How to Get on Radio Talk Shows All Across America w/o Leaving Home This Broad's Life: The Raucous, Riveting Autobiography of the Most Outrageous Radio Talk-Show Host in America Today You Can't Say That : Common Sense From America's Number One Gay Radio Talk Show Host How to Get On Radio Talk Shows All Across America Talk Show Selects 1999: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows Talk Show Selects 1998: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows (1998 Edition) Talk Show Yearbook 2000: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows (Talk Show Selects, 2000) Conduct a National Radio Talk Show Tour Without Leaving Your Home or Office...Without Paying a Cent for Air Time (How to Make People Buy Whatever You)

Talk:List of famous Canadians (archive)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Talk:List of famous Canadians (archive) /old temp page - moved out of article namespace

Winnie the Pooh

We are not talking about the fictional character, who is British but the actual bear that inspired him, who came from Canada. --rmhermen

OK, but the link points to the fictional character. Perhaps a separate page is required. Dze27

The bear is a naturalized American, I think--a long-time resident of New York City. Vicki Rosenzweig

• There is certainly a fair argument that can be made for a separate page, but that may not have the same impact as explaining Milne's influences. The original Winnipeg the Bear from White River, Ont. did, nevertheless, acquire his fame vicariously through the success of Milne's character. When I initiated the article I was hoping for a peculiarly smug Canadian touch to it. I was primarily interested in Canadians who did well outside of Canada, but whose Canadian origins might not be known to our southern readers. Those persons whose fame was solely domestic would be less interesting for my purposes. But then the topic needn't be limited to individual humans. Animals (Winnie), groups (Bare Naked Ladies) and inventions (plastic garbage bags) are all fit subjects. Eclecticology

NPOV, remember?

Conrad Black

Poor Conrad! Perhaps it is better if you user:Montrealais write a good article on him..... DW

Poor Conrad??! *grinds teeth!* Someone else can article this asshole - I couldn't be NPOV. - mtlais

Matthew Perry

How often do they say "eh"? --AW

I would call Matthew Perry an American. .... DW

Canadians never use the word eh, that is just a myth, eh!

See eh. -mtlais

Including authors

I returned the list of famous authors since they follow the same criteria as any other category on this page. If you have a beef with someone in particular... --rmhermen

And I removed it (again). "Spyder Robinson or William Gibson is/are not a famous Canadian author(s). If he stays then the list will be out of control. Also, if he stays then in other categories it too will start getting personal favorites instead of the famous. And no, it does not follow the criteria as others on this page. ... DW

then as I said before take out the contriversial ones but do not take out the entire list as there are certainly famous Canadian authors. I am putting the list back in minus the two you complain about. Do not take out the entire list agtain. --rmhermen

Alexander Graham Bell

What is Canadian?

Does Isaac Asimov count as a Famous American author? He wasn't born there, he was born in Russia.

I don't want to ruin anyone's list, or depart from the NPOV, that's why I mentioned the immigrants with their birthplaces. It would be simpler to just define at the top of the page what you mean by "Canadian" and we can all agree to add only those people.

I personally would argue for people like Robinson -- he not only has lived in Canada throughout his writing career, he often tends to write from a Canadian point of view and with Canadian settings. But I'll stand by the majority consensus if we can actually define one.

User:Steverapaport

Good questions. I would say that anyone who permanantly immigrates or especially naturalizes, should be counted as a member of their new country. I have no problem with, for example, Asimov being listed as a "Famous American" and as a "Famous Russian", especially when a short note on his life in each article could explain where he was born and worked.

More debatable may be how to decide if someone is "famous". --rmhermen

For famous, how's this: If they already *had* a link in the Wikipedia, I can assume that someone else has heard of them...

Gibson was already in the Wiki, with 1972 listed as the date of his immigration to Canada, and 1984 as his first book. So he's famous, and debatably (by now, after 30 years), Canadian. I don't want to step on any toes by doing it myself, but would it be okay for the guy who took Gibson and Robinson out to put them back in now, humbly, please?--User:Steverapaport

Wish I could help with a clear set of rules for making someone "Canadian". Canadians are all proud of Paul Anka, and numerous others who were born in Canada yet who in fact have lived in the USA most of their adult life (some are now US citizens) and are famous for the opportunity America gave them to accomplish whatever in their field. Tough choices. Needs more thought. --- Also for "Steverapaport", I took them out from the Famous Canadians" page because this list should be limited to only those few who would be recognized internationally. (Keep in mind, we want people from every corner of the world to learn about Canada, the US etc.) If Gibson & Robinson should become classified as Canadsian writers, then they should be only on the list of "novelists" not this main Canadian page. .... DW

"VOTED MOST FAMOUS CANADIAN OF THE 20TH CENTURY: Terry Fox"

Can anybody give a quick note on who did this poll? I don't find any useful info with a quick Google search. Thanks.

It's a dubious claim. I've deleted the claim and moved Fox to a more appropriate place on the page Eclecticology

Terry Fox: McLean's Magazine with an Ipsos-Reid pole taken in 2000 and reported on CBC, CTV, discussed in great detail by CBC Radio on several programs, and reported in numerous newspapers. Suggest a little rersearch beyond a mouse click to Google should have been done before changing it....DW

I just did a very quick search. I guess my Google is different than Eclecticology's: http://www.terryfoxrun.org/english/terry%20fox/honours/default.asp?s=1

Canada's Greatest Hero June 30, 1999 ? Terry Fox is voted Canada's Greatest Hero in a national survey conducted by the Dominion Institute and the Council for Canadian Unity.

How do you get from "Canada's Greatest Hero" to "MOST FAMOUS CANADIAN"? (Caps as quoted)

It seems that the internet survey by DI and CCU that you mention had 28,000 responses with 1,000 different people being nominated. Without the raw data of votes for the top vote getters I would be very unwilling to accept that it was statistically significant. The Ipsos-Reid poll appear to have been more concerned with what qualities Canadian considered essential in their heroes.

The discussions on CBC and in the newspapers are secondary sources. Eclecticology 23:16 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)

Thank you, Ortolan88. I worked my butt off to set this page up as well as add (still) as many articles as possible, each researched, and hopefully easy to read, interesting, and informative....DW (A Canuck/Yank born in France... go figure)

"Montrealais" removed the notes on Sandra S. saying others didn't have detail. Maybe I'm blind, but how about fixing Clara Hughes and the others too.

I was referring to the fact that other entries for athletes did not refer to how many gold medals they had won, merely saying "sprinter", "hockey player," etc. So I changed it to "curler". I presume any article on Ms. Schmirler will mention her Olympic successes. - Montréalais

It seems we can't stand success, and are hell-bent on screwing up this page like so many others. I tried keeping "Famous Canadians" to famous Canadians but adding "Be Good Tanyas" (being removed) to the Musician list defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia and opens the door to anyone wishing to promote themselves, their friend/family etc.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm promoting my friends and family http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22be+good+tanyas%22 returns over 3000 hits (about 200 times as many as the green plastic bag man and comparable to Norman Bethune). Their album is reviewed glowingly at amazon.com [1]. They've recorded sessions for the BBC Radio 3 [2] They played the Glastonbury Festival and the Cambridge Folk Festival, toured the UK, Australia, the US and Europe. Oh, and unlike Dudley Do Right, they actually exist. Now the DW, whats your problem? -- GWO

Also, setting up links after the persons name only serves to clutter and distract. I have no idea what the so-called "protocol", is but all that stuff serves to create an incomprehensible mess. Please keep the master pages clean and instead use the time to provide comprehensive, interesting, and factual encyclopedic linked articles rather than some of the two line blips (example: Nelly Furtado) that tell a reader nothing. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Quality, not quantity counts....DW

I look forward to reading the "comprehensive, interesting, and factual encyclopedic linked articles" you contribute, DW. By the way, are your initials related in any way to the precocious younger sister of Arthur? --Ed Poor

