Profiles of notables should say why they are notable

Question

I can't tell you the number of profiles I've clicked on that have the notable tag, but there is no explanation how they are notable.  That should be entered in the Bio, hopefully near the start...

Comments

they are supposed to have a wikipedia entry so just check, its what i do

---

That is not true. Notables are NOT required to have a Wikipedia page. Read the guidlelines.

---

Not quite true; they're supposed to meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Not everyone who meets those criteria has a Wikipedia page (there are likely to be many missing state court judges, members of state legislatures, etc).

---

one of my ancestors has a wikipedia page, it has to be the shortest wiki page i have ever seen

see Joseph Palmer (priest) - Wikipedia i have not put the notable sticker on his profile

---

i checked see List of judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria - Wikipedia some of them do not have wikipedia entries

---

Will -- I have seen shorter.

Some Olympic athletes have very short Wikipedia pages, yet people more deserving have no pages.  Sometimes this is because no page has yet been created.  Sometimes Wikipedia has not determined if they warrant a page or not.

(I saw a page one day where Wikipedia was compiling names of women who needed a page, but did not yet have one.)

---

We should have the info in WT so we don't have to search on other sites, or have it lost in history.  If WT wants to cover the world instead of being US centric, we cannot rely on other databases, nor local memory.  A short sentence describing why the person has been marked as notable is simple, fast, informative, and preserves history.

---

Rick, I would like to better understand what you mean by "a short sentence describing why the person has been marked as notable"

The profiles I have marked as notable describe their public service (documented with cites), but they don't include a statement such as "This person is notable because...."

Is the latter what you are suggesting?

ISTM that a profile's notability ought to be obvious if the profile is done properly.

Anyone who wants to look at mine and suggest improvements, please do:

Stedman-538, Stedman-542, Kuhn-5752

Stedman-538 has a Wikipedia page that I recently created and was accepted immediately. Kuhn-5752 is in draft form. I'm undecided on Stedman 542.

I will have several other profiles that will be notable when done.

I disagree that "most notables are people with name recognition". Very few people are so famous that the average person would recognize them by name.

Unless the goal of the notability project is to ONLY assign notability to people with name recognition, in which case precious few would qualify.

If that's the case, let me know, and I will immediately remove the notability stickers on all three profiles.

---

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your info.  I would like the 2nd option.  I looked at your 2 Stedman profiles and don't know why they are "notable"  Stedman-538 has quite a profile and did some historic service to the foundation of the US, and served his local area as well. But other than his profile being well developed, what makes him notable?

---

What makes Stedman-538 notable? Let me quote the Wikipedia people who approved his entry.

Subject is quite notable. But consist of lack of information. I might mark it green but due to lack of sources I can't recognize him yet.

After adding sources, his entry in Wikipedia was approved.

So, If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that any profile that is notable should have a section at the top with bullet points describing why they are notable?

If that's the case, then I think it should be written into the notability requirements so that everyone clearly understands what is the minimum standard for creating a notable profile.

I will do that to mine.

BTW, I answered the question which should have gotten me accepted into the project, yet I've heard nothing. Did I miss something?

Update: I added a section at the beginning of the profile named Notability. I don't care for the layout, but at least it's a start. Take a look and let me know what you think. Perhaps all Notable profiles should have a requirement to have such a section at the beginning - Stedman-538

---

BTW, I answered the question which should have gotten me accepted into the project, yet I've heard nothing. Did I miss something?

commented by Paul Schmehl 

.

You didn't miss anything.  Scott is a busy person, and will get back to you as soon as he can.

---

---

My apologies for any delays this week - I have started a new job recently and this week was the first time in about 15 years that I've had to run 12-hour shifts, plus we're trying to decorate for a Christmas Party at the house today, so things got a bit backed up. But I'll see what I can do to get caught up either today or tomorrow.

---

Hi Paul - you were awarded the Notables Badge on 11 November, so hopefully you received the notification about a month ago. Sorry if something in the system didn't send that out to you.

---

I don't recall the notification, but I checked and I do have the badge. Thank you.

Answer 1

Profiles for Notables should always why the person is considered notable. 

Links in themselves do not provide information, it is necessary to follow those links to determine if those sources provide information that backs up the claims made. This is no different than describing what information a source contains for a baptism or census entry. 

One of the criteria that is used to determine Notable status on WT is an entry on Wikipedia, it is unrealistic to expect that Wikipedia will have entries for all people who are considered notable by various countries and organisations. 

Therefore it makes sense to examine the criteria that Wikipedia uses to determine Notable status. If we are going to base WT Notable status on those criteria(which may or may not be a good idea, but is currently the foundation for WT Notable status) We should be able to use those rules/ guidelines to award Notable status on WT without Wikipedia having an entry for a person. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

This page states " Additional criteria

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Any biography 

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; or

The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography).

