text:
Talk:Andrew Koenig

Death confirmed
CNN just reported that sadly, the body found in a Vancouver Park is indeed that of Andrew Koenig's. RIP  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoontocal (talk • contribs) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Found dead and announced in Vancouver (BC) Sun newspaper. http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Body+missing+actor+found/2613464/story.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelsenwd (talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Spam
Removed blatant spam

Article needs to be fleshed out
This article needs: Michaelh2001 (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A photo
 * A fleshed out, complete infobox
 * A filmography section
 * A section detailing his other works, including his podcast

New cat?
Would it be premature to put him under Category:Disappeared people??

I'd wait till after the Olympics are over. Maybe he is there as are thousands of other people. Sergeant Wiggity (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

 * As of a couple of minutes ago, Vancouver police are apparently saying a body they've found is likely to be his. We will obviously need to wait for further, properly-sourced information. Just wanted to let everyone know of the development. Sad if true.  tomasz.  23:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

They have just found Andrew's body. They found him in stanley park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.147.3 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * His family are to give a press conference later: http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100225/bc_body_found_100225/20100225  tomasz.  23:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This all has to wait for reliable sources to include it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason i heard the news early is he is a family friend, and our friend just heard from the police about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.147.3 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Growing Pains" actor Andrew Koenig, missing since Valentine's Day, was found dead in Vancouver, Canada, a source says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.244.162 (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

According to CNN, the body found in a Vancouver Park has just been confirmed to be the body of Andrew Koenig. RIP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.192.109 (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Then the article that does NOT say he is dead should be removed from the recent deaths section until those sources come through. And recent deaths should be protected permanently and only be edited by admins. I have to use my IP address at work as I cannot log in here, but I see much abuse from IPs on the recent deaths page. Triste Tierra 24.176.191.234 (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

He has family in our county that has asked for official confirmation of the discovered decedent's identity. As Sheriffs public affairs deputy, I have been on the phone with Vancouver B C authorities. The face scan is a biometric match. DNA will take a few days. Hope this is helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.46.49.124 (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Let's wait until the family/police confirm it's him. Thanks. —  Mike   Allen   00:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... it has been confirmed. http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/25/growing.pains.actor.dead/index.html — Mike   Allen   00:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Anon, as Sheriff's Public Affairs Deputy, you should be the LAST person to make such a statement. Question though, why would the Sheriff's Public Affairs Deputy from NEW YORK CITY be calling the Vancouver authorities about this? And second question, if your claim of such position is true, how much longer do you expect to keep your job? It's not a threat... it truly is a question, as I am sure they will get wind of this (not because I will send it to them just in case you are telling the truth... but I am sure someone will). PS: Deleting it now wont matter... it'll always be in the archives.

 * Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Robert CNN has reported/confirmed it to be him and I added it back (before reading this). We aren't supposed to add it if CNN reports it?  :S  —  Mike   Allen   01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Shouldn't we remove the date that he "died"? We don't know if it was today. —  Mike   Allen   01:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would think so. It wasn't today, and it will probably be a few days until an approximate date is determined. Is there a way of making it "Feb 2010" with no day?

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Article needs photo
NOW. --24.20.129.18 (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * If I knew how to add one, I would. We (the Star Trek Phase 2 Team) have a couple that we would be willing to donate to this page.

 * RobertMfromLI | User Talk 23:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Anyone interested, please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RobertMfromLI#Uploading_photo for additional discussion... feel free to respond here (or there).

 * Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 * We now have a photo on the article. Much thanks to User talk:Abrazame and User:Wildhartlivie for their assistance as I stumbled my way through the posting process.

 * Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

improper external link: TV.com
this link does not meet the WP:EL guidelines. It is essentially an open wiki (see the prominent EDIT button) without any evidence of "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" WP:ELNO #12. 207.69.139.137 (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're completely wrong. First of all, the site has a substantial history of stability and while some parts of it are open to editing, just like the IMDb, not all of it is, just like the IMDb. It is as valid as that link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as it's not used as a reference, it's fine. — Mike   Allen   03:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "stable" maybe but no indication "and of substantial number of editors" PLUS it the link on the article page doesnt even go to Andrew Koenig AND the TV,com site has nothing to add beyond our article content. "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

MM207.69.137.38 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Improper sourcing
"Koenig played the role of The Joker in the critically successful 2003 fan film Batman: Dead End. " The "source" does not mention Koenig and Film Threat does not appear to be a site with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy anyway. MM 207.69.137.38 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Mike   Allen   05:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody came along and did some unnecessary editing. There were originally two refs for that sentence, the first an IMDB ref for his appearance.  That ref was the second, and is sourcing the part of the statement that the film was well received (the original wording, before the inexplicable change to "critically successful").  The ref observes it was an "instant hit", and I was referencing this assessment of the short's reception and not the review itself.  Abrazame (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about this edit, you are way off base to characterize that as unnecessary. The link went to the user comments section, which is obviously user-driven since it is — ready for this — user comments. Those are not reliable comments and using that link is something that is absolutely unacceptable. Anyone can add a user comment and those are not subject to vetting. How someone could be here as long as you have and not know that is baffling. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS, quoted statement and wording
Hi all, hoping for guidance or a statement regarding this section here:

Police later confirmed Koenig's body was found earlier in the day, and Koenig's father told reporters at an evening press conference that his son "took his own life."[21]

The article was originally worded in such a fashion, linking the quote to the actual article, statement and video where that was the exact wording used. The quotation marks were removed somewhere along the line, possibly when someone wikilinked it to the suicide page. I am learning that WP:MOS indicated the use of the word suicide - but I am guessing that would not apply in a quote.

Perhaps the word suicide should be used in correlation to the official (and still pending) statement by the police/coroner, as opposed to mis-attributing it to Walter?

Ideas? Suggestions? Total reword of that statement?

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 * See WP:EUPHEMISM. In this case, it should be fine to paraphrase what the father said by using the neutral and encyclopedic term "suicide". Atlantabravz (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with using the word suicide... I just think that the wording should be revised to be more accurate by not stating that is what he said. For instance, I would choose to write "BillyJoe committed suicide" over "BillyJoe took his own life" - but I would not attribute "Andrew committed suicide" to a statement by Walter (which is what the ref link goes to) as it would then be us defining his choice of euphemism. I always presumed that WP:EUPHEMISM applied to editors choosing words - and should never apply to revising an actual quote by a person being discussed.

So, what I am so poorly trying to get at is, in using the word suicide, perhaps we should reconstruct that sentence and use a different reference (perhaps remove the word "told" and replace it with "indicated" - or similar) - or use the quote with the reference which goes to his quote and then add the term suicide to the official report (when it's released) that states such.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that using the quote itself is perfectly fine. WP:EUPHEMISM applies to wording by editors, not a press conference quote. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Direct quotes should not contain links, particularly piped links. MM4.158.222.180 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Anon, not sure what you are trying to say...

 * Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article.

The Ref is outside the quotes and is not a piped link. Or I could be misunderstanding what you are getting at. Perhaps you were talking about the earlier edit that I changed that did have the "inside-the-quotes" piped linking?

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And exactly what quote is linked or disambiguated? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * _If_ we are going to use Koenig's father ...[said]his son "took his own life."[21] it is inappropriate to link within the direct quote "took his own life"; particularly if it is a piped link to the [suicide] article. MM4.158.222.180 (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So where do you see it linked? It is not linked. You're going on about something that was removed a long time ago. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 * (To Anon) I think perhaps you are looking at the wrong revision. The current page has the ref outside the quotes, and points to his statement (both video and text) on Fox40. If you see something else on the current page, you may wish to clear your browser cache as you are seeing the version that I edited to fix that stuff.

 * RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Anon, why is it you don't have an account? In the last day, you've been various places on Wikipedia citing people for WP violations... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/4.158.222.180

 * RobertMfromLI | User Talk 03:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 * To anon, I would suggest that you refresh the article, because that is no longer the case and is a non issue. Robert, I agree, it seems they've been "around the block" per say.  When I was an IP editing, I didn't know all these guidelines.  I guess it's good that they look them up and study them. ;-) —  Mike   Allen   03:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you all will look up to the section titled "improper external link: TV.com", that goes to IP 207.69.137.38, which also signs before the IP number as MM. I would strongly urge the IP editor to register an account before an issue with the same person editing from different IPs comes up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

He hanged himself, says reports.
E! is reporting that a "source close to the investigation" is saying he hanged himself. . Probably wait until more sources report it? — Mike   Allen   07:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Hmmm... the same article says "A source in the Provincial coroner's office says that the exact cause of death may not be known for another two months, which is a "not unusual"  length of time for such an investigation."