I'm inclined to think that the Be Good Tanyas should not be on this list. It seems to me that Gareth is confusing fame with popularity. The fact is that their first album was only released in 2002. I appreciate that the group has been a hit on the British folk-music circuit, and since I too live in the Vancouver area I can take a little vicarious pride in that fact. Nevertheless, the folk circuit still only has a limited following. A little research would discover many such single album groups in the past. Who remembers the singing policemen, The Brothers in Law, from the 1960s? Fame is more durable than popularity. Eclecticology-

Thank you, Eclecticology, for dealing with the matter at hand. I don't mind if that criteria for fame is applied, but lets apply it equally. If we require enduring fame, should we not also strike

• Jack Kent Cooke (once owned sports team)
• Larry Hanson (how does someone invent green plastic garbage bags? Did he invent garbage bags? plastic? did he colour them green? 21 hits on google.
• Rasmus Lerdorf (fame among geeks outranks fame among folkies, eh?)
• Hume Cronyn (Bit part actor)
• Margot Kidder (mad, bit part actress)
• Paul Horn (respected, talented, but not *famous* by those criteria)
• Steve Nash - Career Highlight: Once ranked 17th in 3pt shooting (Yea, go Steve. Bet Shaq is quaking now) [3]

... well you get the idea

The problem is actually the title of this page, which is complete subjective. As a fan of speed skating, I know all Canadian speed skaters, and they could be famous. However, many Canadians may have never heard of them.

Therefore, I think this should simply be a list of all Canadians that are, for some reason, worthy to be mentioned in Wikipedia. I'd say that the "objectively" famous ones could be listed even if a Wikipedia article does not yet exists, while for the more obscure ones, we should wait for an article to appear. It's OK if the list gets very big, that's what we want, right? Jeronimo

Well that was what was decided last time there was such a dispute, and I agree with it completely. But some seem keen to reopen the debate. -- GWO

Jack Kent Cooke has no article so how do you decide his fame is limited to once owning a sports team? (For the record he owned the LA Kings, too). If and when I do his article, it will be of significance and relative for Canadians plus, given the world travellers who might discover this site, an idea of the accomplishments of a Canadian boy. He has been the subject of numerous Canadian documentaries, magazine, newspaper, TV, & Radio articles. Yanks should remeber that while Canada dwarfs the U.S. in land area, it in fact has 1/10th the population and hence its "famous" (like Steve Nash for just making the NBA) are quite different than ours. Amen! Next, as to the garbage bags, I didn't put them there and will gladly delete them. Finally, your obsession with placing an obscure group named the "Tanyas" etc. who have never had a top 100 hit, never mind a no. 1, have not had a gold record, have never appeared on an major U.S. or Canadian television show, never been dicussed in any national magazine etc. etc. etc. --- in an encyclopedia borders on the ludicrous. Let them become famous first. It is indeed difficult to tolerate certain agendas. I assure you, I can, and will, delete as often as you can paste....DW

Yeah, that's the attidude! If that really is your attitude, you'd better be gone. This is list not yours, no more as it is mine, at least. And your definition of fame is different from mine, and people I know main be totally unknown to you and vice versa. This list is to give an overview of Canadians that have achieved some - any - level of fame. I don't think it's up to anybody to define who's famous and who's not.

And yes, blame everything on the Yanks! Jeronimo

Just because you've not heard of someone doesn't mean they're not famous in their own field. As GWO said himself, the Be Good Tanyas have recorded for BBC Radio 3, and have appeared on a couple of other BBC radio stations as well. Also, I doubt very much that it is true to say that they have "never been dicussed in any national magazine" - I seem to remember something about them in fRoots magazine a while ago. If musicians have to have had number one singles to get on the list, well, it ain't going to be a very long list. Honestly, I don't know why you are wasting your own and other's time with this crusade - the group is well known to people interested in the area of music they play, and should be on the list. I'm going to put them back. --Camembert

And as a point against Eclecticology's argument that there have been many such groups in the past, none of which are remembered - this is very true, but you make the point yourself: none of them are remembered. The BGT's, while I'm not going to claim they're as famous as Neil Young or whoever, do currently have some moderate fame. The wikipedia is dynamic, and if and when we reach a stage when it is really true to say that nobody has heard of them, we can remove them. We don't have to try and guess whether their music will be remembered - if we're going to get uptight about that, I might suggest we remove Nelly Furtado. And I think the argument that the folk music circuit is of limited interest is redundant - I've not heard of 90% of the people on this page, but that's only because I have no interest whatsoever in their various fields. I still think they should be on the list. --Camembert

Still not convinced. My objection is that this is a blatant promotion of an innocuous group who is not yet "famous." Note the photo. And, there are dozens of others with No.1 hits I did not put on this or any other list. (Remember Sheb Wooley or David Seville or the Hollywood Argyles, Bryan Hyland, Gene Pitney, or Canadians Jack Scott and Dan Hill? I could easily add 50 more names. I don't because if you create articles about people who have not yet achieved fame (and never might), then people will give up reading this stuff thereby defeating the purpose of a free knowledge based web site. Those who support the person who put up the "Tanyas" are aiding advertising in an encyclopedia. Instead of arguing, use your timer to create. Note, for the gentleman (men) who said I did nothing, why not do a proper rewrite of poorly done and virtually worthless sights such as Wilhelmina was until I redid it tonight. There are thousands of other sites needing proper work.... be creative, not destructive....DW

The suggestion that the Be Good Tanyas article is "blatant promotion" is ridiculous. In what way is it promotional, exaclty? And what are we supposed to be noting about the photo? It's nice to have photos of article subjects, don't you think? The article just states facts as far as I can see. It's no more promotional of their music than the Ludwig van Beethoven page is of his, but maybe you'd like that removed as well? After all, that has a picture too. The problem seems to be that you are defining "famous" as "somebody I, DW, has heard of", and this just will not do. If you search for "Be Good Tanyas" on Google, you get over 3500 hits (including an article about them in the Guardian newspaper), more than many of the other figures listed on this page. I hope that will convince you they do have some fame, even if you've not heard of them. --Camembert

P.S. For the one who said he/she doesn't know 90% of the names so doesn't read, I have a question. What the hell are you doing looking at a site created for learning?

What I said was that I did not recognise 90% of the names on the list because I was not interested in the fields in which they work. I never said anything about "not reading". How your questions relates to anything I've said, I don't understand. --Camembert

This page is titled (from day one) as FAMOUS Canadians. The "Tanyas" are not, repeat NOT, famous by any standard. Note that someone, wanting the recognition for Canadian authors, made a list of authors who, although not famous, are authors. And, this page appropriately refers to that list so those interested can find it.

Also, including insignifcant people is one of the reasons Wikipedia has not gained credibility and mass public support (see comments by others).

Just out of interest, from what evidence do you make this conclusion. Have people said to you "Well, I was going to use your resource, but there were just too many articles about obscure folk musicians"

In its simplest form, so that those who seem unable to grasp certain realties can understand, if someone new comes across this site and clicks on "Tanyas" as a famous Canadian group, they will abandon this site because it has wasted their time.

Whereas, they'll be filled with joy at the copious information on the "inventor" of the green, garbage, bag, and the former owner of an NFL franchise", presumable

(Similarly that applies to the morons who put in two lines on someone actually famous with no research, or pastes the 1911 antiquated dictionary, or promotes personal agendas or states that Marie Antoinette or Richard the Lionhearted was gay without fact or foundation. More poorly done or incomplete sites for important Americans: Elvis Presley, Robert Kennedy (nothing on Joseph!), Jimmy Carter, Harland Sanders (still crappy even though I just put in his birth/death dates.)

Can I suggest you write these articles, rather than get your panties in a wad about this issue

If however, someone new (who does not wish or cannot afford to pay Brittanica, hits on an article that is well designed (like book publishers, paragraphs should not be half a page long) informative, accurate, and interesting, then they will not only come back to Weikipedia,

You have missed "well spelled" from your list of desirable properties, I see

they will contribute and tell others. Examples of good sites was this one until certain people imposed their views, as well as dozens of my new or added to articles such as: Canadian singer who is in fact very famous and significant, Paul Anka, plus others such as Roy Orbison, Wilhelmina (last night), Henri IV, Place de La Concorde, Saumur, Chinon, Avro Arrow, Chenonceaux, etc. etc. Suggest also you look at Mr. Engels work. It too is accurate, well written, interesting, informative and VALUABLE to an ENCYCLOPEDIA. End of discussion on my part....DW, Esq.