It also states " Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". I would also include humanitarians in this list. 

It also states " Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary"

It also states 'Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

It also states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable.

I suggest that when as stated by Wikipedia 'The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor' it should fit the criteria for Notable status, particularly those awarded by a National Government such as the British OBE, MBE  and CBE, the Order of Australia, the Order of New Zealand, the order of Canada and the many equivalent awards in other countries. These are some of the highest civilian awards if not the highest award given by many countries. 

These awards are often given to people who are not household words, their accomplishments often are not featured on television news, and were not hot topics on Facebook, Twitter or similar sites. However when a nation chooses to recognize someone for their contributions to that country or to humanity in general those contributions are worthwhile and meaningful.

The Order of Canada is the award that I am most familiar with it "recognizes the outstanding merit or distinguished service of Canadians who make a major difference to Canada through lifelong contributions in every field of endeavour, as well as the efforts by non-Canadians who have made the world better by their actions". 

If WikiTree members are truly interested in attracting members outside the United States, we cannot discount notable status for awards and honours given by national governments. If WT will not acknowledge high awards given by national governments, we are in trouble. 

Comments

Rick, Thanks for the star.

Answer 2

Most notables are people with name recognition, meaning that anyone with a good education would recognise that name. These are usually leaders, celebrities or criminals. There are also local notables, like town founders, businessmen and merchants, which someone living in your town would know about, but someone from the next town might not know about. Sometimes those categories overlap each other.

Wikipedia doesn't recognise that notability can be inherited, meaning that wives aren't automatically notable, even if their husband is. The same for other relatives, except possibly socialites.

Comments

I have a good education, but do not recognize the name of many notable persons.

---

Then something is amiss...

---

I'm in the same "camp" as Kristina.

---

Well Aaron, I guess that means WikiTree should only be for local people, or only for US citizens.  I consider myself a citizen of the World as well as my country and cannot know all the names that might be marked "notable".  I only asked for a short sentence to know why they are marked notable and agree with Kristina and Melanie much more than I agree with you!

---

I guess the question is, Aaron, recognition by whom? One would assume they have name recognition by the bio creator.

---

I have to agree with Aaron. Notables do have name recognition in the circles they are famous for. Not everyone tracks (for example) famous biochemists, but many acknowledge Nobel Prize winners who were biochemists. Not everyone knows famous mountain climbers, but there always seems to be a lot of press about those who successfully climb Mount Everest in the Himalayas. It's not about where you're from, but more about what you did. Those individuals can come from anywhere and do a great number of things, so it should never be about being a citizen of any country. And there are Wikipedia versions in 325 languages, so to easily qualify for Notable status, you can use a Wikipedia approved page from any of those languages (and only one of them is in English...).

Answer 3

I agree with Rick 100%. Much like Wikipedia does, I try to begin my Notable profiles with a brief sentence or two, letting the reader know what the individual was noteworthy for, before moving into the full biography. Yes, I could direct them to Wikipedia, but why not just tell them? It takes less than a minute to type the sentence.

Also, remember that it is part of Wikitree's mission is to preserve its database forever. Who knows if a link to Wikipedia will be any good a year from now, let alone in a Century.

Comments

I do this on (most of the) Notable profiles I manage.  I sometimes do it on Project managed profiles.  Sometimes I forget.  

I have, on occasion, done it in "list form", as I did for Josephine Beall Willson (wife of Blanche Kelso Bruce).

---

If I hadn't discovered that Senator Bruce was my 10th Cousin 3x removed (connected through his white ancestors) I wouldn't have known who either of them were even though I'm from the US.  I agree a short sentence or bullet points should be on the page.  With the "American centric" conversation going on no one should presume that "name recognition" should apply. For that matter when the person's name is in their native language, it might be impossible for someone to "recognize" the name.  Examples I can think of are Russian, Arabic, all oriental languages, all Indian subcontinent languages.  Without photos I would never recognize Gandhi, Xi Jinping, any of the Romanovs or Mohammed to name a few. Most of the European languages I can puzzle out but it would be helpful knowing their name and what they are notable for.  Just my w 2 cents (or 2p for the Brits) worth.

---

I thought of Josephine because someone has nominated Blanche as a support profile for next week's EPOW honouring Bob Dole, so their names were prominent in my recent memory.  

(Note -- before I discovered the Bruce family, I knew nothing about them, either.  I have also worked on the Abner family.)

---

Thanks Melanie.  I love your opening for Josephine!