 * I'd expect if he was hanged, that wouldnt be too difficult to determine in... oh, I dunno... a lot less than two months.

 * Patty and I are not about to ask Walter, and he hasn't yet decided to mention the method.

 * RobertMfromLI | User Talk 07:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Yeah it's mostly "gossip" sites reporting it, E! the main source.  This person "close to the investigation" is probably not supposed to discuss this.  Probably being paid for the "details".  What a shame.  —  Mike   Allen   08:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, it matches various additions to the Talk pages from right before the news conference and confirmation of his death: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Koenig_(actor)&oldid=346419031

RobertMfromLI | User Talk 21:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced it would be suitable content anyway. We don't tend to include all the grisly details to a death unless it is a high profile murder. That's not true in this case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wildhartlivie. And I would add the substance of my edit summary removing the addition of this detail to the article earlier today: even if such a grisly elaboration were to be appropriate, I should think Wikipedia can wait until a reliable source is willing to speak to it on the record. If a tabloid wants to indulge in speculation, and even if mainstream outlets pick up the factoid, our threshold should be greater than satisfying a prurient interest, while also extending some protection to the next of kin (if BLP guidelines automatically and entirely expire with the subject, something that those guidelines are not overly clear on and which, if so, I'm not sure I accept).  The father's statement his son "took his own life" establishes that essential answer; precisely how is not the sort of detail we necessarily include about other events.  It's not entirely a question of what or how many sources report it, it's where the "it" came from (off-record and unauthorized comment) and whether "it" (grisly detail) is suitable for the article.  Abrazame (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD - Lead covers all significant aspects of topic
The lede section covers all significant aspects of the topic. There is a section on his disappearance and death i.e it is significant and deserves coverage in lede section. MM4.158.231.81 (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. This is not a tabloid and if you would read further up this page, or in fact the article itself, it was decided that all the grisly details of his death would not require to be covered. The article itself does not cover "hanging himself" nor should it. If you will bother looking at nearly any other article, they do not cover the manner in which someone commits suicide. It is excessive, it is disrespectful and it is sensationalistic in nature and doesn't belong. The article covers that he committed suicide, it is beyond tacky to stick the way he died into the lead and I am again removing it. This isn't the National Enquirer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when is the Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post a tabloid? Not covering facts published in reliable sources is completely inappropriate, especially based on a some personal opinion that the facts are "too grisly". The facts are what they are and have been made public in reliable sources. Your claim that we do not cover suidides in the leade is unsupported: Kurt Cobain Anne Sexton Phil Ochs Marilyn Monroe. And the recent featured articles about a person (save one)cover the death in the lead Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, Ceawlin of Wessex Tom Crean (explorer) Master Juba Nikita Khrushchev Uriel Sebree. "On the other hand, Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject's favor, ... or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it." So where do you have any actual policies backing your position? MM 207.69.137.36 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the Post was a tabloid, I said the way it is being covered by you here is tabloid-y. And the policy is WP:CONSENSUS, of which this is already covered further up. Editors did not feel that trumpeting that he hung himself in the lead was acceptable. That's where. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How in the world is my coverage "tabloidy" when it is a virtual mirror of what is in the Washington Post??? And not covering the established facts as covered by this reliable source leaves the reader to speculate "did he shot his brains out?" or "did he overdose on heroin, pass out on a snowbank and freeze to death?" "did he commit hari kari?" allowing even more UNTRUE grisly speculation. MM207.69.137.43 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it tabloidy? You stuck "He committed suicide by hanging himself in a Vancouver park in February of 2010." into the lead. That's how. The Washington Post article is an Op-ed piece about celebrity suicide in which details for several incidents are woven in. The official statement by his parents is sufficient. Not everyone hangs out dying to know the nitty-gritty details. And once again, WP:CONSENSUS is the policy because other editors determined on this page that grisly details would not be included. This is not an exploitation piece or a tabloid. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * His suicide -- or at the very least, the circumstances of his death -- should be in the article and summarized in the lede. That was a major media focus in his disappearance and the end of it.  The method of suicide should not be in the lede; reasonable minds may differ about whether it should be in the body of the article.  I would be inclined to include it, backed by a reference from a reliable source.  It's not a matter of grisly detail.  It's a matter of inclusion of material fact. TJRC (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That he took his own life, and the disappearance of him are covered in the article. What I am taking exception to, and what the consensus was, is that there is no valid reason to state, as the IP had done by bluntly stating that he hung himself in the forest, precisely what they found in detail. That is tabloidy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was not covered in the article. I was explaining what should be covered in the lede and body, and why. TJRC (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (I saw the discussion at ANI) You don't need to put the suicide details in the lead, those go in the body of the article, worded neutrally in a way that suits the article, don't word them exactly like the source words them. Recount the facts in the article's voice. And in the lead you can simply say that he commited suicide, or you can simply say nothing if it's not an important part of the biography (in the case of Marilyn Monroe or Kurt Kobain, it's part of their legend and it's given great significance on every biography of them, as a part necessary to understand their life, that's why it is on the lead). In the lead you can skip over the details that won't help the reader understand the subject significantly better. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "That he took his own life, and the disappearance of him are covered in the article." duh - EVERYTHING in the lede is covered in the article, AND all major facets of the topic of the article are supposed to be covered in the lede. The death of a human being is a major facet of the topic of any human being and should be reflected in the lede. MM209.86.226.32 (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CIVIL before you post again. Everyone dies eventually, there is no mandate that an article have "he hung himself in the forest" in the lead. Also, once again, read WP:CONSENSUS. Along the way, please note that if you continue to jump around on various IP connections, it could be considered sock puppetry. This is the fourth IP you've edited from on this talk page alone. Please register one account. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sock puppetry is the intent by one person to present multiple identities as independent individuals in an attempt to avoid blocks or impact !votes or otherwise impersonate multiple individuals. Clearly I have NOT been attempting to be multiple individuals, merely utilizing whichever dynamic IP address my ISP provider serves up when I log in. And you still have not provided any policies to back your position that the death as a significant facet of this article topic should NOT be covered in the lede. MM207.69.139.133 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And note that your claims of consensus are based on a (rightful) consensus not to include information based solely on unnamed sources quoted in E! magazine. The consensus made by 4 voices includes one that says " Probably wait until more sources report it?" and one that says "Wikipedia can wait until a reliable source is willing to speak to it on the record. " neither of which has come to support your removal of the content sourced without relying on unnamed sources in the very reliable Washington post. If you add the two new voices for including the death here and me, well your consensus appears to be clearly moving to inclusion. MM207.69.139.133 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm growing quite tired of your incivil tone and if it doesn't improve, I will stop replying to you. So you have a dynamic IP, all the more reason to actually bother to register an account. I made no threat, just a statement. And it's up to 5 different IPs. That's a problem. Is there some reason you won't register an account here? Have you been blocked before? And a statement in an OP-ED piece is not a reliable source, it is an opinion piece, and any sources I found still refer to an unnamed source or qualifies it as "allegedly", so the consensus stands. And a further consensus can certainly be obtained. Now nice up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Americans, always fascinated by celebrity suicides, have a number of recent excuses for sympathetic voyeurism. " is an opinion. "But it is the peculiar cruelty of hopelessness and severe depression that they attack insight and perspective." is an opinion coming from Gerson who does not have a background in psychology or mental health. However, claiming that " Andrew Koenig, 41-year-old son of actor Walter Koenig, hanged himself in a Vancouver park " is an opinion is a huge stretch. MM207.69.137.25 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE: to keep the discussion focused, I have copied a number of comments from this section to a section below. Please use this section to discuss content related issues, and the lower section to discuss allegations of sockpuppetry. MM207.69.137.25 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because an op-ed editor put it in does not make it a reliable source, but the repetition of something that was repeated "from a source". There is still no reliable source supporting that he hanged himself, even if the op-ed writer chooses to perpetuate that rumor, it still remains just that, a rumor. AND DO NOT REFACTOR MY TALK PAGE POSTS AS YOU DID. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So is it your position that the statement " Andrew Koenig, 41-year-old son of actor Walter Koenig, hanged himself in a Vancouver park " because it does not identify its source is not a creditable statement? MM4.158.222.78 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my position that there are no other reliable sources that identify the unknown source alluded to in various publications and we cannot rely upon an op-ed piece as a valid source of reliably reported information. Until the time that reliable sources, other than an opinion essay which does not identify its source, reports this, it is unusable. I'm not entirely sure how many times that needs to be repeated. The only thing that is out there is to refer to an unknown source, or an unnamed source and it is not reported in reputable media. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe his death is ready for the lead. I understand the lead is to summarize the whole article, but his death section is small compared to other sections. People can see the table of contents quite clearly, "Death" and jump to it. It's a small read, because his death should not be the focus of the article, so no need to summarize it. — Mike   Allen   08:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Wildhartlivie - actually what you have said is "That he took his own life, and the disappearance of him are covered in the article." True, but irrel because everything in the lead must be covered in the article. "If you will bother looking at nearly any other article, they do not cover the manner in which someone commits suicide." - which is false (Kurt Cobain Anne Sexton Phil Ochs Marilyn Monroe. ) And "Everyone dies eventually, there is no mandate that an article have "he hung himself in the forest" in the lead. " and while there is no mandate, it is clear that the vast majority of feature articles about dead people cover the death in the lead. So excuse me for trying to clarify your position. And while I disagree that an op-ed piece in the Washington post that doesnt specifically name its source can in any way be compared to "unnamed sources" quoted by E!, in the interest of have truely varified  content we can wait to specify that he hanged himself- IF such strict application of reliable sources is applied to all other content in the article.
