Talk:List of people from Mississippi

Future exansion of page

In a recent edit I added 500+ entries to this list, doubling the list's size. My original intention before even gathering the new names was to eventually include every existing page that fit within the list's scope. However, the current list now contains 1,002 entries and a search shows the potential for nearly 7,000 more names! Obviously this is far too many names for a single page. The page is already at 99 kilobytes and is at the moment separated as follows—

1 Activists and advocates                22 entries
2 Actors/Actresses                       50
3 Artists                                27
4 Athletes and sports-related people
  4.1 Baseball                           70 
  4.2 Basketball                         78
  4.3 American football                 231
  4.4 Other sports                       36
5 Broadcast media personalities           9
6 Comedians                               3
7 Educators                              13
8 Entrepreneurs/Business leaders         21
9 Filmmakers                              6
10 Inventors                              3
11 Jurists and lawyers                   13
12 Military figures                      12
13 Models                                21
14 Musicians and performers             211
15 Physicians                             6
16 Politicians                           95
17 Supercentenarians                      3
18 Writers                               56
19 Other people                          16

What do others think about how the page should be dealt with once it becomes far to large?

Option 1: Leave all names on one page no matter how large it gets.

Option 2: Separate sections into new articles only once they have reached a certain length. (eg: List of athletes from Mississippi)

Option 3: Separate all sections into new articles at the same time no matter their sizes.

Option 4: Move from a notability-based list to an alphabetical list by list name and separate into new articles. (eg: List of people from Mississippi (A-C))

Another consideration to improve the page would be to add thumbnail pictures of people from the list to the right side. The equivalent Indiana page does this and looks pretty good, in my opinion. Thoughts on both issues or anything similar? — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 05:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen such lists broken down into separate alphabetical lists before. For example, List of people from Mississippi (A-F), List of people from Mississippi (G-L), List of people from Mississippi (M-R) and List of people from Mississippi (S-Z). Not sure if that is a good way to go or not. Haven't given much thought to it really. Here is a perfect example of how this could be achieved. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 06:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Removed several people from this list who neither had an article nor a reference. Lists on Wikipedia have the same criteria for inclusion as articles, that is specifially notability and verifiability. There are no references for these two people, Dianna Freelon-Foster and Jody Renaldo and an internet search on google books, google scholar and google news did not reveal any sources that establish the notability of these two people. Just being mentioned in passing in a news report is not enough, and any article started on these two people would be speedily deleted. If there are any sources I overly looked then please, by any means re add these two people with a proper references. If not, well, references are NOT optional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.210.10 (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Now registered. So I am told in an aggressive tone "An IP telling me how things work but won't do the actual work themselves. Novel idea there. Here's your sources. Now make sure you remove the other 200+ entries without a source, ok?)" For the record, as I made it clear above I looked for sources, and I did not find any that established notability. There are also not 200+ entries in this list of people without a reference and without an article. The sources added by Allstarecho are completely inappropriate. One is for Dianna Freelon-Foster and is the staff list of a civil rights organisation. So all we know now is that she is a staff member of an organisation. How does that make her notable? The other source is for Jody Renaldo, (http://www.msstate.edu/web/media/detail.php?id=2362) and confirms that he participated in a panel discussion at the UMiss. Again, how does participating in a panel discussion make a person notable? So removed again, and I hope that the next time the editors who keeps on adding this unencyclopedic people will at least engage in the discussion and refrain from personalizing this content conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mviroslav (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources prove who the people are, what they they do, and that they do it in Mississippi. Apparently you didn't read the Dianna Freelon-Foster source because it specifically says she's the first female and first black mayor of Grenada, Mississippi, which wouldn't mean anything elsewhere but it means a lot in a state known for its racism.   allstar▼echo  19:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please stop the aggressive tone? No, I read it. But if she is indeed the first female and first black mayor of Grenada, then you surely should be able to find a reliable source for this fact, and not the staff list of the organisation she works for. I agree that if an indepedent confirmation can be found that she was indeed the first female and black mayor, than this would indeed make her notable enough. I could not find anything, neither by searching Google News for Dianna Freelon-Foster. Regarding Jody Renaldo there is still no source that establishes his notability. If as you claim these individual are notable you should have no problems finding a good, reliable and independent reference that discusses these two individuals. Mviroslav (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait. So I checked the Equality Mississippi article, which apart from having no or almost no sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject has an interesting box on the talk page. Apparantly Allstarecho is significantly related to Equality Mississippi. That makes me wonder why he or she insists on including Jody Renaldo despite the lack of references? Mviroslav (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you'd read further you would have seen that I, Allstarecho, am Jody Renaldo. I think I can vouch for myself where I live, what I do and when I did it. There are many third-party sources as well in the Equality Mississippi article. As for Dianna Freelon-Foster, the source is still reliable and acceptable. I think you should familiarize yourself with WP:RELIABLE and WP:SOURCE and for this case. WP:3RR.   allstar▼echo  21:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What? You are Jody Renaldo and you insist on being on a list of important people from Mississippi, without providing any evidence that you are indeed important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. No offense, I guess you did some important work in your ocmmunity, but that does not make a person important enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. As the links you provided show, what is required are reliable, published sources. An invitation to a panel discussion and a staff directory are neither. And even if they are, a lot of things are verifiable but that does not mean that they should have their own article. I could easily verify that my grandma died ten years ago via my local newspaper, but that does not imply that I should include here in the list of people from Ontario or even write an article about her. Again, if both these two people would indeed be so important it should be easy to find some newspaper coverage about these two people and their accomplishemts.