Answer 4

It is definitely preferable that Notables have some sort of reference to why they're notable. It doesn't need to be as blatant as "X is notable for y" but referring to their activities which made them notable in the biography is very helpful. I know one form many people use is to start the bio with "XX was a <profession> notable for his <notable activities, awards, etc but in brief with just highlights>." Then head into talking about his family, life, more detailed references to their notable activities, etc. At the very least, that first description of who they were should accompany a Notables sticker or template. It helps everyone know whether they've stumbled on the correct person with that name or understand why the sticker is there. There are definitely cases where it shouldn't be. We've had some, ah, wishful thinkers on WikiTree who have used the sticker on many ancestors who really didn't merit it.

Comments

Ok, at least 2x it has come up that the requirement for adding the Notables tag should include a description.  Is there anything in process to incorporate this by the notables project?

---

Preferable doesn't mean mandatory.

---

Agreed, Melanie. I'm on the fence about whether or not it's a good thing to lead off with "John is Notable for being the Best Cricket Player in all of England" at the moment for a number of reasons. One - these things do change from time to time. Just because someone broke the record for something, doesn't mean their record isn't eclipsed by someone later. It might be tedious to have to keep going back to say "She's #1" and later say "She's #2" and later "She's #3". I'm not sure we want to get into that. There's far too few editors and far too many Notables. We're nearing 50,000 Notables and we haven't truly scratched the surface of what's out there. At the same time, if the profile is well-written, it should be clear that either a clear event in their lives made them stand out from the crowd, or a preponderance of many events over a lifetime is what made them Notable.

But I do get the thought that if the event or lifetime of (fill-in-the-blank) is what triggered their Notable status, then having it at the top in a more general form might not be a bad thing. I just don't think it should be so clearly defined that it requires regular maintenance, as such things fall into disrepair rather quickly. I wonder if a sticker/template change might be possible where it would generalize and incorporate something simple. Like "Sue is Notable for Weightlifting". It would give a clue about why Sue is Notable and then someone could read on about her weight lifting activities or if the Biography hasn't been written, then someone could click the links for more.

---

I'll just add that it wouldn't necessarily excite me to have to edit 47,000 templates and stickers, but if we felt that was a need for the project, we'd figure it out...

---

Scott -- I wonder if there's not a way to have the Notables Sticker say what the reason/s is/are for the Notability when used with a category.  Example {{Notables Sticker|Australia, Notables in The Arts}} or {{Notables Sticker|New Zealand, Scientists}} and so on.

Right now, using the pipe to add a parameter to the sticker places that category on the profile. 

I have to wonder if it would be possible to have the actual template code add the words to the sticker display, so it'd be similar to the Occupation or Religion templates where they say "<name> was a Presbyterian", or "<name> was employed as a spinner in a cotton mill".

(That way - you and I, and others, would NOT need to go and manually do anything.  It'd be automatic with the template change, yes?)

The "trick" would then be to get people adding the {{Notables Sticker}} to also add a parameter.

---

I know sometimes people put "location" categories as the second one, like "Canada Notables" and such. I seriously doubt someone is famous for just "Canada", as it's too non-specific. Likely they did something that they were famous for, and were "from" Canada. I doubt it would be quite that easy. I'd almost recommend that if we were going to retain any 2nd parameter type things that we add a 3rd parameter so that we'd have a clean start. But if everyone thinks this would help, we could work out the details.

---

I was thinking more like {{Notables Sticker|Bacteriologists}} -- which'd be better if it also had a country parameter, but I'd take what I can get.

---

Hi Scott,

It should always be assumed that being #1 means at a certain point in time, John was the best cricket player in England does not mean of all time, it means at the time of his play.  Or, Dave set the world record in High Jump, does not mean that someone else didn't come along later and that record has been broken 20 more times.

Answer 5

It's a shame there is not a measure that precludes a Notables Sticker UNTIL the bio has been sufficiently developed to explain who the person was, what he or she did that made them noteworthy, and possibly even until they're connected. Indeed, Stickers should be added to a bio last, not first. Categories should also be explained in the bio.

Comments

I agree with you in principle, but I would think that if they have a Wikipedia page, it's linked, and they're marked as Notable, it should be obvious. However, I also think that if someone wants to claim Notable status and does not have a Wikipedia source, then they absolutely "must" have a well-written biography with such information, as we are essentially replacing Wikipedia with our information on that profile. I always recommend a Wikipedia page be submitted, if someone is into that sort of thing, but I don't require it. I did it once, it took a little over 2 months, it was a bit stressful to adapt to their standards, and I'd have to think about it before I tried it again. I guess it's not for everyone. But if we don't have a Wikipedia page, we do need to know clearly why they are Notable, have clear sources that point to what supports their claim, and make certain that it's not all about their obituary/death notice as news articles tend to pop in and go away, but historical references and long-term websites or even physical references such as newspapers, magazines, or books are good to use.

---

Wikipedia-page OR National Biography entry. People who "only" have an entry in a national biography are also eligible for a {{Notables Sticker}}.