 * @MikeAllen - there has been more ink printed in reliable sources about his death than all other content of his life and career and achievements. WP:UNDUE fully requires that the death be covered in the lead. "On the other hand, Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject's favor, ... or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it." MM4.158.222.172 (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What we could do is include something to the effect that "the Koenig family was widely praised for the forthright manner in which they addressed Andrew's depression." - I came acrosss that in numerous reliable sources. MM 4.158.222.172 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't waste my time analyzing my comments. It is impossible to cover everything in the lead that is covered in the article. It's a summary, not regurgitation of vast amounts of content. Some articles cover death, some do not. I do not need a listing of the featured articles that do cover it, especially those that are part of the legend of the person. You would need to establish that Koenig's death outweighs the rest of his career to support that. Especially when what you added was the blunt and tacky "hung himself in the forest". If you disagree about the op-ed piece, then show me where he could possibly have gotten that information besides the unnamed source that has never surfaced. There has been massive effort to ensure that facts that require sources have them. While you could add the bit about how the family handled it, it doesn't go in the lead. And there is no need to copy and paste guidelines. All that's necessary is the link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources (emph added) As a rough estimate, of the ~500 references of Koenig, ~100 have been since his disappearance in January. And I am willing to bet that there will be scant few pieces of coverage of him and his work in the future which do not include coverage of his death. On what do you base your claim that his death and disappearance are negligable importance to the topic of his life? MM 207.69.139.137 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm done responding to postings from various IPs and being expected to assume they are the same person. This is absolutely the last time. "That his death and disappearance are negligable importance" are your words and your interpretation. In fact, I did not say that. I said that you would need to establish that his death outweighs the rest of his career. There's a qualitative difference between the two statements. Now, either register one account so that the rest of us know that it is the same person or desist in muddying the waters with posts from various IPs. You never answered the question of whether you've been blocked on a previous account. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So you agree that his death and disappearance are more than "negligable". Considering it is approximately 20% of the published coverence and something around 16% of the body of our article and 25% of the topic areas of our article - to me clearly appropriate to cover in one sentance in the lede. What % of coverage do you feel is needed to be included in the lead as one of the most important points that should be included in the lead? MM207.69.137.10 (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to continue a discussion on this page when I cannot tell if I am conversing with one or 15 people. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I see it, there are 3 points of contention on this talk page.
 * 1) Whether or not to include the death in the WP:LEAD
 * 2) Whether or not the Washington Post is a sufficient reliable source to include the method of suicide in the article, either in the lead or elsewhere.
 * 3) Whether or not my editing anonymously is appropriate.
 * As far as 3) Wikiquette alerts/archive84 It appears at least from the first responses, that the concerns are misplaced. If WHL is still "not inclined to continue a discussion", then WHL cannot complain that his/her voice is not included in any WP:CONSENSUS. And to keep content discussions clear from user issues, I request again that WHL discontinue insterting that issue in this topic section when there is a seperate section below specifically for such issues.
 * As far as 2) I have offered that if the strict application of reliable sources is applied to the sources providing the information that Koenig hanged himself, that we should apply the same strict sourcing requirements to all content of the article. It also appears that there is not consensus to include, even if sourced, the method of suicide in the lead.
 * As far as 3) I have requested, specifically from WHL, but anyone else is also encouraged to respond as to how we should determine "the most important points" of the topic which should be included in the lede.
 * If I have correctly identified the issues under discussion, I await responses to the suggestions offered to address these differences. MM 207.69.137.35 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * RE #1) Hearing no policy or practice based objectsions, the death has been added to the lead. MM 207.69.137.20 (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you're the ideal IP to determine that. — Mike   Allen   01:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I, Mike. The Washington Post cite is to an op-ed piece, which has no requirement that it be accurate and as such is not reliable. That you dragged me to a non-actionable board to complain because I will not converse with an IP jumping anonymous editor has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of reliable sources. Also, because others decline to respond to such an account's demand of response does not in any way mean that anything is determined. There still is no reliable source to state that he hanged himself and it is entirely disrespectful to include in the article that the parents and press have taken pains to keep the manner of death private, but damn, we can include it here. Sheesh. How low can we go? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @ WHL - WP:AGF, there is another explanation than the fact that you didnt actually read the content that you removed or that you are activley mis-representing that it included discussion of hanging . Please strike or rephrase anything that you wish to take back.
 * @ MikeAllen and WHL - Again, I am asking for some policy or general practice that would support not including mention of the death as one of the major facets of the topic of the article that should be covered in the WP:LEAD. Because there were no new policy or practices arguments shown. MM 207.69.137.43 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus on this page. If you don't like it, take it to the correct noticeboard. Obviously you, and your 10 IPs, aren't getting anywhere on this page. You're not the ideal IP, because you opened the discussion, so no it would not right for you to close it. It seems like you're been around the block a while, you should know that.  Thanks. —  Mike   Allen   01:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, what policy guideline or standard practice is the so called consensus for this edit based on? MM 207.69.139.155 (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I have nothing I wish to strike and I misrepresented nothing. The comment about hanging is valid whether it is part of any given edit or not. And again, WP:CONSENSUS, as you've been told. Please stop being obtuse about this. Consensus exists. Because it isn't to your liking means nothing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The "consensus" you keep referring to in the above section is that an unnamed source in E! is not a valid source to use in the article to support the claim of suicide by hanging. All agree on that. There is you (and perhaps MikeAllen?) who disagree (with no aparent basis in policy) that disagree that the death by suicide should not be included in the lede. There is me, TJRC and --Enric Naval who say the suicide should be covered in the lead. The "consensus" AND policy and general practice support that. MM 207.69.139.155 (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's rather disengenuous to demand "policy" when you full well know that policy does not govern content disputes. And there is also User:Abrazame, who spoke against adding content that is only "satisfying a prurient interest." And consensus is not a vote. It's the basis of the argument, which you are short on. But if you want a "vote" we can open a request for comment. Please bear in mind that the family deserves some respect here, which has been totally disregarded in this issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * |"the family" is who told the media that he committed suicide.] Its pretty disingenuous to state that you are somehow upholding their wishes in keeping the material out of the article. MM207.69.139.155 (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, get real. It's one thing to say that he took his own life, and it's entirely another, in the face of the family keeping the gory details private, to blame them for news and internet rumors that have no reliable sourcing. And really, learn to properly use the word "disengenuous", instead of lifting from my post. I've made no "disengenuous" statements. His family did keep the gory details private. If they wanted it plastered all over Wikipedia, their representative, who has posted on this page, would have said so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * YOU are the only person who is talking about hanging now. This is about topic of contention "1) Whether or not to include the death in the WP:LEAD" Do I take your "It's one thing to say that he took his own life," as a willingness to revert your edit here ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.155 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)  (This was me MM) 207.69.139.155 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't hold your breath. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of sockpuppetry
portions of this coversation have been copied from the above section to separate content discussion from allegations of sockpuppetry
 * Sock puppetry is the intent by one person to present multiple identities as independent individuals in an attempt to avoid blocks or impact !votes or otherwise impersonate multiple individuals. Clearly I have NOT been attempting to be multiple individuals, merely utilizing whichever dynamic IP address my ISP provider serves up when I log in. And you still have not provided any policies to back your position that the death as a significant facet of this article topic should NOT be covered in the lede. MM207.69.139.133 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And note that your claims of consensus are based on a (rightful) consensus not to include information based solely on unnamed sources quoted in E! magazine. The consensus made by 4 voices includes one that says " Probably wait until more sources report it?" and one that says "Wikipedia can wait until a reliable source is willing to speak to it on the record. " neither of which has come to support your removal of the content sourced without relying on unnamed sources in the very reliable Washington post. If you add the two new voices for including the death here and me, well your consensus appears to be clearly moving to inclusion. MM207.69.139.133 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 5, 6, 7, 100, my ISP has lots of IP addresses it assigns. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and until the consensus changes to require editing by accounts, I see no reason to create an account. If you wish to continue making accusations of sockpuppetry, I suggest that you use the proper forum: WP:SSP. Otherwise, discuss the content and not the contributor. MM 4.158.222.148 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what have you contributed to? Jumping from IP to IP can make it hard to keep track of. — Mike   Allen   20:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And today takes it up to what? 8 IPs on this page alone? How is one supposed to know it is the same person speaking? I suggested that it would be better for an IP jumping editor to actually register an account or it could be viewed as sock puppetry. There were no "allegations of sock puppetry" made. And absolutely do not refactor my talk page posts. You're frightfully defensive on this, which once again begs the question, were you previously blocked from editing here to make you so reactive to this? Very suspicious to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "You know, I'm done responding to postings from various IPs and being expected to assume they are the same person. This is absolutely the last time. ... Now, either register one account so that the rest of us know that it is the same person or desist in muddying the waters with posts from various IPs. You never answered the question of whether you've been blocked on a previous account. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)" The approprate place for your accusations or suppositions or whatever they are is not on this talk page but here. MM207.69.137.10 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And again, an IP jumping unregistered account uses yet another IP and flatly refuses to answer the question of if he is blocked from previous issues. I suspect the fact that he refuses to answer is very telling. And again, it's not allegations of sock puppetry, it's commenting on the fact that this IP knows the IP jumping raises questions and yet flatly refuses to take steps to clear up the confusion. Mmm Hmmm. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And again, whatever you "suspect", please take your suspicions to the proper notice board and not repeat your allegations without any evidence on this page. MM 207.69.137.25 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC - Should the lead include a mention of Koenigs death?
Should the lead paragraph of the article contain a mention of Koenig's death, such as this: ''According to Koenig's father, Andrew Koenig committed suicide. '' as was added in this edit and later removed without explanation.

