Talk:Elizabeth Ann Linley/Archives/1

Sequencing of lead
The original lead mentioned Linley's family and husband first, and her achievements in singing second. Following the suggestions in the WP essay on "Writing about Women" (see link below) I have placed her achievements first and her family second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_about_women#Defining_women_by_their_relationships MurielMary (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In particular, the following is relevant:
 * Wherever possible, avoid defining a notable woman, particularly in the title or first sentence, in terms of her relationships (wife/mother/daughter of). Do not begin a biography with: "Susan Smith is the daughter of historian Frank Smith and wife of actor John Jones. She is known for her work on game theory."
 * Thank you for the vast amount of work/effort you have obviously done on this article. Please note you are referencing an essay, not a guideline or policy. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 12:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have given a reason for the edit I have suggested. What is your reason for your edit? You may wish to remind yourself of the WP MoS guidelines on writing a lead for a biographical article, which states the following sequence of information for a lead:

1.Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)); 2.Dates of birth and death, if known (but for dates of birth see WP:BLPPRIVACY, which takes precedence). 3.Context (location or nationality); 4.The notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played; 5.Why the person is notable.
 * The opening paragraph should usually state:
 * From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph MurielMary (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , wholeheartedly agree that her notability is of paramount importance. Quite frankly, I would not list her family members or relationships in the opening sentences of the lede at all. Her notability is not inherited from them. The lead-off sentences should reflect "her" notable activities, i.e. her prowess as a singer and serving as the model for portraits by Gainesborough and Reynolds. SusunW (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it might be better to discuss the family members in the second paragraph of the lead, before going into her early life. They should certainly not be the first thing the article mentions. The lead should start with her achievements as a singer (after her name and dates of birth and death, of course). —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Typical canvassing. This attitude and bullying type tactic is exactly why I am unlikely to work on any more female biographies and object vehemently to the WiR and GGTF. Congratulations. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 04:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you define this as "bullying" - as you saw from my post at GGTF, I asked for other opinions and input. If anyone had come along and supported you/not supported me, then that would have been absolutely fine. I didn't ask for support. I asked for input. MurielMary (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the GGTF gang expanding/fixing the article. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 05:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like something else is going on here that has nothing to do with improving this article. It is neither bullying nor canvassing to ask an interested project to weigh in. Asking them to support your position would be canvassing, not asking for input. If you read what I wrote, I only agreed that her notability should be stated in the opening paragraph of the lede. Both of you listed the family members in that paragraph and I disagreed with both of you because her notability is not inherited from them. Disagreeing with someone is not bullying and it doesn't appear that anyone who replied was disrespectful in the least. SusunW (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As indicated in my previous edit summary the article is all yours now so you are all welcome to destroy it into whatever the gang wants. Evidently hijacking the work of others is the norm for these Projects. I will not be responding further. Thanks for all your hard work, help and advice. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 05:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry you feel that way. WP is a collaborative effort. No one owns any article, so I'm confused by your giving the article to anyone. No one suggested destroying anything, merely focusing on her accomplishments, not those of other people. SusunW (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

In response to " 14:33, 18 June 2017‎ Sagaciousphil (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,684 bytes) (+1)‎ . . ("Quite notable"? Are you having a joke or something? She's certainly far more notable than many other GGTF/WiR stuff that is only saved at AfD by calling up the gang/tag teams? Have you still not bothered to read WP:SEAOFBLUE?) (undo | thank)" I meant exactly what I said. She is extremely notable, there was no joke intended nor implied and I appreciate, as I said, your work on the article. SusunW (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

In response to (cur | prev) 14:40, 18 June 2017‎ Sagaciousphil (talk | contribs)‎. . (24,841 bytes) (+122)‎. . (and what makes his opinion imprtant?) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank) The Cambridge Opera Journal article shows that he wrote much of the "other" music that Linley performed, specifically composing pieces for her. I would have added more information from the Opera piece, but it is clear that no other contributions are wanted. I prefer not to edit where involvement is contentious. As I said, I only began editing because your comments were that you were abandoning the article. Since you have returned, there is clearly no need for my participation. I thank you again for your work on the article. SusunW (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, so now that you have added information that requires clarification and fixing, you are now leaving it to others to sort out? Certainly demonstrates the attitude and destruction WiR/GGTF members wish to force into play, doesn't it? Amazing how others also try to assert their wishes by nominating articles they have no knowledge/involvement with for TFA. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 19:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what most of your comment relates to, having never nominated an article or been involved with TFA. Clearly there are issues of which I am unaware that have occurred between you and other project members. My sincere desire is to avoid conflict and improve the content of the encyclopedia. If you want my help in clarifying information, I will be glad to assist, but my withdrawal seemed to be what you wanted. I was attempting to honor your preference to work on this undisturbed. Please feel free to remove any of the content I added. I can only repeat, that from your comments, I thought you had abandoned the article and I felt that it should not be. SusunW (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I am expected to walk away from the work I did on this - and the series of associated articles - and then sit back and watch the GGTF/WiR claim it is their work, which as far as I can see is the normal practice of those Projects? It is utterly disrespectful to expect others to return to clarify and fix items added by Project members who have simply turned up en masse because the article was prominently linked on the main page to tag team their ideologies. Please fix the unclear items added, respect CITEVAR by fixing the citations correctly and address the problem of WP:SEAOFBLUE that has been introduced. Thanks. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 20:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that you are mischaracterizing what happened here. No one asked you to walk away, rather you stated "the article is all yours". No en masse response was made, two people responded. No one has claimed credit for your work nor attempted to prevent you from editing. No ideology has been invoked, in fact, as there did not appear to be enough input for consensus, I didn't touch the lede. The only information I added had specifically to do with her performances and modeling. As you have asked me to clarify specific points, I shall attempt to do that and then withdraw. SusunW (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I respectfully suggest checking with your pals on WiR as to its falsely claiming the work of others being by the Project. I was informed above that my work on this article is not acceptable/good enough by someone who chose to nominate articles for TFA that they had no knowledge/involvement with, as can clearly be seen if the link provided is followed. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 20:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I repeat that I have no knowledge of your interaction with others on any project in which I may have involvement. I hope that I have clarified the information you requested to your satisfaction. If I did not, please advise and I shall try again. I wish you the best of luck on the article.SusunW (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)