have considered the game among the "best/greatest of all time", but others do not. Given the core policy issues that failure to do this can and does cause, I suggest we modify this guideline to include something like the following under "Selection criteria":

Much of the wording is taken from WP:UNDUE. This follows on from a discussion at WT:NOR. BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's a good idea to duplicate this kind of material across policy and guideline pages.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The wording taken from WP:UNDUE is the aspects on majority/significant minority view; the rest, as far as I know, does not duplicate content elsewhere. However, I don't mind what PAG this goes in, or how it is worded - I just believe we need it, due to how common it is for lists involving subjective categorization to include topics whose inclusions aren't WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording at WP:LISTCRITERIA is sufficient to cover these cases, and I'm wary of being so specific in our prescriptions. I'd rather give editors more discretion to choose the most appropriate list criteria on a case by case basis. For example, a while back I created List of gay novels prior to the Stonewall riots. Whether a particular work is a "gay novel" is a subjective judgement. I suggested that for the purposes of this list, a work being described as a gay novel in any reliable source was sufficient for inclusion. Using the criteria you propose instead seems like it would be difficult to apply in practice. How do I determine whether The Picture of Dorian Gray being a gay novel is "the view of the majority in published, reliable sources"? Is it a question of whether a majority of sources about gay novels mention Dorian Gray? Or whether a majority of sources on the topic of Dorian Gray describe it as a gay novel? Does the fact that a source fails to describe it as a gay novel imply that the author has judged that it's not a gay novel? Colin M (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That difficulty is defined by WP:NPOV; it exists already for everything we write, this proposal would just make it clear that lists do not have an NPOV exception.
 * With your Dorian Gray example, if it would be appropriate to describe the novel as a gay novel in the article then it would be appropriate to include it in an NPOV-compliant list - I don’t know enough about the topic to say whether it would be appropriate to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's more complicated than that. You need to consider the facts as represented by the sources, of course, but you also need to consider other factors.  If the introduction to the list says something like "This is a list of foo that comply with the 2016 version of the ISO standard 1234-5", then you need to be pretty tight about what you put into the list.
 * But if the lead instead says something like "This is a list of all known foo. If the entry has already been formally accepted by the Governing body or by the Professional association, their registration numbers are listed.  Sometimes, there is a disagreement over whether some foo are really foo enough to count.  All foo are labeled with the earliest known year; newer foo are tentative and may be disputed later.  Entries that have been verifiably disputed by experts are included by marked with 🚨.  Proposals whose foo-ness has been widely rejected by the field are in a separate table below and marked with ❌." – then in that case, you can list almost anything.
 * The point isn't to make the list big or small; it's to be clear to the reader about what inclusion means.
 * I will also add: Trying to exclude "subjective" information unless you can produce six sources for it can cause pretty serious NPOV problems.  A standard like that may sometimes be necessary, but in other cases, it can bias the list towards entries that got a lot of publicity, instead of providing a more comprehensive list.  The list selection criteria that make sense for a list of video games will not necessarily make sense for a list of artists.  Whether someone is "really" an artist is at least as subjective as whether a video game is best in its class, and if you require six approved sources that say someone is an artist, you could end up with a  instead of a . WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Trying to exclude "subjective" information unless you can produce six sources for it can cause pretty serious NPOV problems. I agree, which is why I haven't proposed that - but my question for the rest is if we can't say that x is y in the article on x because it would violate WP:UNDUE, why can we say that x is y on a list? BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What's appropriate depends on the subject of the article. There are things you can say in Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost that would be undue in Rolls-Royce Limited; there are things you could say in that article that would be undue in Luxury car; there are things you could say in that article that would be undue in Car; there are things you could say there that would be undue in Vehicle.  Being undue in article X does not mean that it's undue in every single article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This issue needs to be addressed with care. The AFD for Articles for deletion/Horror icon (2nd nomination) (no WP:CANVASSing) is an example of something that is heavily discouraged on Wikipedia. This kind of WP:SYNTH cascades into other issues.
 * First is that you transform the subjective opinions of several authors into the objective voice of an encyclopedia, elevating their opinions with false appearance of reliability and neutrality. This is different from including a critic's opinion in the reception area of an article, where the attribution is clear, and it is accurately noted as an opinion. There's a major difference between summarizing two or three critics who all call something "cute", versus an authoritative List of cute media. Presenting it as an encyclopedic topic is misleading and does a disservice to our readers.
 * The second issue is we can create endless arbitrary articles based on any subjective descriptor. For example, List of disgusting foods, or List of purple paintings, or List of most violent movies. It doesn't matter if you rename these articles List of foods regarded as disgusting by a food critic, or List of paintings that have been noted as purple by at least three art historians, or An aggregated list of movies ranked as most violent. The rename just makes the editor's chosen construction more clearly arbitrary.
 * I don't know what the solution is. But this might deserve one or two RFCs: one to see if there are any consistent opinions about how to handle these lists, and a second to see if we can turn that consistency into a guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the solution to your second problem can be found in WP:NLIST --- like other articles, we should only create sets that are notable, whose notability is supported by multiple reliable sources. Specifically, the topic of a list should be discussed as a group or a set in independent reliable sources. — hike395 (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