Submitted per request on this talk page, by MM 207.69.139.155 (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should it?   Will Beback    talk    04:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow this IP (who is editing from about ten IPs) keeps pushing this. The COD can not be verified by reliable sources (only gossip sites which claims a person "close" to the family told them he was found hanging from a tree in Vancouver Stanley Park.)  I also don't believe him committing suicide should be in the lead either, per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.  A very small section of the article mentions his death (any reader can promptly use the TOC to jump to that section).  The lead should add more about his career and human rights activism, NOT have "According to Andrew's farther, he committed suicide" plastered as the third sentence of the article.  And quite frankly, I find it disrespectful worded like that. —  Mike   Allen   05:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for the immediate future, the mentioning of suicide should be left out of the lede. Until a conclusive forensic report is available, emotional testimony and hearsay don't equal a verifiable legal cause. Only a death certificate with the cause of death stated on it, should be in the lede. As to the mentioning of suicide in the article, it should be noted as a possible cause of death, until the above mentioned document is verified. IMO!Victor9876 (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why a mention of his death should be included in the lede. His death certainly is not the reason he is notable, and the method of his death certainly isn't extraordinary enough to be mentioned straight out of the gate. Ledes should include pertinent information about the subject. While Koening's death is obviously important, it did not define his life or his notability. I also think Mike Allen made an excellent point in that the way the removed content was worded came off as disrespectful - almost as if Koenig's father's versions of events differ from the official version or something.  Pinkadelica ♣  08:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pinkadelica, the death doesn't need to be included in the lead. His death does not define who he is.  The removed content is original research.  The New York Daily News is basing this on an unnamed source.  That's not at all reliable which is why we have that rule in the first place.  How he died cannot be guessed at or suggested.  It would have to be a RS, like an official document by the coroner's office, etc.  And even then, it doesn't belong in the lead.  This is Wikipedia.  It isn't the National Enquirer. Malke  2010  11:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of information The source is NOT National Enquirer or an unnamed source in New York Daily News. It is Koenig's father as reported by all sorts of mainstream, well respected media. MM207.69.137.15 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I already commented days ago that it's not notable enough to be in the lead, and that it didn't help to understand better his biography. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should it be included? because the lede covers "the important aspects of the subject of the article. ... It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. Considering the amount of coverage  both externally and within our article, his death IS a significant aspect. Koenigs suicide that was a result of his mental health condition CLEARLY helps to understand Koenig - an important and yes is a defining element. His suicide and his  family speaking out about suicide and mental health certainly will have more of an impact in the real world than the character "Boner" ever will.
 * If the specific wording is inappropriate, thats what editing is for. MM 207.69.137.25 (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A death is a not a notable controversy. It is a death. Death is always a significant event, but it doesn't make it worthy of the lead. There is no requirement in WP:LEAD that a manner of death need be covered in the lead and including it there lends it undue weight, whether the manner and means of death is covered or not. Posting it in bold does not make it any more important or significant than simply stating so would do. It did not have an effect on his notability, which was well established long before he died and his notability does not ride on this event. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Death is always a significant event, but it doesn't make it worthy of the lead." Our guidance on the lede says that significant events ARE covered. What is your basis of claiming that this significant event should not be covered? Recent featured articles about a person (save one) cover the death in the lead: Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, Ceawlin of Wessex Tom Crean (explorer) Master Juba Nikita Khrushchev Uriel Sebree which indicates that in standard practice even the most mundane deaths are in fact covered in the lead in feature articles, and unusual deaths such as a suicide in a park can hardly be excluded from the lead, as you have attempted to argue earlier, "because everybody dies." MM 207.69.137.15 (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how long it would take before the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument popped up. For the record, that rarely wins people over because it can be proved both ways. That's precisely why no one here used that as the basis for their opinion or stated "We don't do that a such-and-such article and we're not going to do that here!". No two articles and subjects are the same and we don't treat them as such. Bottom line: No one but you believes Koenig's death should be mentioned in the lede. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and we attempt to go by what the community wants as a whole, it appears that the community is against "your" version. You can either keep pushing the issue in the hopes that we'll all change our minds (very doubtful by the way) or just move on to something more productive.  Pinkadelica ♣  03:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And please, IP, desist from posting a response to everyone who responds here. In case you haven't noticed, this a a request for comments, not a request for the bizarre, jumping IP editor to respond to everything that someone says. Please stop doing so. 12.74.60.65 (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * point of information OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument to use in discussions about whether to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. not about specific article content. If people cannot be convinced that using Featured article criteria and the articles that have passed those criteria as models, I think that may say more about what type of article they are trying to create than it does about a "bizarre, jumping IP editor" MM 207.69.137.20 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, IP, you were asked to stop trying to respond to every point that someone posts in a RfC. This takes the appearance of tenditiousness and is totally improper. This is for garnering opinions, not for giving you a venue to respond to each point. You've rendered your opinion. Please stop trying to respond to the opinions of others. It's poor behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If other people are making claims/statements/ applications of rules and guidelines that are not based on the actual rules and guidelines or sources under discussion, I will continue point that out. MM 207.69.137.43 (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is disruptive to try and argue back points that people bring up. Now stop trying to argue in a RfC - comments are comments and it is not your job to argue them. You've done far and away enough of that. Stop disrupting the RfC to try and argue back the points. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a point AND guideline for you --WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. —  Mike   Allen   06:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * point of information "If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies or style page" It is completely appropriate and within the scope of an RFC to do what I have done.- MM 4.158.222.99 (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Your intent is to disrupt responses and continue to argue something about which you have been soundly defeated. Please stop disrupting the responses. The time for arguing points has long been past here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just re-read the article and I think it's probably too long already. His death got extra attention due to the extended search. But before that the article was only 1/10 of its present length. With no disrespect intended, he was a fairly minor child actor who did some guest starring parts as an adult. By Wikipedia standards he seems barely notable, so dwelling on his death seems excessive.   Will Beback    talk    08:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Andrew Koenig. Uncontested. Favonian (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Koenig (actor) → Andrew Koenig – Primary topic. Page views: 9,976, 790, 86. Marcus  Qwertyus   09:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2012)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

