Talk:Elizabeth Alexander (scientist)/Archive 1

Archive 1

No, let's not just just sweep a problem under the rug.

(Just skip the alternate name, if it it's so contentious. And clearly she was one of the first women, so there's that.)

No. As it stands, this is a little like a piece on Mark Twain that insists on identifying him mainly as Sam Clemens. "Elizabeth Alexander" was what her friends, family, and colleagues might call her, but it was not her professional persona.

The source: unwittingly became the first woman in the world to work in the field that would later become known as radio astronomy. Orchiston &cet

Note the words "unwittingly" and "would later become;" this is very different from later, deliberate radio astronomers. Now, she did radio astronomical work in the process, but I think it's well established that she was a competant scientist who looked at all the implications of her work. Anmccaff (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I edited the article to remove the name "Elizabeth Alexander" in order to find compromise and try to build a consensus. The fact is, most of the sources call her "Elizabeth", but she published under her initials. No one is denying that. They aren't two different names, like Mark Twain and Sam Clemens, they are just alternate versions of her full name, like many of us have.

To your second comment, you say that "she did radio astonomical work" in your comment, which is precisely what the lede says. I don't see why you're upset about it, and I'm not sure what you would like changed. Perhaps we should change the word "briefly" to "unwittingly". Would that help? Bradv 18:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, most of the sources do -not- call her Elizabeth. Most of the readily available online sources do. This has already been discussed upthread, I believe. Very little of her work is readily available free on the internet, and that hampers many wiki "editors."

No, I believe I spelled "astronomical" with the "R", although that is always a bit of a crap-shoot.

Radio Astronomy barely existed before the end of WWII. She was not a part of it. The folks who were, of course, soldiered on, and a good many people like her who had done radio or radar work moved into it as it developed...but she did not. Now, had she lived, it is almost certain she would have shown up again, since both her school and her husband were heavily involved in the follow-on to the International Geophysical Year at Ibadan.

"Unwittingly," out of context, comes across as patronizingly dismissive, which the subject hardly deserves. Anmccaff (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm trying to offer a compromise to help you out, and you insult me? It was a simple spelling mistake. Bradv 19:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, just noting the error, which I could easily have made myself. No insult intended. (On the other hand, why personalize things like that? It's not to help -me- out, it's to help the article out, no?)Anmccaff (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Her own daughter calls her Elizabeth Alexander, and most sources we find too. Likewise for her contributions to astronomy. We go by WP:V, if you have a problem with that, then feel free to write your own encyclopedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You find it remarkable that a daughter might use the familiar name for someone? Harris also uses "E", just "E", quite commonly, perhaps we could rename the article that, with a disambiguation for the letter? As I've said above, most sources seen easily are based, in turn, off of a very, very, limited number of sources, none of which cover the overwhelming majority of her career. Many of them are written from the golly-gee-wizz! The First GIRL!!!! perspective that cuts out nuance, and even fact. Now, my cuz Woody, there, had something to say on this, which you seem to claim to have ready access to; perhaps you could provide an actual quote. Page 75, with any relevant widows or orphans. Anmccaff (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to be understood, write so that you can actually be understood, because I got no damn clue what in the world you're ranting about. Harris? Who's Harris? Why is that guy (or woman?) relevant? And who claimed to have 'ready access' to Sullivan's book? And if Sullivan's your cousin, you should considered recusing yourself from any discussion, because you can't seem to be able to remain level headed about any of this. And if you've got access to the source, then pull the quote from it yourself.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Simply reading the piece would answer the question. Elizabeth Alexander's daughter, and biographer is Mary (Alexander) Harris. It's mentioned more than one in the article, and I think may be above. She is the daughter in question. I think it fairly obvious by context.

Well, I think you claimed to have ready access, in that you've cited it...or are you saying you are depending, for a pretty persnickity meaning, on something you haven't even looked at?

I rather doubt Woodruff T. is any near relation. If on the other hand, his ancestry hails from Beara, who knows? <FoghornLeghorn>It's a joke, son.</FoghornLeghorn> Anmccaff (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I (and others) tire of your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Speak plainly and focus on the article. Or go away. Or get blocked. Your call. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)