P.S. Oh, and thanks for the 3RR link, but what I do not understand is, shouldnt you familiarize yourself with this rule too? Mviroslav (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If AllStarEcho is Jody Renaldo, then AllStarEcho should certainly not make any assertions of Jody Renaldo's notability, as per WP:Conflict of Interest. The question of notability should be left to other editors, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion on the part of AllStarEcho. Plazak (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no COI issue in a simple list that is supported by a separate article, in this case Equality Mississippi, and reliable third-party sources. How can you have a related notable article and not include the person responsible for its notability, in a related list? Doesn't make much sense to me. But whatever you all think is necessary, I won't defend it anymore and will move on. I will still point out that there's over 200+ entries in this list that aren't sourced either so have fun and do the right thing, or what you perceive as the right thing, with them as well. -    allstar▼echo    22:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to come late to the party, but not only is there a clear conflict of interest in edit-warring to include yourself in a list with having an existing article, but I pointed out the COI involved in your creation of Equality Mississippi and including yourself in this list some time ago. Please don't reply with attacks or accusations. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaldo

I don't know if you all are just really that damn stupid or are just skimming across the source at lightening speed but the source does more than "Ref doesn't establish notability, name is listed as an attendee to a conference, nothing more". It specifically says in the source that he's the executive director. Also, nevermind the fact that another article on Wikipedia backs up this entry. Further, you can easily hit Google up for more sources but that would be work, wouldn't it? Nevermind, don't bother answering. It's obvious no one is willing to even give the entry a fair chance. 75.66.75.195 (talk) 05:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on ANI about your edit-warring and conflict of interest here. You are welcome to participate. Otherwise, see existing discussion above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you also mention your own edit warring? Of course not. I will not particiapte in that ridiculous discussion which you seem to think is the biggest emergency on Wikipedia and are whiny because you don't think it's getting the immediate attention and outcome you think it should.. so otherwise, piss off. 75.66.75.195 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Except for the piss off bit I agree, ASE I feel they are simply baiting you and using inflamatory language is only showing that it's working. I trust ASE's judgement on almost anything compared to that of the other editor under discussion. Expressly concerning anything to do with Mississippi. Frankly there's a reasonable case to leave the entry and let the editors here who actually are willing to do the actual work of improving the article by researching and adding sourcing. It is after all a few words listing, not a stand alone article. As the list grows and larger sections become their own sublists, a section devoted to LGBT people is not an unlikely prospect. Then the logical question remains is Renaldo one of the most notable LGBT activists in the state. My hunch would be yes but I'm also not a specialist in this specific subject area so am happy to defer to those that are. If Delicious carbuncle just can't seem to leave you alone then WP:Griefing may apply. In any case please remain civil even if they disrupt or cause you other problems. I'm sure there's some sort of interesting issue going on when an editor follows mainly LGBT editors around and vies for their attention, that they can't take a hint really isn't our fault. -- Banjeboi 18:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Having this article on my watchlist and acting when Allstarecho tries to add themselves to the list against the opinions of other editors (again) has absolutely nothing to do with LGBT issues, but I'm not surprised you see it that way. Could you expand on your "interesting issue" comment because I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to say? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:3O request - WP:Lists of people

There has been a bit of a lame edit war going on at this article recently [1][2][3]. 75.66.75.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is by the duck test almost certainly Allstarecho (talk · contribs), a.k.a, Jody Renaldo, has been edit warring to have Jody Renaldo included in the list by virtue of his inherited notability from another article and/or by direct referencing (see above COI discussions). He then started to make pointed edits [4] to include several other people in the list who don't have their own articles, but can be referenced to being from or linked to Mississippi, although in fairness there were already many other entries of this nature already in it. To solve the dispute fairly, and because this list is already huge, I think the guideline WP:Lists of people is pretty logical place to start, which says that lists of people should be restricted to listing people with their own biographical articles - thus establishing without doubt that they are notable, and you do not have to have the kind of discussions seen above and the lame edit warring. So I was bold and earlier today, did just that, [5], but 75.66.75.195 has quickly reverted [6]. So, I've listed this on the third opinion request board, and if someone who has not already commented here, or has had interactions with the user/s involved, could comment to agree or disagree with my logic, that would be grand. MickMacNee (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion (awaited)

Response to third opinion request:

I'm not an expert on people from mississippi. I've never edited this article. I'm not here to judge. I'm only here to help. WP:Lists of people is the right place to start discussion. Using that as a guide, I can't Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL that lead me to believe that he is notable for being a Mississippian, or that it is likely he will have an article written on him soon. This leads me to say he should not be included—Work permit (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What happens next?