– He got the popular views because probably he's (well, was) the son of Walter Koenig. Yes, his suicide was tragic, but, as far I'm reading the article, he did nothing groundbreaking or major that would have made him famous as an actor, except Growing Pains? — relisting—ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Andrew Koenig → Andrew Koenig (actor)
 * Andrew Koenig (disambiguation) → Andrew Koenig

Christopher Knight (actor) is active and alive, thankfully, yet he does not achieve "long-term significance".

There are other two with the same name: policitian and engineer. They could achieve long-term significance more than Walter's son did, although they failed usage because the statistics from previous discussion proves that they are not popular enough to be primary. The politician is the two-time winner of Missouri election as a Representative, and he could do something to contribute for the people, and he could be the President or the Senator in the United States. The programmer wrote books about computer programming. Walter's son.... tragic. Nevertheless, someone used this ambiguous name for another policitian's biography, so I disambiguated it into (politician). This indicates that the actor is not that well-known enough for that editor to be significant for a long time. What are your thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment what would you do with the undisambiguated form? Would you move the disambiguation page into its place? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Although I am neutral, I do find some of these reasons fallacious. First, you seem to make an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison to Christopher Knight (actor). The situation may not necessarily be the same with the Andrew Koenig (disambiguation) page only three listings while Christopher Knight has 13. Second, you say we should rename the pages because the politician and engineer could achieve more long-term significance – that seems to be blatant unverified speculation, which never, ever should be a basis for a page move or any decision here on Wikipedia. And lastly, so what if the actor is not that well-known for one editor? And so what if you had to repair the link for that editor, as you mentioned? The thoughts or actions of one single editor should not be the overriding reason to warrant a page move. And whether there is a primary topic or not, it still does not prevent mis-directed links like the one you had to repair. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Crossed out the second paragraph for you. You know what? Maybe you can lecture me on how to make a valid proposal next time, so I don't look foolish. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, the other articles in the disambiguation page have way less views and their subjects have also done "nothing groundbreaking or major". If I understand correctly, most people searching for "Andrew Koenig" will be looking for the actor. The current title seems to comply nicely with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, no need to move the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Weak nomination that doesn't really address why the actor isn't the primary topic. In my book, the actor is the primary topic – he has significantly more page views and, like Enric, I don't see that either of the two people listed on the dab page are more historically significant. Jenks24 (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Batman
Koenigs supporting role in a short fan film takes up almost as much room as his entire acting career, including reviews of the films. Seems to give undo weight to something fairly insignificant. BoosterBronze (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC) BoosterBronze (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The material deleted by the edit in question consists of two sentences:
 * Directed by commercial director Sandy Collora, the short received its first screening at the San Diego Comic-Con International.[7][8] Director Kevin Smith called it "possibly the truest, best Batman movie ever made".[9]
 * Neither sentence is about Andrew Koenig, the subject of the article, and they impart no information about him. Especially in context ("the critically successful 2003 fan film"), this reeks of promotion. More or less the same text is in Batman: Dead End; that's plenty. TJRC (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate photo?!
Is the photo an Internet meme making fun of his suicide? That's not very nice. Equinox ◑ 23:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from not being nice, it was a copyright violation of the underlying photo used in the poster, used in the meme, and has been deleted. TJRC (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Death date inconsistency.
The infobox lists date of death as Feb. 14th, 2010 but the article states both approximately Feb. 25th, the date his body was found, and that the last he used his cell phone or did any banking on Feb. 16th. If there's no evidence anyone else used his phone or accessed his bank account on the 15th or 16th, his date of death couldn't be the 14th. Bizzybody (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Koenig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522212533/http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/?id=5514&IssueNum=105 to http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/cms/story/detail/?id=5514&IssueNum=105

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Andrew Koenig


text:
Luís Queiró

Luís Queiró (born 2 July 1953) is a Portuguese politician and Member of the European Parliament for the Social Democratic Party–People's Party coalition; part of the European People's Party–European Democrats group.

In 1977 he earned a law degree from the University of Coimbra Law School and has been a practicing lawyer in Portugal since; in January 2020 he retired and resigned his post of chairman of the CDS Party Convention.

He published Tempo Europeu, in 2009. He is a founding member of Eupportunity and a consultant on European affairs.

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

title: Luís Queiró


text:
User talk:PhoebusApolloX

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

In the meantime, what in particular is the problem with factual content of [Perverted-Justice.com? I'd rather not go through the article talk page - it's too long! I have a suggestion. If you find information that you find inaccurate, then place a tag at the end of the disputed sentence. Then, in the talk page, create a new section called Disputed and note your concerns in there. I'm watching the page and will make sure noone removes the tags before they are hashed out on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * First off, I don't want to fight any part of the current edit war going on, as if I added to everything I object to, the current people watching it will just revert it back to normal (they have told me so in private taunts).

 * I don't have a problem with you adding dubious tags to the article, and I'm an admin. However, if you add them you must make a section called "Disputed" on the talk page and justify each disputed statement(s). Anyone who removes them will be warned, then blocked from editing for a brief while. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that since the entire article is pretty much in dispute (even you dispute relevant facts of the article), the only thing we can agree on for now is that it's disputed. Fighting now when it's already bad lends itself to more fighting, and I want to preserve my ability to edit it in the future to update it with facts when the dispute winds down.

 * I agree that both sides are getting a little heated. I don't have any position on this article, so I won't be adding much info. I'm not entirely sure I agree with your organisation, however. This doesn't mean that I'm going to be terribly biased towards you. What is written should be fair and neutral. I'll make sure of it by helping to supervise it (what I seem to be doing at the moment). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think if we just mark the article in dispute and it will encourage Wiki authors of all sorts (pro, con, and everything inbetween) to come in and edit away, and from there it will perhaps evolve into something we don't have to argue over. That way everyone knows the content is disputed going into it, and thus can feel less inclined to fight over territory of the article and instead feel free to change it. Speaking of which, I would love it if registered Wiki users, instead of known Corrupted-Justice.com staff and proxies, were the ones making these changes... in which case, I would happily step off the entire dispute. I know that the first article was good - I didn't agree with it 100% - but it was neutral and factual and I wish it would've stayed that way. But I don't wanna repeat myself.

 * I don't have a problem with corrupted-justice staff editing the article. However, I do have a problem with either party making the article POV. I hope you understand that. I might note that I also don't have an issue with people removing unsourced or dubious material. If material is removed, the other party will (usually) need to rewrite it in a more satisfactory way - and provide evidence. You'll note that the article currently needs a reference section. I also might note that you may feel that the article was factual and neutral, however others do not think so. I have had similar problems with Historicity of Jesus, however I've tried to work towards some solution. This has meant that I have taken out material that one of the users would have like kept in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Xavier has already spent all his customary reversions trying to keep the article from being distorted, and people are on my IP now for going past that to continue to keep it from becoming a mess. Look at the history, they removed paragraphs of "Pro" content and had external links providing proper citations for portions of our arrest record removed for being "redundant". I mean, it doesn't get much worse than that. Some of them even recoded the links to Perverted-Justice.com to one of Corrupted-Justice.com's anti-PJ websites, a site called the AVSO, run by a german nazi hacker. I mean, I can't contend with that kind of mess. With this last change, I think it makes the point while letting people edit as they feel free to.

 * A link to the diffs where that was done please. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * My major problem is that citations and facts are being provided, but being removed, and the removal is being made the basis for even more removal. I mean, c'mon. It's frustrating to say the least, and I personally haven't even BEGUN to really even edit the article!

 * A link to the diff please, then I will try to warn whoever did that to stop. I take a dim view of this sort of thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Speaking of, why did you call into question our conviction record/recovery of an abducted girl, when we have plenty of citations and news catalogued on our website, and when we even had external links (once, before the edit war) in the article itself citing these cases? If that's one point of the article you'd like to discuss, then we can discuss that... we have received thanks from the Department of Justice and a variety of local/state law enforcement... although our detractors would put  on every claim, even the claim that we are "anti-pedophile"! It's not just me who disputes the article, it's them too.

 * I was not aware that these were removed. Please, once the article is unlocked (in about 12 hours) put them back in again. Like I say, I'd suggest that you read Cite sources, as if you put it under external links they may be taken out, whereas if you put it under the references section noone can touch them without removing the information. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think what we have now will lend itself to allowing us to get back on track and stop the edit war. For now, that's all I really care about. I won't start editing the article until we have people editing it who respect the rules of editing. I personally have made no significant changes, and Xavier's were mostly reversions (to recover vital removed material, such as material which would've given you the citations you asked for) or the ADDITION of external links (which were removed because they disputed the narrow viewpoint of those editing the article). We're both essentially giving up for now until it subsides, because fighting people who don't care to take the time to understand each of the issues, or who openly disrespect us in the first place, is not worthwhile at all.

 * I can understand that. I will keep a close eye on the page (I probably won't edit it unless I need to) once it's unlocked. Feel free to edit the page in ways you feel is correct. I would suggest that the best way of stopping revert wars or "winning" revert wars (though I hate that idea as it's misleading - nobody really wins revert wars) is to do the following:
 * Note any material taken out. Revert once.
 * Immediately after (or even before!) make a note on the talk page about why you are reverting back.
 * If it gets reverted again, see if that person has responded on the talk page. If they have specific objections, try to answer them. In other words, do a revert but change the edit in such a way that tries to address the objections. Make sure you provide a source! (I suggest reading No original research).
 * Make sure you note what you've done on the talk page.
 * If it gets reverted again, go to step 3.
 * As soon as you get to the third revert (even if you've tried to compromise) list the article on Requests for page protection as well as Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Then add the article to WP:RFC under content disputes. Don't edit anything for a while. I'll more than likely be the admin who does the page protection. Depending on how well I see people cooperate, I may revert back to your change (then again, I might not).
 * The most important thing you must remember to do is: do not make personal attacks. Do not comment on the behaviour of the person doing the reverts. That's most likely what they want. Admins can usually tell when those editors do that. It makes it harder for us when the other party being personally attacked responds in like kind. If the other party does not respond like that, we will usually feel sympathetic to the party being attacked. That's just the way most of us are! (see No personal attacks). The other thing I would suggest is that you don't add meta info that is about the article into the article. Do not refer to the dispute in the Wikipedia article inside this article. Most editors have a dim view of this as it's not encyclopedic. Also, never make edits that prove a point. Just about everyone takes a dim view of this. Anyway, I hope this small amount of coaching helps. If you follow my advise, your stay on Wikipedia will be OK. If you don't, then you may find it hard to edit the site. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, most of those things considered "proper" were done by Xavier already, and I shouldn't have to sift through a lengthy series of edits to try to rewrite the whole thing myself when I'm fighting like 5-6 people who aren't ashamed to use proxies trying to undo it. If you notice my only complaint is that the narrow POV of Corrupted-Justice.com & friends is corrupting this article (example: Corrupted-Justice.com edits out links to pro-PJ site Corrupted-Justice.net which refutes their viewpoints, declaring it irrelevant, when Corrupted-Justice.net is the only pro-PJ resource for combatting the specific criticisms of Corrupted-Justice.com). My complaint is not that they exist, or that their complaints are heard, if you notice the only removal of their name from the article was not from External Links, but from the list of popular sources of criticism. The site is run and frequented by less than 20 people, and up until their word with ABCNews.com just recently, they had no national media exposure (instead they had sparce articles in online editorials and foreign papers). I detailed my full complaints in my post left on your discussions page. Either way, I don't forsee much success, not without me spending all my time trying to keep corrections intact.
 * Likewise, many of the changes and references were already within the article in the first place. While I see the usefulness of a "References" section, it seems futile to me when I know most of them will be removed as well. It's taken me hours to even clarify my stance. Can you imagine how long it would take me to singlehandedly fight with these detractors over this article? If the notice is left about it being in dispute, then I can come back at a later time, once the edit war has subsided and a variety of outside opinions have been made into the piece, and clarify stances on particular issues. That's why I see that as the only solution. Do you or do you not agree? Do you think I should be required to fight, for hours on end, in reversion wars, to be heard here? Or do you think my stance is reasonable and should be respected? Remember, I am an admin of the website this piece is about, so yes I am a bit insulted that I have to take time away from working on it to settle this dispute. The solutions I've offered are the only ones I forsee actually working. Please note that 99% of what you've suggested was already tried when the original author was mediating the piece himself. Either way, I'll consider digging into it and marking each particular point but I don't think it'll be very worthwhile... until then, all I'm asking is to please respect that the neutrality and factual accuracy is in dispute, for the reasons I and Xavier already gave... over and over and over again. - PA

title: User talk:PhoebusApolloX


text:
José Ribeiro e Castro

José Duarte de Almeida Ribeiro e Castro (born Lisbon, 24 December 1953) is a Portuguese lawyer and politician. He was the leader of the People's Party from 24 April 2005 to 2007, when he was replaced again by Paulo Portas. He was also a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from 1999 to 2009, for the Social Democratic Party–People's Party coalition; part of the European People's Party–European Democrats group.

Education
He is a Graduate in law (Lisbon, 1975).

Politician
He was a member of Odemira Municipal Assembly (1982-1985).

 * EPP/ED group coordinator at the Human Rights Subcommittee in the European Parliament (since 2004).
 * Member and Chairman of Sintra Municipal Assembly (since 2002).
 * Legal adviser to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (since 1991).
 * Member of the Higher Council for Social Policy of the Ministry of Social Affairs (1988–1990).
 * Member of the Portuguese Parliament (1976–1983 and 1999).
 * Adviser and assistant to the Ministry of Education (1987–1991).
 * Secretary of State in the Deputy Prime Minister's Office (1980 and 1981–1983).

CDS
He is a member of the National Board of the CDS party (1975–1983) and the CDS-PP (1998-2003). Member of the CDS-PP’s National Board Executive Committee (since 2004). Vice-Chairman of the CDS’ parliamentary group for 1981 and CDS spokesman 1976–1983.

Career
He founded Juventude Centrista in 1974.

He worked as a legal expert and counsellor (1976–1999).

He worked in television, being a member (1988–1990), and Chairman (1990–1991), of the inspection board of RTP (Portuguese Radio and Television). Between 1991 and 1999, he held a number of managerial posts at TVI television.

He was vice-chairman of Sport Lisboa e Benfica for 1997–1998.

He is a contributor to various newspapers.

title: José Ribeiro e Castro


text:
José Albino Silva Peneda

José Albino da Silva Peneda (born 6 June 1950) is a Portuguese politician and Member of the European Parliament for the Social Democratic Party–People's Party coalition; part of the European People's Party–European Democrats group.