Your cAPS loCK key aPPears tO bE maLfuncTiOning

So, I will not dignify the idiotic Beethoven comment, but will fix things PROPERLY and put your non-famous Tanyas where they belong. Spend your time creating and fixing articles with meaning....DW

Physician. heal thyself. PS: What articles have *you* contributed whilst this debate has been ongoing?' How many have been about non-Canadians, Mr "other people are promoting their own agenda" Parochialist? -- GWO

I will answer this scholarly gentleperson. I am an American citizen and blessed with dual citizenship but born in France. For your intellectual benefit: Orbison, Wilhelmina, Henri IV, Place de La Concorde, Saumur, Chinon, Chenonceaux, are non-Canadian. (Boy do you need a good encyclopedia!) Plus some of my others, Americans: Bobby Darin, Jennifer Warnes, Will Jennings, Sam Phillips / Sun Studios, Jerry Lee Lewis, Glen Hardin, and several more pioneers of rock. Plus another dozen or so U.S. articles on a variety of subjects like authors, Grisham, Steel, and the Triple Crown of Racing et al, or textiles like taslan yarn,(much expansion to come on poor, unresearched input by others). Plus, plus, plus. More non-Canadians, France: ALL of Napoleon's family (with emphasis on the American side), 70% of the Paris link sites plus Montparnasse, Montmartre, (with 99% of the articles on the persons named from Man Ray to Chevalier, Kiki, Saint Denis, more than half of the French monarchs, all the great American, French etc. writers and painters etc. The work on Montparnasse etc., I am very proud.), their cemeteries, and Pere Lachaise with many, many, articles, Passy Cemetery with ALL articles, Recoletta in Argentina, Eva Peron, Fergie's mother, Highgate in London. Want more? I can make a helluva list. And all well done. Read and learn. Unlike some people with a need for attention, I don't bother signing my stuff. I just do it right. Now please speak when you know what ytou are talking about. And, check out each of my articles and tell everyone their deficiencies. Oh yes, tonight I will finish Juliana. The United States page is pathetic, eventually I will have to fix it properly as certain people who have been around Wikipedia much, much, longer than my 2 1/2 months have done nothing. AND, I'm dyslexic so have to work ten times harder than most and re-edit many times every article posted....DW

Note I said "While this debate was going on". Almost none of those edits were over the last two days--GWO

Right. So don't mess with good work, and I'll keep adding more. Like my hard work on American Johnny Cash where I see you added more recent stuff which was 1) well written, 2) informative, 3) added with integrity to a person who is famous.

Remind me why the garbage bag man is famous again?

I didn't put him there. I took the both of them out but some "Tanyas" fan put them back. (Therein lies the problem with Wikipedia that must be accepted). And yes, in the last 24-48 hours I added or fixed a helluva lot. When my brain and eyesight tires, I just do fixer-uppers. For Wilhelmina I had to go all the way to the library and check out a book. Her role for the Dutch and the rest of the world is important. I added Adjani, Cesar Awards, added a bit and fixed a little on Cannes Film Festival, Paul Eluard, plus fixed my previous addition of, Godreche, Marceau, Binoche, and improved Brigitte Bardot a little out of respect for a now grand old lady, and admit to doing nothing more than stare at the photo I added. Also did Charlotte Gainsbourg yesterday, don't ask me why. And others. Believe it or not, I still have a life. Is this enough?....DW

Jeez, you think you're really great, don't you? I have never ever heard of these "Tanyas", but they apparently have done something to deserve an article here. And if they're from Canada, they belong here. Period. And if you think you're so much better than the rest of us and can write better articles, show it in your articles, rather removing an entry from a list - without any reason. That's something that can be done by any moron, and is just plain childish. Jeronimo

I don't really recognise any distinction between "popularity" and "fame" - if somebody is popular, they must also be famous, right? As for adding other obscure figures - I'm with Jeronimo: if they're worthy of an article in the wikipedia and they're Canadian, they're worthy of a listing on this page. As far as I can gather from Google, the Brothers in Law certainly fit the bill, and could be listed here. This is just my opinion of course, but I don't see any other NPOV way of handling pages like this.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if this page were to list only people who were famous to the public at large, but I've not seen anyone yet come up with a way to decide who such people are in a truly NPOV way. Even if it were possible (and it's not a possibility I'm ruling out), I suspect that such a list would have about a dozen people on it, probably all of them in entertainment.

As an afterthought - perhaps the page should be moved to List of notable Canadians or something similar? --Camembert

There needs to be some standardising on this point. Maybe it's an idea to name it Biographical listing of Canadians, or something similar (like Biographical listing). That fixes the "Famous", "notable" problem, and we can just list all Canadians in the Wikipedia, even if they have invented garbage bags or are singing oldtimer country songs. We could then rename all other "famous/noted/etc person from country X" pages in a similar matter.

When I first started contributing to this article last March with Winnie the Pooh, I had the vision of a qualification based on these people having an impact outside of Canada. I proudly admit to being the person who first mentioned green garbage bags; these are now ubiquitous, but few people would know that they were invented by Canadians. I've carefully avoided people whose fame did not significantly extend beyond Canadian borders, e.g. Timothy Eaton.

The entertainment industries (movies, music, sports) are problematical because they depend on a sort of manufactured fame. This is particularly the case of sports figures who don't leave any works behind; George Hainsworth, the greatest NHL goalie of all time is hardly known at all any more.

Some of these problems may sort themselves out when this list is sorted out by category. Authors already have a separate list, and that part of this list can be removed without prejudice to who is on that list. Once the list is divided, perhaps there can be different criteria for who belongs on each of the separate lists. Eclecticology 18:55 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

Ortolan88 called this a model page. Now, certain people seemed determined to screw that up. So, one more time: If you are interested in creating a worthwhile Encyclopedia, THAT ATTRACTS USERS AND PARTICIPANTS (Which it has had very little success doing to date) then listing every Tom, Dick, and Harry who recorded a record (The government owned and operated BBC, like the CBC, will put anyone on the air) as "Famous" will defeat the purpose. Too, changing the page(s) to "Notable list" etc. drives people away because they simply cannot open and close hundreds of articles to read about someone who turns out to be of little or no interest or fame. However, anyone, from any country will appreciate and utilize a page that tells (leaning & knowledge) about its truly famous citizens accomplishments. Keep adding fringe personalities etc. and you will keep turning visitors off, something that has happened since the inception of this project, which, by the way, is partially funded by a group of psychologists conducting research on the guinea pigs who log in....DW

While I strongly agree with the concept of limiting this page to Canadians known outside of their own country, I think it is important to the national psyche of most nations, particularly Canadians, to tell others (proudly) who they are and why in their country Timothy Eaton was important, although I would add an epitaph for old Timothy that says: family all killed by the Walton boys!....DW

Nobody here is determined to screw things up. Why should Yyou make out who's a famous Canadian? Nobody should. Why limit a list of Canadians to those people there currently? For no reason at all. As an encyclopedia, we strive to be complete and objective. Fame is not a very objective measure, and we can therefore only strive to include everybody that is, in any way, famous and from Canada. J. "Guinea Pig" Heijmans

On the basis of your comments I shall proceed to add at least 6,437 other "famous" Canadians helping to make sure newcomers don't join in and guaranteeing a continued LACK OF VALIDITY to the site. Ask yourself why it isn't successful, even after a NYT article. Could be that someone from the times clicked on Wikipedia great Enclopedia of information and searched the impressive entry for the Washington Post.

