Talk:Jacqui Mulville

removed tags
I've checked the article against independent sources and added them where needed - been able to expand the bit about her excavations at Cladh Hallan - new to me, very interesting! - think it meets the bar now for the tags to come off so have removed them. If people wildly disagree (that never happens on Wikipedia!) they can go back, but let's discuss it if you think they are needed. (Going to remember for once to sign my comments too...)Claire 75 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Images
Hi Tacyarg, can I ask why the two images uploaded to this page were removed? The person uploading held the copyright on them. Many thanks, Srsval (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like a blanket revert of all the edits using a semi-automated tool (Twinkle) so I've restored one of the images. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, and many thanks, both. Tacyarg (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
I'm wondering how on earth you came to the conclusion that Mulville is "the first and only woman to hold a personal Chair in Archaeology at Cardiff University"? Not only does the cited source say nothing of the sort, it indicates that she is a reader, not a professor. This page also shows that there are/were at least two other female professors of archaeology at Cardiff (Miranda Aldhouse-Green and Alex Bayliss). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Joe, it isn't a particularly productive approach to be disparaging with volunteers who put a lot of effort into editing Wikipedia for the benefit of everyone. I'm sorry if you find the page to be substandard. Of course I am aware of other professors of Archaeology at Cardiff University. My description of Prof. Mulville as the first and only woman to hold a personal Chair in Archaeology at Cardiff University merely reflected how her promotion to the professoriate was announced by the School at Cardiff University. Thanks for your interest in the page. If you want to help to improve it, the bibliography section needs expanding. --Srsval (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also a volunteer, and I'm trying to make sure that our coverage of living scholars is accurate. I can't find anything that says she was appointed professor and, as I said, the Cardiff website still lists her as a reader. Can you please provide that source? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at this, there is a source for Prof. Mulville being the first and only woman to hold a personal chair in archaeology at Cardiff. It's the university's facebook page and so although I'd expect it to be reliable, it's not suitable for Wikipedia. https://www.facebook.com/CardiffArchaeology/photos/a.141969632519172.27835.117909938258475/1808899019159550/?type=3&theater. Hopefully the university will update their website - it's a recent appointment - and we can use that.

Claire 75 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that explains it. Facebook is indeed a very poor source. We could perhaps use it to say she is now a professor, but that seems a bit pointless since I'm sure they will update their website soon enough. The "first and only personal chair" thing definitely needs a better source. I am also not sure that it is worth including at all; the distinction being made between Mulville and Aldhouse-Green/Bayliss is presumably that she holds a personal chair, which seems a rather minor point, and risks being read as diminishing the achievements of other women archaeologists that preceded her at Cardiff. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't think that the distinction between holding an honorary position and being a fully employed member of staff is small. Their roles would be entirely different, as would their contribution to the School. And a professorial salary or the absence of one is not a difference to be ignored. It doesn't diminish the achievements of other women professors at Cardiff University to point this out. Srsval (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Aldhouse-Green didn't hold an honorary professorship. The difference is between an established chair and a personal chair, see Academic ranks in the United Kingdom. In any case it's a moot point until we get a better source than Facebook. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Joe's line that 'Facebook is indeed a very poor source'. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. In this case we have what is unambiguously Cardiff University Department of Archaeology and Conservation making a statement on which we are entitled to rely. The medium through which they do it is neither here nor there. Given Joe's assertion that the distinction is 'a rather minor point', it seems really odd to stand on demands for better sources. Still. Archaeologists. The exception to the rule 'when in a hole, stop digging'. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, we have whoever happens to be in charge of their Facebook page making a statement which is ambiguous and potentially contradicted by other (better) sources. At least with information on the website, being a permanent-ish and "official" source, we can assume an effort has been made to make sure it is accurate.
 * I wouldn't call questioning information on a BLP that is expressly contradicted by the source that is supposed to support it "digging a hole". –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear me. Where to begin. "the website' is not "permanent-ish" since old versions of amended pages are not available. Ironically, the facebook feed is "permanent-ish" since new posts do not eradicate old posts. We can make exactly the same assumption, that 'whoever happens to be in charge of their Facebook page' has made an effort to make sure it is accurate. And given the lack of pushback on the fb thread, I think we can take it that its readers, many of whom are probably familiar with the institution, accept the vouchsafed information. The statement made was not ambiguous; it was exactly the opposite: it was making a very clear & precise claim. And we can say of any source that it might be 'potentially contradicted by other (better) sources'.
 * So that is why we have WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Estimation of the credibility of sources is a nuanced business, not amenable to .ac.uk good, .fb.com bad. Call out if you think you need a ladder. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, if it's so clear, do they mean first chair or specifically first personal chair? If the former, how do we square this with sources to the contrary? If the latter, why is that distinction significant? And what does "Archaeology at Cardiff" refer to? Cardiff University, which has only existed since 2005? Or one or more of its predecessor institutions? As there is currently no department of archaeology at Cardiff, is Mulville the first woman to a hold a personal chair in the School of History, Archaeology and Religion? Or just the first woman to hold a personal chair in archaeology in that department?
 * I'm not even going to touch the bizarre claim the Facebook comments constitute some sort of peer review. That social media is to be avoided as a source is well-established consensus and I don't see any point in going over that again here. There's always WP:RSN if you think we absolutely cannot wait for a better source for these statements. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it isn't very clear exactly what that statement means, which is why it went into the Wikipedia page verbatim, which included that it was a personal chair. Other sources, such as the staff page on the School's website have yet to be updated, hence the contradiction. Originally it was Archaeology at Cardiff University, which clearly refers to the institution currently, as of August 2018, and not when Cardiff University was part of the University of Wales. This isn't confusing. There is an Archaeology Department at Cardiff University, which is part of the broader School of History, Archaeology and Religion. No Mulville is not the first woman to hold a personal Chair in the School, only in the Department of Archaeology. Srsval (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Verbatim cited to a completely different source to the one you actually consulted... I'm sure you can see the problem. Similarly, do you have any sources to back up your assertions here? It's important in biographical articles that we stick strictly to what reliable, published sources actually say, not information we personally "know" from the grapevine. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)