A fact from Maurine Whipple appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 May 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Maurine Whipple's Mormon epic The Giant Joshua was the most-borrowed book in the Salt Lake City Public Library in 1989?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is related to the Harold B. Lee Library holdings. Learn more about this collaborative project to improve coverage related to the BYU library's holdings, and how you can help here.Harold B. Lee LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/Harold B. Lee LibraryTemplate:WikiProject Harold B. Lee LibraryHarold B. Lee Library-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Hi, I did extensive editing to the Maurine Whipple page back in 2018. Recently Galeiga removed some of the information about Whipple's frequent infatuations with men, and her social immaturity.
I'm not familiar with this person and am just responding to the RfC call. What do these mean? Crushes would seem part of the normal human experience, and drawing attention to them could easily be WP:UNDUE unless reliable sources frequently discuss this. I see a few things about relationships with men in the article with appropriate sourcing. Those don't concern me. That's what it comes down to for me: following the sourcing and avoid synthesis. Even if a reliable source lists various infatuations, it's not our place to analyze that beyond what sources do. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her social immaturity and infatuations (mentioned in her biography) could be a useful insight into her personality and why she didn't publish more or was difficult to work with. She turned her meeting with one of her crushes into a short story (a piece which Galeiga removed from the page, but I could put back in). Her unwanted romantic advances on the Cedar City Easter pageant's director may have contributed to him not wanting to work with her (this is still on the page). I'm worried that overly focusing on her relationships with men could be sexist of me. Basically, I'm trying to reflect on if this information should be on her page or not. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't using "her social immaturity and infatuations" as an "insight into her personality and why she didn't publish more or was difficult to work with" qualify as original research? PraiseVivec (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I didn't ask the editor in question because their position seemed clear to me: they took out the information about Whipple's crush on the doctor she helped when her brother had his appendix out (which she then wrote a published story about), so they probably think that it doesn't belong on the page. I'm also not sure what my own opinion is. I was going to ask for help on the WP Biographies talk page, but it asked editors not to ask about specific pages there. Then the directions for RfC said to keep the description brief. Maybe the instructions for RfC need an update? You know how Wikipedia is, you just try stuff until you get it right, and I'm sorry if I did this wrong, Sangdeboeuf. Are you still up for having a discussion?
I've been editing for years and I still don't know how much information is too much when it comes to subjects' personal lives. I guess I have two questions: Is it appropriate to include information about her crushes, and if so, should it be in a separate section? WP:NOTBYRELATION specifically mentions not emphasizing the relationships of women too much on their pages. However, for some reason it seems a lot more common on author pages to mention their relationships with other people. For example, Walt Whitman's "sexuality" section mentions "intense relationships" with men and boys, and speculates on his possible lovers. When should personal information be in a separate "personal life" section and when should it be embedded into the prose of the rest of the body? William Morris's page doesn't mention his wife's relationship with Morris's friend in the "personal life" section, rather, Rosetti and Janey's "closeness" is mentioned in the "Red house and the firm" section. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If she had many relationships and/or marriages, I can see some value in having a "Personal Life" section for readers curious about her personal life. Seems reasonable to me. But I'm no expert on the topic. I just did some Googling. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a complex issue involving many sources, so posting a query at WT:WPBIO or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment would probably be the fastest way to resolve the problem. WT:WPBIO does recommend discussion on the article talk page before posting there, so it wouldn't hurt to politely ask the other editor to explain their changes in more detail. If they decline, then at least you can show the WikiProject that you tried. Just my 2 cents. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Galeiga on their talk page about Whipple's relationships being on her page, and Galeiga replied, stating that emphasizing her crushes was infantalizing, and maybe a personal life section could help the information about her marriage, rape, and abortion be more succinct. The general issue of discussing the personal lives of authors within their Wikipedia pages has been on my mind a bit, so thank you to all those who participated in the discussion when I wasn't sure of the best place for it. I'm planning to create a personal life section for the Whipple page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close Not enough discussion on this issue at hand to warrant an RFC. There has been little attempt to form a consensus. ––FORMALDUDE(talk)14:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