I guess I should start a list of famous Unificationists :-) --Ed Poor

No reason not to - just look at all the fun you can have ;-) --Camembert

A) What has the Washington Post got to do with this? B) If you'd had read my earlier comments: I think we should, in principle, only add links here if the article on that person already exists. We could make an exception for very famous persons, as they are likely to get (or actually must get) an article in the near future. C) Sure, Wikipedia's not finished. It probably never will. But we'll never get any closer if you keep calling people guinea pigs and keep complaining. Jeronimo

DW, let me ask you another straightforward question (and I apologise in advance if you've answered it elsewhere) - what do you think the criteria should be for a) an entry in the wikipedia; and b) a listing on this page? I ask this because it seems you have a quite different view of what should and shouldn't be in the wikipedia from most other contributors, and I'm just trying to work out what that idea might be. --Camembert

First to Jeronimo. My spouse's family are Dutch, chocolate makers from Haarlem. I have always considered the Dutch a very bright peoples. You are doing a great job convincing me otherwise.

Second: --Camembert I don't have the answer, but common sense says if the person makes an IMPACT in their country. Plus, I think Canadians are best qualified to put forth who is important to them and by doing a well researched article, tell the world why. Exanmple of impact: Matt Stairs is an ordinary baseball player in America, certainly not worth mentioning in an American encyclopedia. However, when telling the world on Wikipedia about Canada, then he is important because making it to the ML is a huge feat in Canada, particularly, isolated New Brunswick. In his hometown they had a "Matt Stairs" day, there is a "Stairs Street", he is in their N.B. sports Hall of Fame. So, for Atlantic Canada and the country, that he made it to the big leagues and did pretty good, is significant to Canadians. Therefore, when Mohammed Al Kazeer logs on, he just might understand a little of who Canadians are, what values they have etc. I have found numerous Wikipedia articles from other countries on people I never heard of but, after reading it, realize I should have or at a minimum am glad I now do. My "thing" is that this can be a great opportunity to present a "free" (there are quite a few poor folk out there, logging in on a free setup in a village in Northwestern India), and I think not only will they learn about the U.S., Canada etc., it will help develop understanding, something that 911 made clear we need. Example, read the history of the Catholic Church, its rules, power, acts, and evolution over the centuries and draw parallels about power, manipulation in the name of religion (including present day extreme fundamentalists in various religions around the world.) And, I'm not talking about criticising, but understanding. Example, the Huguenots were not quite the oppressed in France as we were taught. I ramble, so, take a look at the 20 most popular sights and you will see who is contributing what to Wikipedia. I'm simply trying to keep it tidy, easy to read and educational.....DW

No, I'm not Dutch, I'm a guinea pig. Anyway, you're confirming my view that most Americans are morons, thank you for that. Getting back to the point, keeping everything simple is not our target. Our target is to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias tell everything about everything. They're also unbiased (well, we try). That means we try not to exclude anything. We're not here to satisfy your or my personal views of famous Canadians. Nope, were here to list famous Canadians. And the only encyclopedic way to do that is listing all that are in Wikipedia (plus a few that really ought to be here). Jeronimo

Who is the "our" you keep referring to, Jeronimo? I am also a Canadian citizen. And once more, you have done your best to change my opinion of the Dutch, although that might be hard because I try to listen to RNI most late nights.

"Our" refers to the Wikipedia project. The goal of that project is to build a free encyclopedia, which everybody can edit. Jeronimo

So long as they edit your way.

You can be sure that Wikipedia woudl be quite different if everything would go my way - but it doesn't, and I actually like that. I do try to influence the encyclopedia by editing it and discussing articles like this, but that's what every contributor does. I'd like to settle this issue with a normal, civilised, discussion, but your attitude "just put the Tanyas back, and I'll revert it in no time" and habit of calling people "not very bright" and "guinea pigs", and your are of superiority make it difficult for me to respect your point of view. Jeronimo

Who asked? Please don't.

Please don't do what? Jeronimo

In general, it's useful in lists like this to either write a short article about people you list, or put a brief phrase after the name, something like "publisher" or "second baseman". Vicki Rosenzweig

Notice: I am trying to restore what was once described as a model page to some sense of reality and have done so with a compromise situation previously used (and accepted) for authors. However, it keeps getting changed by the person hiding behind the Jeronimo name, which with my limited knowledge is the name of the Madrid Church where the outcast Dutch Princess Irene married Carlos Hugo, a Spanish fan of Hitler and a fascist supporter of the butcher Franco. (On second thought, Jheijmans??? "alternative" name that he likes does seem appropriate). Regretfully, hesheit is someone who knows nothing of Canada and as best I can see nothing of the Netherlands where hesheit claims to reside. It is sad that moronic, fascist behaviour has to be tolerated, but in this day and age after seeing the destruction of extremists who have only their point of view for others to abide by, it is unacceptable. So, to the fake Jeronimo, I promise to keep changing it back until it is left that way or others offer better solutions than complete fascist idiocy.

Thank you, I hate you too. Jeronimo

If you think someone on the list of Canadian Musicians should be in the Famous list, move them and put a note why you think so. My view is that to be famous you have an impact, and last. Currently Avril Lavigne or Nellie Furtado are still one-hit wonders and might be like Dan Hill who had a Billboard number one for weeks but then disappeared. Time will tell if they are famous. Some of the opera singers are virtually unknown in Canada, never mind the rest of the world and I am an opera buff. And, some of the names viewers may not know, they will appreciate and learn about as their article is completed. Just adding names of someone you like is unacceptable in an encyclopedia and this is absolutely set up as an encyclopedia, not a directory of everyone who ever existed...DW

Once again, you do not define fame. Persons are famous when they're known by others. Encyclopedias acknowledge that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Jeronimo

If anybody wishes to stand up and support this intolerant fascist behaviour being imposed on the people of a country he knows nothing about and whose contribution to Wikipedia has a definite tone and mission, please do so.

And one more thing. I am a Canadian citizen who set up this page and have done 90% of the articles. This fascist who wishes to impose hesheits views begs the question why and what contribution has hesheit made to the page? ...DW

You're Canadian. Fine, so you can write about Canadians. That's great. But that doesn't mean non-Canadians cannot write or say anything about pages regarding Canadians.

You've done a lot of work on this page. Great! But you don't own the page, nor do own Wikipedia - neither do I. So, we both have the rights to discuss what should be here and what not. Jeronimo

Oh, and by the way: if I were a fascist, as you claim, why don't I just ban you, or block the page? I can do that, you know. But I won't. Jeronimo

What's to discuss? Camembert now says he supports you and yesterday you (Jeronimo) called Americans "morons". Now we understand exactly who we should discuss with. You have made not one single contribution to this page except to adopt your fascist attitude and impose your views. That dear sir, is indeed fascist attitudes and your choice of nickname and pretense of Dutch residency doesn't fit. You are lazy on top of everything. Your contribution to a CANADIAN (and yeas Canadians are in fact more qualified to speak) is zilch. All I see from you is racism and fascist training that promotes a domination of the world...DW

Excuse me? Please check my list of contributions from my user page to see what edits I've done. Also, I've put in an article on Clara Hughes, who is, yes, Canadian. Please tell me exactly what you mean by fascist attitudes, because I don't get it. If anything's remotely "fasicst", it's claiming that you are the only one that has the right to edit this page. Jeronimoe

--- Calling Americans "morons" says it all. So please go away and let people (me and others) do a proper job so that when people stumble across Wikipedia they won't be turned off by blatant, boastful self-declared racists like you...DW Esq. Also proud to hold American citizenship.

You may recall that I said "morons" after you had already called me a "guinea pig" and "not very bright", so if I'm fascist, racist, and what else you're going to come up next, that also applies to you. However, this name calling is just childish, do you also have real, valid, arguments? Jeronimo

If it helps at all... even I have heard of some of these people and I, like

most Americans, ignore Canada. If they're actually from Canada, then they are

indeed famous Canadians. Especially Loreena McKennitt, Nelly Furtado,

Sarah McLachlan, etc. I don't listen to them, but I have heard of them.