 * So, with regards to "view of the majority in published, reliable sources." that seems like an unweildy standard to hold something to. How are we to assess "the majority" of "published, reliable sources"  There may be hundreds or thousands of possible sources for such list articles.  Do we really expect people to manually check each one and then add the total to assure 50%+1 of all available sources, for example, call an event "a massacre" specifically?  What about describing an event using terms that make it clear that it meets the dictionary definition of "massacre", but what if the source doesn't use word "massacre"?  What if the source uses clear and unambiguous perfect synonyms of the word "massacre"?  What if the source is in a language other than English, which lacks a really good single word that is equivalent to "massacre".  Determining a "majority in published reliable sources" is an absolutely unworkable standard.  Even at best, it is open to gaming and wikilawyering in ways that are a hinderance to a positive work environment.  "We have 100 sources that say "massacre" and 99 that done mention "massacre".  I found 2 more that don't mention the word massacre, so now we must remove it by the rules!"  Seriously, that's what this is going to lead to.  Just, no.  Not more of that kind of bullshit.  I know it's a problem, but this is absolutely NOT the solution.-- Jayron 32 15:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrt "the majority of published reliable sources" – which is language you will never find in WP:UNDUE, which cares about which viewpoints are major and minor, but never recommends simply counting up the number of sources – I also worry about low-quality sources being put forward as a reason to "outvote" the high-quality sources. Your view only has a few scholarly sources, but my view has hundreds of social media posts, and as WP:V makes clear, even social media posts can be reliable for saying that someone posted something, so they're "published reliable sources"! WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What I am trying to do here is make it clear to editors that WP:DUE applies to inclusion in lists. I don't think either of you are disagreeing with that goal, just the wording that I am using for it.
 * In regards to view of the majority in published, reliable sources, the intent of that sentence is to determine whether a view is the majority view, using the same definition of "majority view" as WP:UNDUE does. However, if you feel my wording deviates from the meaning used at UNDUE then it would need to be changed. BilledMammal (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that wording deviates from UNDUE, and it would need to be changed.
 * I'm not sure that trying a straight-up transposition of UNDUE to inclusion/exclusion for a list is a good idea. For one thing, the list-selection criteria for List of video games considered the best, which you seem to support, would probably be invalid.  (Why?  Because with UNDUE, you would either restrict yourself to comparative sources, such as low-quality listicles about "The best video games ever", or you would compare only sources that refer to this particular game, so if 100% of the only two reviews for "WhatamIdoing's Game" say it's the best ever, then that's the majority viewpoint for that video game, and it would be included.  UNDUE doesn't have an escape clause like "Ignore the majority viewpoint for your exact subject if there aren't very many sources about your subject".)
 * Second, on your broader goal, the community has a problem with the idea of subjectivity. We don't agree on what's subjective and what's not.  We are relatively weak on deciding whether something is an opinion or a fact.  For example:  Is an event in which four people die a "mass killing"?  It depends on your definition of mass killing.  Do Heartbeat bills ban abortions at six weeks of pregnancy, or at four, or at three?  It depends on your definition of pregnancy.  If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around, does it make a sound?  It depends on your definition (in that case, whether "a sound" is the soundwave, which does not require an observer to exist, or the perception of that soundwave, which does).  These aren't really "subjective" or "opinions", though.  Anyone could look at the definitions and say "Under this one, yes; under that one, no", and everyone looking at the definitions would come to the same conclusions.  (And if they are much over the age of 10 and genuinely can't do this, then (a) Competence is required for Wikipedians, and (b) it's probably time for neuropsych testing, because the inability to apply different definitions or see other points of view is a symptom of several neurological conditions, including autism.)  For lists, we have traditionally used the approach of providing the definition that we're following, which we call the List selection criteria, and letting editors sort it out from there.
 * Thirdly, sometimes what's UNDUE in an article is not inappropriate for a list. I don't know if you've read Richard Feynman about visiting the Sistine Chapel, but he writes that his guidebook said this:  '"Below the paintings by Michelangelo there are fourteen panels by Botticelli, Perugino" – all these great artists – "and two by So-and-so, which are of no significance".'  A List of paintings in the Sistine Chapel should include all of them, because even the paintings of no artistic or historical significance are still paintings in the Sistine Chapel (and including them would not make the list too long).  The article on the Sistine Chapel, on the other hand, should probably not mention them, as including material of no significance is UNDUE.
 * Finally, I think that if we want to make progress on the underlying problem, the next major step is to help editors understand the difference between subjective and uses a definition that is less familiar to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One thing I want to clarify is that I didn't use the wording the majority of published reliable sources; I used the wording view of the majority in published, reliable sources. The difference as I see it is that it isn't talking about counting sources, it is about determining what the majority view is. However, I wonder if it would be clearer if reworded to view of the majority, substantiated with references to commonly accepted reference texts, which is very close to the current wording at WP:DUE.
 * Finally, I think that if we want to make progress on the underlying problem, the next major step is to help editors understand the difference between subjective and uses a definition that is less familiar to me. "Subjective categorization" would be any categorization that is not based on measurable and universally accepted criteria. For example, List of paintings in the Sistine Chapel is not subjective categorization because whether a painting is in the Sistine Chapel is measurable, and being in the Sistine Chapel is universally accepted as being in the Sistine Chapel. However, List of mass killings is a subjective categorization, because, as you said, there is no universally accepted criteria for what constitutes a mass killing.
 * There are also three articles currently at AfD that I believe is evidence for this change needing to be made, due to the constant inclusion of non-compliant text:
 * Articles for deletion/List of right-wing terrorist attacks (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of left-wing terrorist attacks
 * Articles for deletion/List of Islamist terrorist attacks
 * BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