Career
Silva Peneda held various positions in the Government of Portugal, including Minister for Employment and Social Security (1987–93) during the XI and XII Constitutional Governments of Portugal. On 8 June 2010 he was made a knight of the Order of Prince Henry, awarded the senior class of Grand Cross.[1] He was President of the Economic and Social Council (ETUC) from 22 December 2009 to 1 May 2015, the day he resigned to take over as advisor to the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker.[2] Silva Peneda was the president of the 2010 Organizing Committee of Portugal Day.[3]

Silva Peneda is one of the signatories of the Petition in Defense of the Portuguese Language (Manifesto em Defesa da Língua Portuguesa), standing against the Portuguese Language Orthographic Agreement of 1990.

Personal life
Silva Peneda is the brother of Juvenal da Silva Peneda, who served as the Assistant Secretary of State for Internal Affairs; Juvenal died in Porto on 6 January 2015.[4][5]

He was made a Member of the Council of National Orders on 9 June 2016.

title: José Albino Silva Peneda


text: User talk:70.33.120.19

title: User talk:70.33.120.19


text: User talk:129.173.159.232

title: User talk:129.173.159.232


text: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2005


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2004

John Holmes
Self-nom. A short article, but the best anyone can find on the Internet. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 04:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I'd support, except I really wanted it to be about the other one.  -- GWO 12:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Don't get me wrong - it is a good article, but it's just too short to be comprehensive. I write articles this length all the time. Maybe a bit of offline research would be useful. Ambi 12:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. The fact there is nothing better on the internet says more about the internet than about this article: it's very far from being a featured article. The article is lacking on sufficient detail on all fronts: personal life, career, the book he wrote, context etc. The available text has some silly content as well, such as the prize of his book today ($150) and "opposed to Andrew Jackson (an "Anti-Jackson").". Also, the images have no source information. Judging by the text and sources, this is little more than a summary of all that could be found about him on the web, rather than a serious attempt to write an encyclopedia article about the man, which should involve use of further sources than just the web. Jeronimo 12:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object - Too short--Evil Monkey 20:58, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Am I the only one who thought of the porn star before clicking the link? →Raul654 08:58, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * No. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:03, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * No *cough*. I'm up there, at the top.  (I guess no one would be saying "too short" if it were about the other John Holmes) -- GWO
 * Yeah, I thought about the accused murderer too. (That's why he's famous, right?  We don't watch his movies, right?)  Geogre 14:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Object: Same objections as others. At the very least, in terms of content, we need to know his principles.  What did he fight for?  What against?  Not being a Democrat at that time had a specific meaning (alluded to by the link), but what did that mean to him?  How did it represent his state?  What about the book?  What did it advocate?  (Incidentally, $150 isn't all that much in the bibliophile world.  I say that not to denigrate, but to say that it's not a remarkable enough price to warrant a mention in the article.)  Geogre 14:31, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vatican City
I've come across this one too - seems good to me. jguk 21:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. The "Transportation" and "Communications" sections need to be de-CIAfied (i.e. converted into prose) since encyclopedia articles should not be almanacs or factbooks. --Jiang 09:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object strongly. This article needs far more content. Only the history and politics sections are somewhat reasonable, but they could use some expansion too. The Transportation and Communication articles (from the CIA book) are not in the country template, and should be moved to separate articles (again, according to the template). Furthermore we need pictures. It shouldn't be to hard to get some pictures of the St. Peter, a pope, and the Swiss Guards. Jeronimo 07:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The Vatican City is so small that Transportation and Communication do not deserve their own articles. The template does not need to be strictly followed. --Jiang 02:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe they don't deserve their own article, but the information certainly doesn't belong in this article as it stands. Jeronimo 08:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Does content exist to combat the above complaints?--ZayZayEM 03:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pope
--jguk 21:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. It's long enough and detailed enough but the article could do with better organisation. It seems that the paragraphs are in random order. With such a complicated subject some subclauses are inevitable but to have the very first sentence include a subclause in brackets which is longer than the part outside the brackets is an example of how the article is in need of some copyediting. Dbiv 01:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Internet
--Randy Johnston 17:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: What exactly is the difference between Internet and the World Wide Web featured on November 1? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:13, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * The World Wide Web is just one application of the Internet. There is a world of difference between the two terms. The Internet is 35 years old or something like that. The World Wide Web was created in the early 1990s. — David Remahl 13:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. 1) The image in the lead section of Internet is rather misleading, contributing to the misconception that the Internet == the WWW — it should really be a topological map of the structure of the Internet, not a map of the hyperlink structure of the WWW surrounding Wikipedia. 2) The history section could be expanded using some info from the main history article. 3) The role of the various core protocols such for example as IP and DNS should be expanded. 4) Censorship should be dealt with. By oppressive regimes and so-called voluntary censorship by censorware. 5) The Security section is lacking. Should mention some historically notable worm outbreaks. 6) The way that the Internet is decentralised, and delegates complexity to the edges of the network should be mentioned. Advantages and disadvantages. 7) The systems that form the backend of the Internet should be described in greater detail. Are there any potential vulnerabilities or single-points-of-failure? — 8) On top of all of this; references?David Remahl 13:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. I agree mostly with David Remahl. Some additional comments: 1) The section on "Child abuse" is vague. What is the connection? Has child abuse increased because of the internet? Or only the number of convictions, perhaps with thanks to the internet? A (scientific) reference would also be useful here, since there may not be a relation at all. 2) There are no references, just a bunch of links. I would very much like some offline references or further reading as well. 3) The "See also" list needs to be cleaned up. Some articles are linked from within the article, others are more relevant to WWW than to Internet in general, others are contained within the Category scheme. Jeronimo 12:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object on similar reasons. Also, The section on viruses seems to suggest they are natural entities. Not malicious code actually introduced into a system by programmers.--ZayZayEM 09:42, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP
--Randy Johnston 17:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. The article does present a lot of information in a fairly organized fashion, but it looks more like a PC World feature rundown than anything substantive. The later sections on criticisms etc. are detailed but need better organization, and there should be more information about the key differences between XP and predecessors. This article is good, but not (yet) great. --Dhartung | Talk 22:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here is its previous FAC nomination. Rhobite 04:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support: It presents a lot of information in a fairly organized fashion, and is very comparable if not better than most operation system articles on the Wiki, by my quick check of the 'pedia, and based on edits I have made to other Windows articles. Overall I think this an article worthy of note. PPGMD 04:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object, it is not complete enough on the technologies that power Windows XP and what Windows XP has borrowed from other OSs. It also seems a bit pro-micrososft and the writting is not well focused or organized. If these issues are rectified, I would happily support it. -Exigentsky 01:20, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * These are very general complaints. Could you please be more specific about what technologies you'd like to see mentioned? And I'm not sure that the "borrowing" issue is relevant, since (a) all OSes copy each other and (b) we already have Comparison of operating systems and (c) Windows XP is already very large. Rhobite 05:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that chart, in that case forget it. However, I think there should be more talk about Win2k features that are now in XP (which people do not know so well because Win2k was mostly for business.) NTFS is one such example, there should be a wiki link to the NTFS article and a brief explanation. Also, maybe a section on the future of the OS, how Indigo and Avalon will run on it for example. -Exigentsky 01:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
-- Alterego 3:56, 26 Nov 2004; self-nomination Outlines the proper usage and dynamics of the MBTI. A unique resource not found elsewhere and unparalleled on the Internet, both in thoroughness, resources, and neutrality. Politely and neutrally describes the often-heated differences between the MBTI and Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Received very few suggested corrections on Peer Review. Includes custom-made images, complex tables, and authoritative citations.
 * Object. First there's a few facts that even I (with limited understanding of Psychology) realise are missing, such as the unusual tale of the development of the test (a particularly strong shortcoming with no pages written on its developers) and what it means when you score a '0' (or nearly a 0) on one of the attributes. Actually it doesn't seem to have much of a description on the numerical score system at all, which seems fairly important to me, seeing as that's how the results are reported to the people who take the test. In addition the paragraphs under "type dynamic and table type" are full of jargon and is written in a way that I find hard to understand. I have had the MBTI types explained to me in terms that make sense, why not pitch the explanation at the level of organisational psychology explanations rather than in technical terms. And I'm sure there's a reason, but why are only 8 of the 16 categories given detailed explanations (under "descriptions of function-attributes")? If there is a reason, it should be explained because the tables attached to the section show all 16 types. It's got some good points (like the tables), but it's not quite there, I think. Psychobabble 21:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It is possible to include a section on the development of the test, if that was viewed as important. I have perused around many other subjects, a few of which briefly mention their developments (notably not Microsoft Windows).  It could be an entire article, or merely a couple of sentences (as is currently used).  The unique history consists mostly of the fact that she and her family created the first version by writing likely items on note cards and then consulting with psychometricians from Educational Testing Services (sp).  She considered other fields such as anthropology, biology, etc.. as unnecessary in the development in an indicator based on the premise that everyone knows people, therefore it should be the layman that describes them and not the doctor.  I'm not sure what facts you are aware of, but it doesn't mean anything if you have a PCI score of 0.  Especially on Form M, this is quite literally near impossible due to Item Response Theory. Because I am aware of the tests workings and structure I scored 0 on intuition and extroversion on my last taking.  It means nothing. The "numerical score system" has been described.  The article talks about the PCI score and emphasize that the "score system" you speak of is firstly nearly non-existant and secondly does not matter at all.  It only matters what side of the line you fall on due to midpoint discrimination.  There is a link to Psychometrics which touches on some of the key concepts used in the test's development.  The jargon may be a key point here.  I don't believe I have used any esoteric terms without describing them explicitly.  The "fuction-attitudes" (not function-attributes) correctly point out a fact not found elsewhere on the internet: that the MBTI is highly dynamic and is very hard to properly understand. There is more than just Sensing/Intuition Thinking/Feeling.  The first letter of the acronym tells you which attitude S/I T/F is in (e.g. if it is introverted or extroverted) and the last letter, J/P, tells you which is dominant in the personality. Understandably it was explained to you in the way that it would be explained to a lay client, and I took this into consideration.  However, this is an encyclopedia and this information needs to be documented.  This is the way the indicator actually is.  When you are initially given the test you are not shown the dynamic qualities of type.  The main interest is simply in figuring out which acronym best suits you so that you can move on to the description.  Regarding the descriptions of the 16 types - we face a copyright issue here.  I point out in the article that licensed psychologists with years of experience in interviewing and access to ~ a million tests taken write the descriptions.   Many of those found on the internet were written for the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, a system in many ways incompatable with the MBTI. The best WP can do is link to the brief descriptions provided by CAPT, which is done.  Not including inaccurate and custom made descriptions further and accurately emphasizes the dynamic activity of myersian typology, something which is very unique.  You do not find it in this extremety in jungian typology or keirsey typology, which is often a source of oversimplification and confusion.  Am taking your advice and will come up with a way to make the jargon more user friendly. Thank you. -- Alterego 07:00, 27 Nov 2004