I think that makes them famous, at least for awhile. -- jazz77

What's all the fuss about? If they are Canadien and famous they should be listed here. There also appears to be violations of of etiquette policy by statements like "American hater Osama bin Jeronimo" or "deleting again names that a a self-declared racist keeps insisting hesheit wants". I suggest both sides cool down before the page is protected from editing or somebody gets temporarily blocked from editing. --mav

Maybe it's the weather or something, but it seems as though today is going to be remembered as the Day of the Edit Wars... Modemac

Oh? Where are the others? --mav

Check out the Jehovah's Witnesses debacle. :) Modemac

Jeronimo: Dear racist: "guinea pig" ? now you have added to your SELF-DECLARED RACISt intellect an inability to read or understand Canadian/American/English terminology. Be a good boygirlit and stop hiding on the Internet to proclaim your racist anti-American degradations. Just go away. Sometimes it's best to admit you don't have the ability to grasp the big picture. I haven't seen a great rush of support for your racist remarks despite the huge number logging on...DW

Have you got any arguments that don't include the words "fascist" and "racist"? If so, let's hear them. Jeronimo

mav are you suggesting that people should accept racist remarks and declaring your support of fascist behaviour that imposes a will on a page with which they have zero knowledge..DW

Racism? Fascism? Is there evidence for this? Please stop the abusive rhetoric and offer some valid points on why these people shouldn't be listed. IMO the deletion of content which is prima facie OK is fascist and exclusionary. --mav

MAV: Don't talk without reading facts. I will follow the Main page and delte endlessly anything that is unwarranted in an encyclopedia unril the name of this project is changed to lists of everything. And, I do take exception to racists and don't want them around. If you support the SELF DECLARED RACIST Jeronimo just say so. Don't pussyfoot around issues or divert from reality. Ask yourself why this project has so little participation and then look at the comments by racists like Jeronimo and you will know why people click away and don't participate. Too, I don't sign my many articlles but racists who wish to dominate make accusations of non participation but then when I point out my VERY HIGH QUALITY, NUMEROUS worthwhile articles, this Amercian-hater says I'm bragging and mocks my efforts. That sure is encouaging to newccomers to the site. And no I will not hide. I will fight racism and fascist dominiation and imposing wills to the bitter end.

Look at the number of viewers who have looked in on this "discussion" and ask yourself where is the self-proclaimed racist's support? ....DW

Please indicate just WHERE anyone has proclaimed that they're racist in this discussion? -- Zoe 23:39 Oct 12, 2002 (UTC)

Again you fail to state any evidence for this and continue to make what seems to be unfounded and unfair accusations. And the "so little participation" comment is bizarre; in the last 10 months we have grown from 700 edits per day to about 4,000 and have increased from 10,000 articles to over 50,000 aricles. You also fail to state any facts on why the material should be excluded. --mav

I would like to invoke Godwins Law at this point. DW's specious nonsense is wandering way over the boundaries of good taste at this juncture. user:sjc

If someone claiming to be a student in the Netherlands, and using a handle that is directly symbolic of fascism and an insult to any Dutch person over the age of 40, calling an entire nation morons is not blatant racism then what is?

And, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to input as many names as one can think of, but to compile an encyclopedia of learning. Look at the top fifty sights and several alone will turn off new viewers. Then, look at the numerous articles that are little more than two lines. Example (again I'm pointing this out) The Washington Post, Prince Willem-Alexander (I finished his grandmother, factually and properly today). What moron, racist, and I repeat MORON RACIST Jeronimo did was see a recent change that called this a MODEL PAGE and suddenly appeared to speak on behalf of all Wikipedians telling a Canadian who actually knows what he is talking about, who or who isn't famous and how to set up a page according to HISHERIT'S rules. And, when someone points out that HESHEIT is wrong, and another says they will add an endless list of "famous" Canadians, racist Jereonimo calls Americans MORONS. Those are the exact words Americans have heard from extremists whose mission it is is to control the world, forcing freedom loving people to do things THEIR way. I say crap and refuse to this or anyone who avoids the issue....DW

P.S. Read this page and you will see the articles I have posted. If you think these are not VERY WORTHWHILE contributions, or that my creation of a page referred to as a "MODEL PAGE" is not a reasonable basis for my complaining about people who call me and ALL Americans morons under a fascist loving alias, then say so and I will abandon this project and you can rely on Jeronimo and the type of friends he attracts to contribute to this project. HE IS A SELF PROFESSED RACIST, no ifs, ands or buts....DW

By the way, MAV, I repeat what I wrote earlier on this page that you should have read before commenting: It is quality that counts and draws people to use and participate on this sight, not quantity....DW

So someone makes additions to a long list of names. Big deal. Many worse things than that have happened on Wikipedia, and very little of it has been racist. Modemac

DW, I'm sure Jeronimo can speak for himself, and I apologise to him for cutting in, but I can't help myself:

1. Your suggestion that the name "Jeronimo" has a direct link to Fascisism is bizarre and wrong. A Google search for the name shows that many things carry that name, none of them with a link to Franco that I can see. As far as I can make out, it's a pretty common Spanish name, the equivalent of the English "Jerome".
2. Jeronimo said that you were doing a good job of convincing him that all Americans were morons. This was in response to a comment by yourself that he was beginning to convince you that all Dutch people were idiots. What he said wasn't half as bad as the things you've been accusing people of. I think his comments have been completely understandable considering your extremely aggresive tone.
3. You have contributed some worthwhile articles. Well done. So has everybody else who has posted on this page. That fact does not give you, or anyone else, the right to indulge in random name calling. Nor does it give you the right to hijack this or any other article.
4. (This is the real crux of the matter, or at least it should be) The issue, which you seem to be keen to avoid by name calling, is who should be listed in this article. You have been asked, by numerous people on numerous ocassions, to state how you propose to decide which people are famous enough to merit inclusion on this page. You've not answered this. To me it seems to be a reasonable request. If there is a neutral way to decide who should and shouldn't be on this page other than "anybody with an article in the wikipedia", then I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.
5. I am getting completely fed up with this whole farce. If you want to leave the project, then clear off. --Camembert

Well Camembert, you too make statements but don't bother to read. I already said "Impact", I said no one-hit-wonders or personal favourites or advertisements like the "Tanyas". Since the RACIST attacked 1) this page, and 2) me, and 3) all Americans, there has been a 50% increase in the number of hits that amounts to more than 200 accesses. Now, you have voted with words without thought. So let's hear from others. Also, "SOME worthwhile articles" -- its more than 200 in 2 1/2 months: and I repeat because you comment without reading: All well researched, all checked, all worthwhile, and written in an informative manner and I do my best to present them in publication form that makes them easy to read and do my best to make them interesting. And, contrary to the unwarranted insult by Jeronimo on Americans that you have now pronounced your acceptance of, I don't degrade others efforts. Incompetence, someone truly famous once said, comes disguised in many forms...DW

I just checked your page and see you listed sights that you think need improvement. Perhaps Jeronimo could help out instead of tearing apart a MODEL PAGE. Please, go to one of my articles (My favourites are Roy Orbison and Montparnasse, Montmartre, their cemeteries, plusPere Lachaise and everyone mentioned in them because I did most. Plus on the Famous Canadian page, 90% of the articles.) and critique them. Then, compare with the fine wisdom of someone claiming to be in the Netherlands who has nothing better to do than tell Canadians who should be famous....DW Goodnight.

I'm going to ignore all the irrelevencies and stick to the point: you have already said "impact", yes, but "impact" is just as difficult to judge as "fame". So now I'll ask: how do you judge "impact" in a neutral way? --Camembert

Well, I'm an American, and I certainly don't feel attacked by anything anyone has said on this subject except for you, DW, who are throwing around ridiculous terms like fascist and racist, and yet will NOT explain just what makes Jeronimo either of those things. You're annoying and embarrassing. -- Zoe

DW, we are still waiting for any arguement on why the people you don't want listed shouldn't be listed. --mav

DW, I actually don't want to say anything about this, but I faintly have some hope that you may get reasonable.