---

Great point, Jelena. There are other reputable sources that list individuals who have been identified as clearly "Notable". It's a short list, but there are a few others out there we'll use as automatic approval.

Answer 6

After reading this thread, I've been updating my notable profiles to include a new section named Notability that is at the top of the profile I ask for input from project members as to whether this is an acceptable format.

Here's the ones I've completed: Winship-668, Stedman-538, Stedman-1138

If this is an acceptable format, I will update all my Notable profiles.

Comments

Paul, if what you are adding to all your Notables profiles is {{Notables}} -- you will need to go back in and change it to {{Notables Sticker}}.

The first is the Project box, and is only applied under certain circumstances.  The second is the sticker.  I have made the change on Winship-668, so you can see it in the change log.

---

The Project box is only used if the Notables Project is (one of) the managers of the Profile. If not, the {{Notables Sticker}} is to be used.

---

Thank you. I will correct the rest. BTW, I've been added the Notables Managers to the profiles. Should I NOT be doing that? (I haven't done all of them yet.)

---

And small addition - if the Notable is living, a project must be listed as co-manager. Typically this is Notables, but a few other projects have also agreed to help manage certain key Notables that fall within their project areas. In these cases, we still try to keep Notables Project on the Trusted List, or will agree to co-manage it with another project.

---

if the Notable is living, a project must be listed as co-manager

to make the profile of the Notable visible. Also the Notable needs to have a Wikipedia-entry in minimum three different languages.

---

Even those who don't qualify to be visible need a project as co-manager. Sadly, we've lost some profiles of Notables when the profile manager has gone on a Notable-streak, created a whole stream of Notables, then left for parts unknown, and when the account was found to be abandoned, the profiles were deleted since they were private. We require a project as co-manager to protect the profile from this sort of accidental deletion.

---

Thanks, Scott. All my profiles are public (unless they're still living), and all my Notable profiles are public. Should I still add the project as co-manager?

---

Only if they're living "and" Notable.

---

OK. Thanks.

Answer 7

I do think there should be some information to support notability along with the sticker.

Not that they should be done this way, but I am adding one profile that I created following a Source-A-Thon a couple of years ago. His brother, Humphry,  is a notable and John Davy's name was barely mentioned within the WT family profile. It turns out that he was as notable as his older brother. Here is an example of how I do Notables (so we know why they are notable).

In this case John Davy not only has a Wikipedia page, but would be considered Notable from the British sources in his profile.

John Davy, MD https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Davy-1174

Hope this is helpful.

Comments

Carol, I like the way you did it.

---

Carol: I am in the process of getting the Notables Project to transfer PM-ship of Humphry Davy to the England Project.  Once that is done, I will write a narrative biography and ensure that John is mentioned.

---

Hi Ros. I'm in the Midwest with family attending a funeral (last Friday) and a college graduation (this Saturday).

In my spare time, and to maintain some semblance of sanity, I've been following up on the Davy family...writing biographies where there are none, along with inline sources and photos where available, relevant and not copyrighted. As I complete them, I'll keep their WT numbers and send them along to you, if you like. One of the descendants of John Davy, MD (the other Notable brother) has a descendant or relative who owned a home at Grasmere and apparently Wordsworth and Dickens spent time at that home. I think the photo of the home and write up is on Ancestry. If you like, I can send that information along as well.

So, will Humphry Davy still be 'Notable'? Will all the Davy family become part of the England team? I like working on this family because they have Cornwall roots and I have a 2x great grandmother who migrated from Cornwall to the U.S. in the late 1800s.

Thanks! Have a great holiday. Take care and stay safe!

---

Hi Tommy! Thanks for the positive feedback. Take care and stay safe. I'll likely post something on the Chat this Friday, but I am still in the Midwest.

---

@Carol - oh yes, Humphry will still be Notable (he'll just have a sticker rather than a Notables project box).  I don't think *all* of the Davy family will become managed by the EP - maybe John will, though.  Depends on how much we can sweet-talk Jo! LOL

No need to send the ID numbers to me.  I have bookmarked Humphry and will be able to wander around the Davy family.

---

Hi Carol,

I also like what you did to tell why he is notable.

And, your example is another example of how "It's a Small World".

I spent a great deal of time explaining to customers how the Phosphine we used in our machines used to make computer chips was not Phosgene (a deadly neurotoxin).  And then you used the discoverer as an example...

Rick

---

Thanks for your feedback, Rick. I found out that Phosgene became the basis for 'Mustard Gas' during WWI. Of all of his accomplishments, many discard these because of his finding for Phosgene and its deleterious development during WWI.

---

Hi 10th cousin once removed!

Yes, Phosgene gets much negative press.  Personally, it killed my maternal grandfather, but luckily (for me, otherwise I wouldn't be here) he lived 38 years after his exposure, suffering pain and reduced lung capacity.