 * Wow long reply. I'll only address the development point. I think mentioning the fact that one of the most widely used psychometric tests was developed by two women with no formal knowledge of psychology is worth mentioning even if in passing, as an interesting and salient fact. there doesn't need to be an essay on it. Psychobabble 01:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Object. All it really does is discuss the types, although it does that reasonably well. Briefly mentions skepticism about the MBTI, although this could stand a better discussion (the article is pretty NPOV in tone, but not in terms of balancing the content volume). But above all, what is glaringly absent from this article is any discussion of how the MBTI is actually used in the real world - what kinds of people use it, what they use it for, and what they do with the results. The article needs to address MBTI in contexts like pedagogy and employment screening, consider whether particular MBTI types suggest certain things socially or professionally, and deal with the possibility of cultural biases affecting the test. --Michael Snow 01:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you very much. You will see that I have revamped the Skeptical view section and will carry out the rest of your suggestions. --[User:Alterego|Alterego]] 5:16 12/1/2004

Genghis Khan
This is a perfect complete and un-biased article on Genghis Khan and his life that most people are very curious about. I think his life and achievements will be very academic. I think Wikipedia users would definitely enjoy it on front page. Let's show it! (nominated by article candidates&diff=7807674&oldid=7807612 an anon →Raul654 08:39, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC))

 * Oppose. Only two inline references, which I think hardly covers all the material in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There isn't much "all the material" on the topic of Genghis Khan per se. This is all we got and it is good. Can you suggest some more "material"? Try Google-ing "Genghis Khan" and compare the articles out there with this Wikipedia one.
 * The issue is not the content; the issue is that the article insufficiently cites third-party sources; only two references are provided, each for specific parts of the article; the rest of the article's content has no sources. For why we need references, see Cite sources. Johnleemk | Talk 09:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't like seeing a hideous infobox taking up half the width of the page at the very beginning of the article. Remove it, or at least shrink it. Everyking 11:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As mentioned before, the references are severely lacking, the modest infobox does not bother me, but the lead section could use some work, it is not too readable nor does it do a great job summarising the article. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. GeneralPatton 18:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A list of website homepages as sources is not suffiencent for a featured article. Thousands of books and articles have been written about Genghis Khan—Go cite some! —Neutralitytalk ]] 03:26, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Can you? Talk is cheap.
 * Object. 1) I find the article to be rather short for a person this important, but I find it hard to indicate what exactly is missing. However, most topics can be probably be treated with more depth. 2) As others have pointed out, we need references. Also, some books and articles are definitely needed, if only as further reading. 3) There are several uncredited claims and vague sentences. E.g.  "Asia is certainly quite different today than it would have been without the brief Mongol Empire.", "Some people argue ", "He is often associated", "He was one of the most charismatic leaders in the world", "probably was the founding father". The "Values of Genghis Khan" section is full of this kind of statements. 4) See also contains mostly terms that were already treated in the article. 5) The infobox is non-standard, and doesn't give much information. Also, I find it a bit strange to see his Mongolian names in Cyrillic; I'd much rather see his name in the real Mongolian script (not the communist-enforced Cyrillic). 6) Given his importance, and the fact that he has been dead for centuries, there must be more illustrations to add. Jeronimo 08:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I would expect at least a mention of The Secret History of the Mongols (a.k.a. The History and Life of Chinggis Khan, which, BTW, could certainly use an article). -- Jmabel | Talk 09:09, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. I agree that references section needs to be expanded. Also most of the 'see also' should be incorporated into the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:39, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. While its big and certainly informative, it is lacking genuine references, and uses too many "some sources", "other sources", "some people" ambiguous phrasing.--ZayZayEM 08:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dragon Rouge
In my opinion, it is a very intersting topic and there has much work done in very short time. Please have a look at it, it is worth it to be at wikipedia'S front page!
 * Object. Lead section too short. No references. Some instances of POV (e.g. calling the critical press "tabloid"). The whole section about opposition is poorly balanced. Again, references are needed. I live in Sweden but have never heard of this movement, despite the claim of "fame" in Sweden. Link to some of the "tabloid" articles. See also links to several articles that have already been mentioned. Do 500 members really make it the "leading magical organization" in northern Europe? Says who? Alchemy is listed in see also. Why? Does the movement have any official religious texts? The section The Initiatoric Draconian Magic is not clear on what each step actually constitutes; what does a follower have to do to achieve each step? How is the movement financed? What do the different elements in the "official logo" symbolise? In short: this article has some way to go before featured status. — David Remahl 13:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. "Initiatoric Draconian Magic" section is unintelligible to a reader with no prior knowledge of this group. The section also needs to be formatted properly. "Opposing Views" is POV. Section headers shouldn't capitalize every word. Rhobite 17:12, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Lead needs expansion. See also section needs to be more carefully linked (magic is a disambiguation) and info on why these "see-also links" are related needs to be included. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 17:38, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. Impossible to understand for people unfamiliar with the subject. Needs references, for example in regard to Swedish fame. Haven't heard of it, and a find a worldwide organization with only 500 members quite small. I doubt it's as famous as the author would like it to be. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:10, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Object. is this for real? article reads more like a very bad joke. Are we sure this actually exists? Can we get soem verifyable sources. Perhaps a list of famous members? Some reason why this is even worthy of inclusion on Wiki? Alkivar 00:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object: Lead is almost non existent, but even if it were not, the content of the article is insubstantial. There are no references.  At various times I've lived all over Europe and never heard of it.  It may exist. It may be notable; but it is not featured article material. Giano 08:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Object: No lead, POV issues, references--ZayZayEM 03:42, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)Support. 04:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)