1. My handle "Jeronimo" is, as Camembert already correctly pointed out, a "Spanish"-like version of my name. That's just as fascist as "DW" is an abbreviation of "Deutsche Wehrmacht" - if you want to see it as fascist, go ahead. I hope for you you'll never get to know real fascism.
2. I really am from the Netherlands. I don't think I have to give any proof for that, but you can check all my edits to Netherlands-related articles
3. I indeed said "Anyway, you're confirming my view that most Americans are morons, thank you for that.". However, that was not after you started calling me similar names. Maybe that was childish, but you reaction even more so. If that makes me a racist in your eyes, so be it.
4. No matter how omniscient, Canadian, or expert you are, you have not the monopoly on editing this article. That's a fact. If you don't like that, don't come to Wikipedia.
5. You cannot reasonable assume that you will be the one that defines which person is a famous Canadian, and who's not. Being famous is unquantifiable, and not objective. As such, there's no way to tell whether the "Be Good Tanyas" are any more famous than James Naismith. Having an unlimited amount of space, and an unlimited ambition of a being the best encyclopedia, there's no reason why Wikipedia should not list both of them.
6. We are all trying to be decent here. There's been lots of occasions where I disagree with policy or with a specific article. However, civilised discussion or majority opinion convince me of the way to go, even if I don't always personally agree. But this is not my or your personal project, it's a community project. If you don't want to work in a community, or don't want to follow its rules, you'd better leave.

I'd like to say I support everything Jeronimo says above; also, see below. --Larry Sanger

I am going to jump in here for several reasons, mainly because I think Wikipedia is a wonderful concept that should not be lost. At the outset I must state that this is not the first time DW has taken a stand on policy that resulted in a large disagreement. And, a few of the same names from what appears to be a small clique have showed up to insert comments that add nothing to the issue at hand. This would tend to point to people who had to yield to DW before because she/he was right and now want to "win". After DW took on another person on Wikipedia policy a month or so ago, I followed her/him as best possible because she/he does not log in to take credit for her/his articles. I agreed with DW the last time but also wanted to see if she/he was actually a positive contributor to Wikipedia or someone who likes to nitpick, rightly or wrongly. After reading her/his articles, and seeing the fixups she/he makes, in my opinion this website needs people like DW and I will support her/him again on important issues that I agree with. Every article that I could find by DW was exceptionally well done and the kind of article on a worthy subject that draws new users/contributors to Wikipedia instead of turning them away.

DW's point about quantity is absolutely valid and of extreme significance. Her/his articles are indeed excellent and I dare say a good model for others as someone else suggested. Suggest you go to Tabitha King and see the totally inaccurate and useless information some lazy person proudly "counts" as an "encyclopedia article." Creating a few lines of useless, totally inaccurate input like this is what I think DW is complaining about. And there are thousands more. She/he keeps trying to tell you that this is an encyclopedia but from the comments on this page it seems the 300-year-old continually used design and content from the first encyclopedia printed in Scotland or Bayle's French version, has been altered by a select few. My suggestion is to use modern technology to make this the very best ever.

DW: I hope the site hasn't lost you. If not, please make a list of everything you do so these people (and newcomers) will understand how it can be done and by virtue of its content, how articles justify being of enough importance to include in an encyclopedia.

Having downloaded this page to read it carefully, I will state that DW said nothing offensive to Jeronimo other than a mild statement of frustration after what she/he (plus I and others I have e-mailed about this page) thought were childish and ridiculous responses by Jeronimo. And, Jeronimo did not call DW a moron, which would have been bad enough, but Jeronimo called Americans morons. That is in fact racism and any excusing or distortion of that fact is unacceptable and unworthy. Also, I seriously doubt Jeronimo's claim to being from the Netherlands, unless he/she is a recent immigrant who does not read, listen to the radio, watch TV, or talk to anyone. Even then, Jeronimo should know the significant bond between the Dutch Royal Family and the Dutch people that is unlike any other in the world. (While I'm at it, thank you DW for the informative and factual rewrite on Queen Juliana.) The single most important public event in the Netherlands in the last few decades was this years (2002) marriage of the Crown Prince (not Pim Fortuyn's murder) that rekindled old wounds over his mother's and two of his aunts' marriages that caused massive and sustained rioting in the streets in the past. Using the pseudonym "Jeronimo" is, as DW stated, not something any Dutch citizen would ever do. For 200+ years, no American would name their child "Benedict," and no Canadian will now name a daughter "Karla." Nor does anyone in 2002 from their respective country use those names as their Internet alias. Someone full of anger, hate or with racist intent from another country might. Even in the 21st century religion still divides. We all know what happened in the name of religion on 9/11, but witness Northern Ireland and the "Orangemen" marches and ensuing violence. The Netherlands House of Orange is a symbol of Protestantism, the Constitution forbids the Royal family from marrying a Catholic and, fascism is most definitely the bogeyman of this very small nation. DW already explained why the name Jeronimo was inappropriate for any Dutch person to use, yet people on this page did not read it, and, did not research what she/he said but ranted that DW had made false claims. The name Jeronimo is symbolic to the Dutch of the Pope's nearly 1,000 year domination and the fascism of Hitler and his confrere, Franco. DW explained that. But, I called my aunt who is married to a Dutch immigrant farmer to verify that and in fact, DW is right and therefore I must question Jeronimo's claims to being Dutch and anything else he/she says.

Has not insulted me? If you just press the history button for this article and the talk page, you'll see a number of "fascist"/"racist" remarks, and comparisons with Nazis and Osama Bin Laden. I really don't care about this, since DW's some far away person I'll never meet, but I think it falls in the category "name calling". If you doubt that I live in the Netherlands, I invite you for a nice chat here in Eindhoven, were I live. Come on over here, and I'll show you how Dutch I am. I have never heard that the name Jeronimo has anything to do with fascism whatsoever, and I have never ever heard any other complaints about it. Even if it would have some links: I don't care. Jeronimo

Further, pride in country is quite evident in Wikipedia. I cannot see where Jeronimo did anything (please correct me if I missed it) with respect to the Dutch Royal Family in the year of the controversial future King's marriage that dominated the Dutch media for more than a 18 months. I note that Jeronimo never touched the Royal Dutch Shell article that claimed the company was formed as a part of the breakup of Standard Oil. (It is unbelievably stupid articles such as this that causes Wikipedia to instantly lose credibility.) By the log in number, I am almost certain that it was DW who fixed this error on Shell, and as she/he stated, redid completely a very poor article on Queen Juliana, by far the Dutch peoples most beloved person.

Please explain me why I should work on Dutch royal articles, or on the Shell page? I've worked a lot on many Netherlands-related articles, and also on many non-Netherlands articles. Your contributions-list for the last month shows only two edits. Please shut up and go write articles. I'm not even responding to the rest of your talk, since - incorrectly - attacking me on such nonsense doesn't even make me want to read your talk. Jeronimo

Finally, what DW is trying to tell everyone is that cluttered pages, filled with names that are not significant (well-written articles automatically show why they are significant) turns people away from a Wikipedia sight that has the potential to be nothing less than great. I note, in support of DW's desires, that the list of "Famous French People", is always near the top of the most popular sights. Examine it, and you will see that it does not list a musician or group who recorded their first record in 2002 and are scarcely known by anyone other than a small group who are focused on a particular genre. I was in Place du Tertre (I think this is a DW page, too) this summer and could add at least 50 artists names to this French list who are "famous" by the definition subscribed to by some on this page. The same thing applies to French writers, and so on. If someone starts adding similar "non-famous" names to the France list as were placed on the Canadian list, then people will stop exploring it. Using one's time to open and read an article on a "famous" musician etc. that is little more than a new band that "golly, I saw at a club and really like," will turn people away from the France sight and its persistent popularity on Wikipedia will drop like a stone. That would be a shame, because this France sight is a true resource for knowledge and a way for people to tell the world who they are, what their values are, and where they fit. I for one, very much want to learn more about every other country, its peoples, its institutions and the like. Articles on Botswana's famous people can only be written by someone who has/did live there or studied the country extensively for years and has the capacity to write the article so that a reader from another corner of the world can understand why they are famous. Similarly, DW says she/he is Canadian. I certainly think that for Wikipedia to have credibility, (and it currently does not) that the vast majority of "famous Canadian" articles should be placed by experts or Canadians who are the only persons who would know who is famous in their country and in the article content can demonstrate why.