• If the opinion misses the point

Explain why you think they have missed the point and give the respondent a reasonable time to justify or revise their opinion. The third party is unlikely to be an expert on the topic and may unintentionally overlook a detail.

• If the opinion needs clarification

The reply should be in Plain English but may include references to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If the response is confusing or you can not see which part of the referenced material applies, then ask for a further clarification. Please remember to remain civil.

• If the opinion is not accepted

If the opinion given is firmly rejected, it probably is not worth while going over the same ground again. Ask the non-accepting party to clarify their viewpoint and summarize the current situation. Remember to stay cool and give reasonable time for contributions from other editors who may act as local mediators.

Your next step is probably to consider one of the other dispute resolution options. The most common of these at this stage are:

1. A request for comment, a good solution for agreeing a proposed exception to the guidance, or rejecting it.
2. Raising a Wikiquette alert, a fair way of dealing with another editor who consistently shows what you think is poor etiquette. Going through the third opinion process should demonstrate that you have made reasonable attempts to resolve issues locally before raising the alert.
3. Requesting advice on a Wikipedia noticeboard. For example Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is particularly helpful in those cases where the inclusion of problematic biographical material for a living person is under debate.
4. Requesting advice on a Wikiproject talk page. Nearly all articles fall within the jurisdiction of a Wikiproject, and the members of that project can be helpful in further bringing about consensus on that page.

• If the opinion worked and resolved the dispute

Don't forget to express thanks to everyone involved. Positive feedback is encouraged as it shows that their contributions are appreciated which will help to ensure the future of the third opinion project. If the third opinion was especially sage or particularly helpful, you might consider awarding a Third Opinion Award on the talk page of the Wikipedian who gave the opinion.

Replies to opinion

• Thanks for your opinion User:Work permit. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure you actually looked at the Google sources you yourself have linked to in your opinion. In fact, he's found in all of them. Additionally, you've provided a new source I've never seen, the book Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History in America by Marc Stein found at the Google Books link you yourself provided: Him being wrote about in this book that specifically says, "Today the political struggle is largely led by Equality Mississippi and its executive director, Jody Renaldo." If that doesn't make him notable, at least in Mississippi - and in a list about notable Mississippians - I guess nothing on the face of the Earth will. That been said, I disagree with the opinion. 75.66.75.195 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable people can disagree. That's why I provided all the sources. But before you do, please read wp:Notability, and Wikipedia:BIO. As a Basic measure. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. None of the sources I have seen provide significant coverage of Renaldo, either in isolation or put all together. He is not the subject of any of the articles. He's usually just being quoted for his opinion on the main subject of the article.--Work permit (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• User:Nefariousski came in and removed many very famous/nationally acclaimed/notable artists. Just because they don't have an article on Wikipedia does not mean they can't be in a list of people. I restored SOME of those people, with additional sources. Yes, go back and look.. I didn't restore ALL of the people that Nefariousski removed. THEN, you came along and removed even more very famous/nationally acclaimed/notable people. This is a LIST for god's sake, not an article! People on this list do NOT have to have an article on Wikipedia. Per WP:Lists of people, it is very reasonable to think or expect that at some time in the future, these people will have an article about them, but it's not a requirement. 75.66.75.195 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Not having an article already is a very bad litmus test actually, we use WP:Redlinks in part to show on lists such as this where Wikipedia may have gaps in coverage. Due to systematic bias Wikipedia tends to have articles that mirror the make-up of the editors here. The average Wikipedian on the English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as a white-collar worker or as a student rather than as a labourer (cf. Wikipedia:User survey and Wikipedia:University of Würzburg survey, 2005). This is why we encourage content editors to make the best effort to comprehensively and dispassionately cover a subject. As far as I can see ASE has been doing decent and diligent work and the only issue is this one entry which other editors claim must be promotional. It might be but frankly ASE is also one of the more competent folks to know the context of Mississippi culture. I have no issue with including person X is the founder of [[organization y]], that's exactly how we do it on a disambiguation page and wikipedia remains not made of paper so it's not a space issue. Once the entire list is cleaned up and vetted, splits into smaller lists occur, etc then it may be obvious to all that this one entry is unneeded or indeed is no big deal. The only reason there seems to be a focus is on the editor rather than the content. That's almost never a good editing policy. Inclusion or disinclusion should likely wait until we get the work done that should preceed a thoughtful review in where we likely have gaps in coverage, how that should be remedied, etc. -- Banjeboi 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)