Talk:Miriam T. Griffin

Headings style?
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)
 * Thanks for your question. The Wikipedia Manual of Style requires that headings are presented in sentence case not title case. MassiveEartha (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Yes, if you read my edit summary you can see I pointed to MOS:HEADINGS. You should take some time to read guidelines pointed to in edit summaries and other places, as a number of your edits do not appear to keep to standard wikipedia style - see WP:MOS for (many!) more details. Melcous (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Edits to the career section
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)
 * Yep, that's what I kept the mentoring bit. But words like 'warm' and 'generous' are to be avoided, see WP:NPOV and WP:PUFFERY. Melcous (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The warm & generous quote
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)