What has happened to Wikipedia is that outsiders see a small group taking control of the site while other diligent participants say nothing about the stupidity and quietly go about doing their best. It seems to me that DW has rocked the boat of a small group, desperate to keep control. Having checked the contributions to various sites, those that I objectively consider as serious and well done were all created by people who have not criticized DW nor supported Jeronimo. That there are only 2-3 who criticized her/him in itself tells you something.

To demonstrate what I think DW is trying to avoid, take the famous authors and add the multitude of names in the "List of Canadian writers" and you will see the huge mess of irrelevant results that makes newcomers to Wikipedia scorn its value. See Google where the searches are prioritized because none of us reads the two thousand articles that come up. At best we read a few, and quickly exit the article if it is poorly written, amateurish etc. The same thing applies to Wikipedia and care is needed as to who we insert because any list cannot be automatically prioritized. Calling them "Famous Canadians " is a way of saying that the page has been prioritized but after that it depends on common sense and knowledge of the country or subject. Let someone looking under Famous Canadians click on three or four "famous person" articles like the "Be Good Tanyas" that DW objected to, and they will exit real quick. Because the France Famous List hasn't been polluted (yet), it remains worthwhile and very, very, popular. Famous Canadians with well-written articles like those DW says she/he did, should be given a chance to be as equally informative, as can be Nigeria, Jamaica, New Zealand and so on.

As to who is famous? My dictionary says: "Widely known and esteemed." Nevertheless, I think it was one of the United States Supreme Court Justices who said about pornography: I can't define it, but I sure know it when I see it.. (Something like that) Jeronimo, you are for certain not qualified to determine who is famous in Canada but if you want this encyclopedia to be a turnoff to anyone new logging on, then keep up with your kind of racist talk which to me comes across as childishness based on nothing more than an innate need for attention and to control, not decent as you now claim. And DW? If you need support from others, I will invite them ...Elliot

I removed Matthew Perry because someone from the U.S. (Zoe?) pointed out awhile ago that he was born in the U.S. He lived in Canada for awhile but was never a citizen and returned home to the states to make his fame. I agree, he cannot be claimed as "Canadian."

Why not compromise and say "(was raised in Canada)" if the Canadians want to claim him?

I and I'm sure most others reading this agree entirely that Wikipedia might become something really great. See my essays on Meta-Wikipedia for strong agreement. The whole question, however, is how it might become something great. Not by killing the goose that lays the golden eggs: Wikipedia has succeeded as well as it has so far precisely because it is open and not exclusive. This doesn't mean that Wikipedia couldn't be supplemented by another, more exclusive project, like Nupedia. (In fact, Wikipedia began as a supplement to Nupedia.) If you care so much about that, then by all means, join Nupedia-L and try to get the project started again. I wish I had the time for that, myself. I'm serious about this suggestion, by the way. I really do think Nupedia might be a better place for you. (I'm not just saying this to make a rhetorical point.)

Also, you are not the first people to have observed that Wikipedia is full of a lot of substandard material. That's obvious to any reasonably intelligent person, which means, I think, every single person reading this. I personally have gone off about it many times. I've often said that yez shouldn't write about stuff that you really don't know or haven't done adequate research about; don't guess, do check your facts, and so forth. So there's no need to flog that point: you're preaching to the choir.

I think you'll also find that most regulars think that we should do the best we can, and that we should not add stuff that we know is substandard. Or, if we do, we should feel guilty about it. :-) If that were your point (I suspect it isn't), then rest assured that most of us agree with it.

You both seem to have concluded, from the obvious fact that Wikipedia contains a lot of dross, something that is totally unobvious. Namely, that people who think they know better should basically hijack pages about which they think they know better, and prevent others from making any edits at all. This might be a warranted attitude in other contexts, but it isn't in Wikipedia. And as someone else said above: this isn't a statement of opinion; it's a statement of fact. It's one of the defining features of Wikipedia that Wikipedia is open to everyone and that no one "owns" a page. Again, if you don't like this, then Wikipedia isn't the project for you. You aren't going to change that aspect of the project. If you think you can, you clearly haven't been working on the project long enough.

Now, in this context, if your aim is to improve the quality of Wikipedia, the rational approach--i.e., a best choice of means to achieve this aim--is to make changes boldly, but also to treat other people, with whom you must work (if you do want to participate), with respect. There is some talk that DW helped drive away someone whom I thought was one of the most valuable members of the project, JK. But if you really do care about the quality of this project, then you'll work hard to keep the most knowledgable, smartest people involved. This means treating them--and, by extension, everyone--with respect.

(Hint: respect entails not acting like an insufferable know-it-all.)

Finally, Elliot, you write:

What has happened to Wikipedia is that outsiders see a small group taking control of the site while other diligent participants say nothing about the stupidity and quietly go about doing their best. It seems to me that DW has rocked the boat of a small group, desperate to keep control.

Huh? I don't see this at all. What is the group that is "desperate to keep control"? Who's in it and who's not? (Am I in it?) I kind of suspect you've made a bad inference, something like this:

1. There is a lot of dross in Wikipedia.
2. Occasionally, some people stubbornly defend dross that should actually be changed.
3. Therefore, there's a small group of people who actually favor keeping what is in fact substandard material.

The conclusion, of course, just doesn't follow, though the premises are perfectly true. Granted, you might have (or think you have) other reasons to believe the conclusion, but it seems pretty obviously false to me. Just because there are people who defend bad material doesn't mean they constitute a group of people committed to mediocrity. There are certainly people who are more tolerant of mediocre than I am, but what we agree upon is that we can and probably should (and eventually will) do better.

Anyway, the better explanation of the situation is that DW acted, to put it nicely, rudely, and he was treated in kind, and as a result positions solidified.

A better approach is described in Wikipetiquette, which I encourage you to read and, if you disagree, criticize.

Elliot also writes:

Having checked the contributions to various sites, those that I objectively consider as serious and well done were all created by people who have not criticized DW nor supported Jeronimo. That there are only 2-3 who criticized her/him in itself tells you something.

I think you'll find the vast majority of regulars condemn, to one degree or another, DW's reported rudeness and tendency to alienate many of those with whom he comes into contact. This obviously doesn't impugn whatever good work he happens to have done, but his good work also wouldn't excuse such an attitude.

Just by the way, occasionally I've been overly harsh in criticizing people for what I thought was bad work, particularly in philosophy (since that's what I happen to know most about). There's a fine line that has to be walked between, on the one hand, articulating what one thinks are reasonable standards, and how an article failed to meet them, and on the other hand, plain old rudeness and cussedness. I'm pretty sure it's possible to achieve the former without the latter, though lawd knows I've failed upon several occasions. :-)

--Larry Sanger

Mr. Sanger: You said:I think you'll find the vast majority of regulars condemn, to one degree or another, DW's reported rudeness and tendency to alienate many of those with whom he comes into contact. This obviously doesn't impugn whatever good work he happens to have done, but his good work also wouldn't excuse such an attitude. Could you tell everyone upon what accurate scientific or philosophical basis it was that allowed you to arrive at that decision? Also, DW has drawn more attention to this sight in one day than others in many months. Plus, many new and yes, in my opinion, famous names have been added, some even with articles. Is it possible she/he knows more than we think?

The quoted sentences contain an opinion, not a decision. (So you can feel free to ignore it!) For which part do you want a "scientific or philosophical basis," that you could not find in my first post? "DW has drawn more attention to this sight in one day than others in many months." Huh? He has? That's news to me. Anyway, this notion, that DW "knows more than we think," is totally beside the point, obviously. I don't care how much he knows; that doesn't contradict the points I was making. --Larry Sanger

Just a note to whoever added the response two paragraphs above this - could you sign your posts please? It reads like it was Elliot, but was added by a not-logged-in IP number which is virtually identical to one DW has posted under, so it's rather confusing... --Camembert

This is turning into quite a soap-opera. I would like to point out two things: Being Dutch, I would like make clear that Elliot and DW are talking complete and utter nonsense about "Jeronimo" supposedly being a name the Dutch have strong sentiments against. It is a complete fabrication. The wedding of Princess Irene was a 1960s controversy (and even then really only in the ever-dwindling protestant population) and is hardly remembered these days. Both are factually wrong on a very significant point: Irene married Carlos in Rome, not Madrid, so where DW and Elliot get the link with "Jeronimo" (supposedly the name of a Madrid church) from is unclear. The major issue was not that Carlos was supposedly a fascist (I've never heard of him being one, even if it was during Franco's regime), but with her conversion to Catholicism and the fact that Carlos was a pretendent to the Spanish throne, both of which were felt to be incompatible with the Dutch constitution at the time. The crisis was resolved and is ancient history nowadays. Also, Princess Juliana is not the most popular member of the Royal family, which would be kind of difficult as she hasn't been seen in public for I don't know how many years. Both are claiming to have asked a Dutch relative as some sort of verification (which I doubt), but I must categorically state that they're both talking bollocks when it comes to the Netherlands and the sentiments of the Dutch people.