IMHO lists are in the twilight zone in Wikiepia not really covered regarding suitability to be an article, wp:notability or criteria/procedures for inclusion. So I think that work needs to be done. Regarding the specific topic at hand, to navigate, it should be noted that inclusion on a list is essentially a statement (in the voice of Wikipedia) that the listed item IS what the title of the list is. The fundamental concept should be that the more controversial that implicit statement is, the stronger the sourcing that is required, and where it is controversial it should be noted as such and where appropriate, it should be done with attribution. Of course dealing with that implicit statement as such that doesn't fit neatly into a typical list article format, which is one of the many unresolved areas that need work regarding list articles. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Exhaustive list of menu items on a restaurant article, or exhaustive list of artists in record label article
There is currently a discussion I would like more input from people here at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Record_Labels Graywalls I trimmed out a substantial portion of such a list here annd it was reverted. (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Second-round RfC on titles of TV season articles
Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Listing every cast member for television shows
I've noticed a user who regularly appears to be adding every any and every actor who appears in any (mostly Australian) television shows, regardless of notability to the television program (for example, the actor may have appeared in only one episode in a unnamed background role). These actors are often added to the cast lists as "guest cast" to entries. The additions seem to be more for "completeness" purposes of listing every cast member who may have an existing page of wikipedia, similar to a directory or IMDB.

Examples: Recent edit of The Lost World (television series) from January 26, 2024
 * This edit has added two actors who appear in only one episode each in the series.

Tales of the South Seas (current page as of January 26, 2024; refer to edits all done on January 26, 2024)
 * User recently added 7 "guest cast" members with minor or single appearances, some actors do not have a listed role.

Are there guidelines on whether listing every actor credited in a television, regardless of notability, is permitted on wikipedia as per policies? I am assuming the editor is contributing in good faith, but the contributions appear to be creating a directory similar to what IMDB would be if someone wanted to see if complete cast lists. 50.68.30.200 (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 * This is a bit out of place here, as your question doesn't relate to stand-alone lists. That said, I'd recommend starting with MOS:TV. DonIago (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the reply and the reference to MOS:TV - it looks like it has the guidance I was struggling to find on notability and cast lists on television series entries.
 * 50.68.30.200 (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists