Talk:Recluse

message: As this list of "famous people who live/lived as recluses" has grown a lot lately, maybe it would be nice to start providing relevant references for each one. By "relevant" I mean any article, biography or citation that would support the idea that this person is/was asocial. -- Hugo Dufort 06:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Noted a 'Citation needed' tag after Hermit and Anchorite. Both words have a Wikipedia entry, and the gist of those entries conforms with the Oxford Concise English Dictionary. 
Citations are included when that word or a novel use of an existing word can not yet be found in a dictionary or an encyclopaedia, but has appeared in printed material such as a newspaper or magazine. They helps establish the credentials of the proposed (new) meaning. 
As there are references, both on the Hermit and the Anchorite Wikipedia pages, and their meanings are listed in a long established dictionary which -at least in the United Kingdom- is held in high esteem, would the Citation needed tag be superfluous, as the citation is available 'one step removed'? 
And as a person new to editing Wikipedia, on the point of good manners, do I amend or remove it, or leave that to the author, or to the person who added the Citation needed tag? 
Finding my way in the history to find the person who added the 'Citation needed' tag seems daunting. Will adding this Talk automatically bring it to the attention of the author and the person who asked for the citation to be added? 
Your comments or pointing me to a concise guide in case I have overlooked something relevant would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dutch59 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Citation needed' ? for Hermit and Anchorite 

message: I'm thinking we should split the list into a separate article to be titled List of reclusive people. There are people like Sandy Koufax and Bill Watterson who are not recluses but are known for being especially publicity-shy, and there ought to be a list that includes such people. -- Mwalcoff 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading the article and finding several people listed because they do not give interviews or stay away from the media, but does that really make than recluses? I mean, they could still live their lives with plenty of people around them despite not appearing "in the public eye". I think this is a different issue. --84.249.199.74 (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article? 

message: Seems like most of these "recluses" are just private celebrities. There is a difference to avoiding publicity and avoiding people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.185.40 (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the vast majority of recluses are not public persons.  I think the list should be trimmed to those known as recluses; Howard Hughes, Sid Barrett...; a few years out of the public eye does not a recluse make - mystics, etc. are often known as recluses (some, not all).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.39.120 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof? 

message: Perhaps there should be some examples, but the list is really pathetic and notable people can't be defined as recluses in the same way they can be defined as, say, Catholics, or Latin Americans. I want the list gone. Does anyone feel the same way? Belasted (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm shocked it got to be so large and was around for so long. In the future, if you see similar unsourced WP:BLP-violative stuff just remove it. No discussion is required. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list should be removed