Second, I think we have to entertain the likely possibility that Elliot and DW are one and the same, or closely related. Both have very similar IP addresses in the 209.105.200.xxx domain. We know that DW's IP is a dynamic one and the last number changes from edit to edit and it could very well be that "Elliot" is just a second useraccount. Also notice that both misspell "site" as "sight" and they seem to use it as an alternate name for "article". Elliot seems to be extremely adolising of DW, approving of everything DW has done, and he makes the same assumptions and factual mistakes he makes (see above). DW/Elliot has certainly proved to be unscrupulous enough do to such a thing IMO. Scipius 21:17 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC)

I was just about to state the exact same suspicion, but you beat me to it. The soap opera keeps getting better :-)AxelBoldt 22:11 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC)

Rather than focus on DW's painfully inadequate cooperation skills, let's talk about the issue at hand. I actually tend to agree with him/her: a list of famous Canadians should indeed only contain famous people, not everybody who happens to be Canadian and happens to have a Wikipedia article. That would be a list of Canadians with Wikipedia articles. Obviously, there's no hard definition of famousness -- virtually no word in the English language has a hard definition. Yet, clearly, the concept of "famousness" is a quite useful one. Couldn't we agree on some imperfect but quick standard of "number of google hits"? AxelBoldt 22:26 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC)

Well, as I've said before, I really don't mind the idea of this page being only truly famous people if we can come up with a good way to decide who is truly famous. The problem with using Google, I think, is that it is going to prefer contemporary entertainers and computer geeks to 19th century figures or particle physicists. I don't think that would be very satisfactory. On the other hand, I guess "fame" is judged by what you might call the "local public" - meaning that who is famous in the UK (note in not from) is decided by UK citizens, who is amongst French speakers is decided by French speakers, who is famous in the world is decided by everybody - and you could say that our "local public" are internet users. But then on the, er, third hand, there's going to be a problem with people with common names. I mean, I might say the great 1960s kazoo player John Smith is tremendously famous, and sure enough, a search on his name comes up with 343,000 hits, so he must be! So maybe it's not such a bad idea, and perhaps it's better than nothing, but I do have reservations. I'll try running some names through Google and see what it comes up with. I'll report my findings later. (by the way - can we trim the size of this page down? it's taking me a minute to save a revision) --Camembert

Well, we have to come up with some standard of famousness, if the title of this page is to make any sense. I claim that "somebody is famous if and only if they have a Wikipedia article" is a very poor definition that doesn't capture the general meaning of the concept. Google is imperfect as you noted, but has the advantage of being easily accessible, and arguably closer to the truth. Yet a better criterion would be to use some full-indexed newspaper article database and count the occurrances of a name. I don't think there is a free database like that on the web though. The best definition I can think of would have us perform a complete survey of all humans, asking whether they have heard about the person. The better the definitions get, the less practical they are. AxelBoldt 00:35 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

Ah, but I don't think this page should mention the word "famous" in its title at all (I'm not sure what the alternative should be - Jeronimo's suggestion of Biographical listing of Candians seems a bit long winded, but OK). "Famous" as you say, is a word lacking in any hard definition, and while, as you also say, this is true of most English words, the very point of encyclopaedia articles is to attach them to some hard definition. To do that with this article would mean stating something like "Fame is the status of having more than 10,000 hits on Google". I'm not sure why I don't like the idea of that, but I really don't. And what happens when a future editor comes along and tries to add Lord Beaverbrook, for example. Do we say "ah, he only has five thousand hits on Google, so he isn't famous"?

All that said, the results I got from Google on a search of some more-or-less random people from this page were not quite as horribly skewed as I feared they would be (I've put them at User:Camembert/Canadians for anyone interested). Maybe asking Google for the answer is OK for a quick fix, but I'm trying to think longer term than that, and I'm not convinced it would work. I think I'll sleep on this one. --Camembert

Of course, if you take "famous" out of the title, then there's nothing to argue about anymore. But I would object to that, since I think a list-of-famous-Canadians is genuinely more useful to our readers than a list-of-Canadians-with-Wikipedia-entries (no reason not to have both). And we wouldn't attempt to define fame via Google, we would simply say "for the purposes of this list, we consider a person to be famous if their name generates more than 10,000 Google hits, an admittedly imperfect criterion". AxelBoldt 01:34 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

I think having Google (or any other search engine) as a definition of "fame" is quite bad as well. People from this list like "Dennis Lee" or "Larry Hanson" are like to get a large number of unrelated his. Also, "Pamel a Anderson" and "Nelly Furtado" will always get more hits than former prime ministers or scientists. Even doing newspaper research as Axel proposes seems unlikely to give a good definition (which newspapers are you taking, some people are more likely to get newspaper articles than others (f.e. politicians)).

My solution would be as follows. This list is renamed, and can contain any Canadian, but he should have an article on Wikipedia, or be really famous - this keeps the list clean. Moreover, the list should be annotated, so, it should be clear that Wayne Gretzky is an ice hockey player. If there are 21 more ice hockey players, it is maybe necessary to annotate more and mention some of Gretzky's achievements. This is very objective, and the reader can immediately see - if he doesn't know the names - who's done what.

Next, there are other articles on Canada, to list the really famous ones. In the Canada article (which should at some point be converted to the WikiProject Countries) format, there's already room for naming some important Canadians, even more so in the subarticles on history, politics and culture, and there's no reasons why there shouldn't be similar articles on science, sport, music, film, tv, etc. in Canada. Such articles can place the really famous ones in context and mention their achievements.

Pamela Anderson generates more hits than any scientist quite simply because she is more famous, no question about that. But we wouldn't rank people by the number of Google hits, we'd simply use the hit number as a quick-and-dirty cut-off criterion for non-famous people (which could then be listed on your proposed list-of-all-Canadians-with-a-Wikipedia-article). But again, isn't it clear that a well-pruned list of famous Canadians is much more useful to our readers than a long list of Canadians with Wikipedia articles? For what reason would anyone use the latter?

Why would I use a famous Canadians list that is by no means a good record of who's famous and who's not? Moreover, everybody that comes upon the page will keep on adding to it, or keep critising our measure of fame. I think it is impossible to keep up a non-objective standard of fame while pretending to be NPOV. Jeronimo

Regarding the newspaper criterion criticism: ideally you would take all newspapers, but I claim that in reality it wouldn't matter much: the set of famous people will be roughly the same no matter what newspaper you pick, because it's the job of newspapers to report on famous people.

I agree that no matter what we do, every name should be annotated with a sentence or so, since the list is useless without that. AxelBoldt 17:28 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)'

How to Get on Radio Talk Shows All Across America w/o Leaving Home		This Broad's Life: The Raucous, Riveting Autobiography of the Most Outrageous Radio Talk-Show Host in America Today		You Can't Say That : Common Sense From America's Number One Gay Radio Talk Show Host		How to Get On Radio Talk Shows All Across America
Talk Show Selects 1999: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows		Talk Show Selects 1998: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows (1998 Edition)		Talk Show Yearbook 2000: A Guide to the Nation's Most Influential Television and Radio Talk Shows (Talk Show Selects, 2000)		Conduct a National Radio Talk Show Tour Without Leaving Your Home or Office...Without Paying a Cent for Air Time (How to Make People Buy Whatever You)