This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miriam T. Griffin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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 Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Classical Committee, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Classical Committee articles 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's Classical CommitteeWikipedia:WikiProject Women's Classical CommitteeTemplate:WikiProject Women's Classical CommitteeWomen's Classical Committee 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
A fact from Miriam T. Griffin appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 March 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that classical scholar Miriam T. Griffin believes that the Roman emperor Nero was hounded by fear, panic, and persecutory delusions at the end of his reign?
Hi User:Melcous, I was wondering why the subheadings on this page have been de-capitalised? As titles, albeit subheadings, I would have thought that stylistically they should be capitalised. Srsval (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Melcous, thank you for your interest in this article. I'd like to discuss the quote in the 'career' section She was described as "a generous, kind and warm colleague and a mentor to generations of students". You described it as 'not encyclopedic facts'. However, they show how she was perceived by her peers which is encyclopedic. For an educator whose role is to mentor others, it is a useful additional detail. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The use of a quote rather than presenting the information in Wikipedia's own voice makes WP:NPOV less of an issue. I reckon that the quote exemplifies how Griffin was appreciated by colleagues, which is useful to note in a biography article. I can understand that the reflex reaction to the use of such terms in Wikipedia articles defaults to a flat no, but in this instance the quotes have a purpose. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of noting that her colleagues said she was warm and generous? I'm not saying she wasn't, just that those are the sort of terms that belong in an obituary, not an encyclopedia which is why wikipedia has these guidelines. Otherwise every article would be full of all the nice things other people have said about people, which is lovely, but not the purpose of this project. Melcous (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're not challenging whether Miriam T. Griffin did have these qualities, just whether a mention of that belongs in an encyclopedia. And that's a reasonable question to ask. I'm of the opinion that it can, if it has a purpose. So I think that because these qualities effect how she was perceived by others, both colleagues and mentees merits a place. An element of academia is establishing networks of contacts to work with and share information and cultivating new scholars. If an academic preferred to work alone, that kind of information would be useful to include to help you understand their work and career. If they had clashes with their peers, or portrayed as a maverick, that would be worth including and so is being able to get on with people. It's perhaps not a headline piece of information, and it is just a sentence in a longer biography, but I do think it's reasonable to have it in the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, well maybe if there was an independent, secondary source that noted the significance of such things (e.g. that her colleagues felt she was particularly generous and this was significant in her allowing her work to prosper, or that her networking was particularly important in cultivating new scholars etc etc; as in the case of someone working alone, it would require more than a source that said 'she worked alone' but one that pointed out why that was significant in understanding their work) that would be a different story. But it seems to me to be drawing a long bow to say this is significant. Also this is the wording of the author of the obituary, not even "Her colleagues said she was ..." and there is no context or link to why this was significant. My guess would be that the majority of obituaries says similar nice things about people in such vaguely worded terms, which is one of the reasons why there has been plenty of discussion on WP:RSN as to obituaries being treated as tertiary rather than secondary sources, and as more akin to opinion pieces. Melcous (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Melcous: There's no policy reason for deleting the quote - WP:PEACOCK does not apply since the fact being reported is not that she was warm & generous, but that source said "she is warm and generous". The quote is encyclopaeic in so far as it provides more information about the subject - facilitates a more rounded description. It becomes a matter of opinion - a value judgement - whether it stays or goes. 3 out of the 4 people engaged in this edit war right now think it should stay. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]