Talk:Rosalía Abreu

RfC on including Robert Yerkes in lead paragraph
Should the mention of Robert Yerkes be included in the lead paragraph? Is his name or work recognizable enough to add understanding to Rosalía Abreu? I personally think it only adds questions and mention of Robert Yerkes should be moved to a different point in the article. Sergeant Curious (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No - Per MOS:LEADBIO, the lead should stay focused on Rosalía Abreu's biography. Yerkes could be mentioned later in the article, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Nemov (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - the lead is a summary of the article, which includes content relating to the fact that Yerkes based significant amounts of his research on Abreu's work and his purchase of animals from her collection was a significant factor is his later career. I have added eugenicist as a descriptor of Yerkes, to clarify somewhat his approach. Lajmmoore (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: left a comment on the Women in Red talk page, to gather further opinions. Lajmmoore (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No. He's only mentioned briefly in one paragraph, and only one of four bluelinked researchers that the article describes as being influenced by Abreu. Singling him out for special mention in the lead smacks of attempted guilt by association (because of the modern negative connections with eugenics, which is not described in the article text as being an interest of Abreu herself) and original research by synthesis (attempting to push the idea that she was a eugenicist by improperly synthesizing other claims rather than by finding proper sourcing for a direct connection). (Note: I was brought here by a neutral announcement of this RFC on WT:WIR.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No per David Eppstein. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes why not, per Lajmmoore. It's a short lead. And please don't introduce a subject here by launching an Rfc. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No What said, but also much more mundanely, that sentence very much sticks out to me as being irrelevant to the rest of the paragraph. 3mi1y (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No Not required in the initial paragraph. Details can be added later in the sections below Mnair69 (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - some commenters are saying that the mention should be removed to later in the article, but I'd like to point out that its already there. Perhaps take a look at the rest of the text before commenting? Lajmmoore (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Why is there no discussion of the other researcher who is mentioned in the lead? Why is there just a focus on Yerkes? If the issue is with the lead including people who were significant in Abreu's life then surely this discussion should widen to include Ilya Ivanov also? (Again, some commenters don't appear to have noticed this.) Lajmmoore (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes: Despite the arguments put forward by, it seems to me that the lead summarizes the main reasons why she is remembered, reflecting the content in the body of the article. In some cases, WiR's concern with eliminating the names of male colleagues may be inappropriate. Here, both Yerkes and Ivanov seem to have played important roles in her life. It might nevertheless be useful to expand on their involvement.--Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but reworded so it is about her not him, on the lines of the mention in text: "Her work influenced / formed the basis of ...". Pam  D  13:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)