Talk:Eugene W. Chafin

Revert of a bold edit
I reverted a bold edit by user:Winkelvi. I did this to revert three specific changes:


 * (1) "Chafin married Carrie Arvilla, daughter of Robert Hastings Hunkins and Hannah Emerson on November 24, 1881."
 * "Chafin married Carrie Arvilla Hunkins on November 24, 1881. She was the daughter of Robert Hastings Hunkins and Hannah Emerson Hunkins."

The standard way to deal with biographic information in Wikiepdia articles is to include the wife as daughter of someone. This is because the wife may or may not be a widow and so her surname can vary. Usually her father's will not.


 * (2) "They had a daughter Desdemona Eleanor (born March 17, 1893)."
 * "Together, they had a daughter, Desdemona Eleanor Chaffin born on March 17, 1893."

2.a There is no need for "Together" as it is implicit in "They" more so only one child is named.

2.b There is no need to include her surname she is their child and so the surname should only be included if for some reason it is different.

2.c Placing the DOB in brackets is standard formatting, and if there was a DOD of say "January 1, 1921" it would be "Desdemona Eleanor (March 17, 1893 – January 1, 1921)" -- you have probably seen the style used on disambiguation pages.

All of this is standard notation in hundreds of biography articles from this period.

(3) The final part of the revert was to keep the small tree. It is useful because it shows how this man who was notable in his community had a family connection with a brother-in-law. Whether or not that is a significant connection is for the reader to decide. But family connections are often useful in politics, so although it show a connection to a brother-in-law that is informative.

-- PBS (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The tree is undue weight as it isn't Chafin's but that of his wife. The other edits just make sense.  It is now clear to me you are more interested in keeping articles you watch list at their status quo, a state you prefer, than to see articles change and improve readability for the reader.  Your actions smack of ownership, to be frank. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  14:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (4)What do you mean by "undue weight"?
 * "The other edits just make sense" Lets put the tree to one side and discuss the other edits, without the personal attacks. I have numbered the points I raised to make it easier to discuss them. (1) Why do you think that your form is clearer? There are I would propose that the date is mover to the start of the sentence so it reads
 * "On November 24, 1881 Chafin married Carrie Arvilla, daughter of Robert Hastings Hunkins and Hannah Emerson.
 * If it was changed to that format how is it clearer to have two sentences when they can be wrapped into one in a standard format used in such biography articles -- I have explained above why the daughter's surname is not usually used. -- PBS (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have made no personal attacks, just like I wasn't insulting you yesterday by using a canned response from Twinkle. By undue weight, I mean that the tree is about Chafin's wife's family, not his.  The article is about Chafin.  To put in a tree that is about someone else is giving undue weight to someone other than the article subject.  Not to mention it makes no logical sense.  By not using Carrie's last name, you are putting emphasis on her father.  Keeping her last name out makes no sense.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  15:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "" The to sentences that starts "It is now clear to me..." is a personal attack, or put another way is hardly likely to "Win Friends and Influence People".
 * What name would you put after Carrie if she had been widowed twice? The advantage of not including the woman's name is that she can be identified precisely through her father's name.
 * -- PBS (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Had she been widowed twice at the time of her marriage to Chafin? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, but that is not the point, using the style of "first-names, daughter of ..." avoids any problems like that and is also accurate for a woman who has not been married. As I said if she had been married twice before how would you handle it? -- PBS (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't know, then why would you bring up such a strawman? If she had no other names, then the question is silly and a red-herring, having absolutely no bearing on this discussion. There's no logical reason why omitting her last name in the content is called-for.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is, because we can not be sure what her second name is (to know that we would need to know more about her), and not include the name is a common style for this type of historical biography. -- PBS (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)