Talk:Blanche Wheeler Williams

Factual Problem
The article states her grandmother introduced her to Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau died eight years before Blanche Wheeler was born. If her grandmother knew these men; it does not necessarily follow that Wheeler met them. She would have been quite young even to meet Emerson or Alcott. Wm Street 21:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Lockwood (talk • contribs)
 * The way it's used in the source, the writers are likely metonyms for their own writings. So maybe she didn't meet Thoreau in person, but the source indicates that her family introduced her to his line of thought. Feel free to tweak if you have a better phrasing. czar  ♔  21:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Embellished?
If you read the quoted source it is clear Blanche was in an assisting role. It was not she who "set out to find a palace" but Hawes. Also, if she played such a pivotal role in these digs it is curious that there is no mention at all of Blanche Wheeler Williams in the entry for the true archeologist Harriet Boyd Hawes. Hawes is described as having been assisted by an Edith Hall, not Blanche. JEH (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The article didn't exist at all until a week ago and the Hawes article could still use some updating. It isn't exactly a frequented part of the encyclopedia. As for embellishments, I used what the sources reflect. With respect to Hall, the article on Hawes has no footnotes so I can't verify the claim's veracity. I have two books out on Hawes and Williams together that I have yet to work into the piece. czar  ♔  22:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability
I originally wrote this for a women-in-science edit-a-thon, when I knew less about notability and figured that the event organizers had vetted the topics. Williams was one of Boyd's core assistants on the Gournia dig (as was Edith Hall, who had an archaeological career that Williams did not) and was second author on the Gournia monograph (Hall was fourth), but I don't know what to make of her role. In every citation, Williams accompanied Boyd but doesn't receive "equal" credit for the dig, which is associated with Boyd. Since Williams did not have an archaeological career, and since her teaching and writing career was also undistinguished, she is arguably better covered in the Boyd or Gournia articles, the event for which she is best known. So as much time as I've pumped into this, a merger/redirection appears to make more sense than keeping the Williams content separate. czar 06:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have said the entry in Breaking Ground makes her sufficiently notable for inclusion. There is certainly plenty of material in this article, and I don't think much of it could be feasible merged into Harriet Boyd Hawes. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is more that Breaking Ground alone isn't significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources: Apart from the one, small biography (self-published by the author, not necessarily even edited?) there isn't coverage/perspective from other secondary sources. As for any merged content, yes, it wouldn't be merged in toto, because the coverage of Williams would be proportional to her relation to the topic. But that's the point—if she isn't independently notable then we only need cover her activities as they pertain to the other notable topics. czar  17:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be a single source but Breaking Ground is a high quality one that adds significant depth of coverage, and it's supported by a scattering of mentions in other sources (mostly about Hawes, but still) . This is a strange situation. I realise you wrote the article and wouldn't delete it lightly, but at the same time if you hadn't have written it I would have, so I'm loathe to see the content lost. Maybe we could throw it to AfD and seek a wider consensus?
 * Are you referring to the Breaking Ground bio here? I don't think it counts as self-published. Although they could obviously benefit from a typesetter, as I understand it, Breaking Ground is a collection of biographies edited by Martha Sharp Joukowsky and Barbara Lesko, and published online by Brown University. See here and here. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * AfD wouldn't be an appropriate venue because no one is advocating for deleting the article, feel free to direct relevant WikiProjects or other venues here, though. I've been through every one of the above sources in prepping this article for GA: the useful ones are already in the article and the rest are mere mentions with no depth on Williams in particular. I figure that the Breaking Ground summaries have been edited, but especially as they leave non-English submissions in that language (unedited?), those submissions haven't received the same kind of vetting as their Breaking Ground published volume (v. 1) did, as noted by the extra editing staff in the acknowledgements. After going through the sources, there is barely any secondary source coverage that pertains to Williams in specific apart from the Breaking Ground bio. Also if she is not known for more than the one dig (and she isn't), her role in the dig should be covered in the context of that find. czar  19:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think the Breaking Ground bio + assorted sources in the article is enough for notability. If you don't want to take it to AfD I will go ahead and revert your blank-and-redirect per WP:ATD-R. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a bit puzzled by your statement that her career was "undistinguished". To my knowledge, this is not a criteria to be weighed when evaluating whether someone is notable, whether they have done something unique, relevant, or worthy of notice, is paramount, but distinguished seems to be dangerous ground that would eliminate multitudes of people who are historically relevant who have never received an award or been recognized by some organized entity. In evaluating if she did something unique, then, it becomes imperative to determine if there were other women in the field. Clearly according to research, women were subordinates in archaeology, if not barred entirely. Thus, she was notable. Is her participation verifiable? Yes there are reliable sources. (notability not diminished, book is still consulted),  (Shows not only did Wheeler participate, but she funded the expedition),  (talks about her specific contributions). Is there significant coverage enough to produce a comprehensive biography without conducting original research? Yes. Then meets GNG. Merging the article to someone else is unwarranted, IMO. SusunW (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a bit puzzled by your statement that her career was "undistinguished". To my knowledge, this is not a criteria to be weighed when evaluating whether someone is notable, whether they have done something unique, relevant, or worthy of notice, is paramount, but distinguished seems to be dangerous ground that would eliminate multitudes of people who are historically relevant who have never received an award or been recognized by some organized entity. In evaluating if she did something unique, then, it becomes imperative to determine if there were other women in the field. Clearly according to research, women were subordinates in archaeology, if not barred entirely. Thus, she was notable. Is her participation verifiable? Yes there are reliable sources. (notability not diminished, book is still consulted),  (Shows not only did Wheeler participate, but she funded the expedition),  (talks about her specific contributions). Is there significant coverage enough to produce a comprehensive biography without conducting original research? Yes. Then meets GNG. Merging the article to someone else is unwarranted, IMO. SusunW (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I said her "teaching and writing career" was undistinguished, which it was. Her archaeological career, similarly, was limited to the Gournia dig, which would indicate that her role can be adequately covered in the context of the dig's article. I'm familiar with how the GNG works and all of the above sources (since I wrote the article...) My point was that the sources discuss her as an accessory to Boyd's expedition (note that Boyd is the subject of the chapters cited and Wheeler Williams is along for the ride). Thus on the virtue of proportional coverage, I thought she should be covered (merged) in the context of the expedition or Boyd's life rather than on a separate page. This is how we would handle someone with similar involvement in any other dig. If Wheeler Williams should receive special treatment because of the era's sexism, that's a different story and should be discussed outright, but it can't be both ways. Note that her "specific contribution" cited is writing the appendix on a joint report, which is hardly an indicator of independent notability. But I dropped this a week ago and nominated the article for GA, as it's otherwise complete. Others are welcome to press it if they'd like czar  17:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This sort of groundbreaking (no pun intended) work in its time and place is well worth keeping as is and not redirecting or otherwise subsuming the very real work that this individual accomplished. Perhaps expanding the article to address the sexism of the time would be a good idea if the article goes to FAC, but for now there is adequate indicia of notability, particularly in light of the time and place in which she lived.   Montanabw (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess my point would be lots of women were assessories in this time period, but that doesn't mean that their contributions weren't notable. It also doesn't mean that they should receive "special treatment", like anyone else, women's contributions must be verified and need to remain neutral and unembellished. They were what they were. Historic figures regardless of gender can be notable for something that today would be unremarkable, simply because they were doing it in a time frame in which it was unique. I concur with  that there is room for expansion to address the sexism of the time, but don't think it is imperative for your GA nomination. Good luck with the nomination. SusunW (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)