Talk:Shadi Bartsch

References and notability tags
I think there are sufficient references from reliable sources to satisfy the references tag. Likewise the sources are objective, independent and verifiable and establish notability: distinguished professor of Classics at 3 distinguished universities, broadly published, noted in the NY Times, recipient of a Guggenheim. I'm therefore removing these two tags. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sequence of positions held
Shadi Bartsch's latest CV (from Brown University) and supported by this Brown University news article, dated August 26, 2008 lists the following dates of employment: Therefore the text that "Shadi Bartsch is the W. Duncan MacMillan II Professor of Classics at Brown University. She has previously held professorships at the University of California Berkeley and the University of Chicago where she was the Ann L. and Lawrence B. Buttenwieser Professor of Classics" is correct. To state that she is currently a professor at University of Chicago based on an old CV is incorrect. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1991-1998: UC Berkeley
 * 1998-2008: University of Chicago
 * 2008-present: Brown University

This is incorrect. Professor Bartsch has resumed her chaired position at The University of Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.121.34 (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Where is the reliably sourced evidence of this? Any revised CV, any announcement at Brown or at UC? --EPadmirateur (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can find no evidence of Shadi Bartsch returning to University of Chicago. Her apparent LinkedIn page states she is at Brown University. Is there any reliably sourced evidence that says otherwise?? If not, we will need to go back to the earlier version of this article. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the article to the earlier version. Please do not revert this edit until you can provide some reliable source to document the move back to University of Chicago. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Shadi Bartsch has been removed from the Classics Deparment faculty list at Brown University within the last few weeks. She is included on the faculty list at the University of Chicago and she is scheduled to teach a Latin class there this fall. While this certainly does not constitute any kind of official announcement, it is strong evidence that she has left Brown and returned to Chicago. Does she hold her previous endowed chair again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintracooser (talk • contribs) 08:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's acceptable evidence that she has moved back, in my view, although it borders on original research. Cheers, EPadmirateur (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources for relationships with Robert Zimmer and James Hunter
Recent edits persist in adding unsourced alleged facts about Bartsch's relationship to Robert Zimmer and her current relationship to her former husband (married, separated, divorced). The Chicago Maroon article cites a blog entry (on Crain's Blogs) which in turn cites unnamed "campus sources". So even the connection between Bartsch and Zimmer is questionable.

In addition the blog entry states that Bartsch's relationship with husband James Hunter as "estranged". At best this implies that the Bartsch and Hunter are separated. Blogs are not reliable sources and this entry cannot be used as the basis for Bartsch's marital status.

However, the Fox Chicago News article from last October states that "a divorce followed" between Bartsch and Hunter, so the best information is that Bartsch is divorced. Fox News is a reliable source.

Facts reported in biographies of living persons must be strictly supported by reliable sources. The Crain's blog entry isn't a reliable source and may not be used as a source in this article. Unsourced "facts" may not be entered in this article or Zimmer's. --EPadmirateur (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You must work for the University of Chicago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.125.170 (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, actually not. However, I care about Wikipedia and I like to see the WP policies followed, especially with regards to biographies of living persons. Cheers, EPadmirateur (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, If you really cared for Wikipedia, this article probably wouldn't be here in the first place. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.125.170 (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Are references to a professor's private life mentioned in a campus newspaper appropriate or 'notable' on WikiPedia? I don't think so. This is gossip & speculation; not notable. Deleting. (Note: I am a former student of Prof. Bartsch) KenThomas (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing an additional perspective. There is also the article on Robert Zimmer with similar information. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the comments on this article because they "went even further in tracing Bartsch's personal relationship history" than the comments in Zimmer's article. In my view (I'm admitting here I have a personal relationship to the person being written about,  but perhaps that helps) having a student paper,  or a gossip magazine,  delve into the personal life of a largely non-public figure is a) unreliable and b) unnotable.  If we had reliable information ("no offense--"  but not a campus paper,  that in a matter like this,  we can't rely on to have verified sources and not rumour,  and not to be 'personally' involved)-- then would it be notable *IF* Bartsch and Zimmer are involved?  I don't know.  Have they made a public announcement?  Else,  you know,  'dating' is a fuzzy thing.  There a number of women I've been meeting for lunch for years,  and I can see how someone who didn't know the facts,  might think something wrong.  We're in uncertain territory.
 * All that said, I'm not inclined to remove the comment on the Zimmer article at the moment-- I'll continue to think about it.  Feel free to remove it if it seems inappropriate to you.  KenThomas (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

KenThomas -- Why do you feel that it's necessary for us to know that you are a former student of Bartsch? Does it matter? Do you have some special insight into this unethical relationship between her and Zimmer? Oh, and what do you consider "notable"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.125.170 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ANON: Purely disclosure per what seem to me to be WikiPedia's guidelines-- I give my real name.  Who said 'unethical'?  See my next comment above 'notable' and 'ethical'.  KenThomas (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is "boulder attack" story in Career section relevant?
Is the boulder attack story in the "Career" section relevant to the biography article? It doesn't appear relevant to me except possibly to disparage this person, contrary to WP:BLP. The characterization as a "boulder attack" is inaccurate from the referenced story. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The text in question is: "She barely survived a boulder attack while ascending Mt. Kilimanjaro.Today at Brown: News, people and events at the University --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It disparage this person, it is compleatly irrelevant. Did it play any role on her notability in any way? Also the term barely is disaparaging. -RobertMel (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

She states it herself in an article which I have posted (from Brown University, I might add). And how can an adverb be disparaging? That doesn't even make sense! She survived! That's heroic! Btw: shouldn't we all find this a bit disturbing -- I mean that we are spending so much time editing a page for an academic who claims such exploits. Perhaps, if you are so worried about it, we should make a new section concerning these exploits. She obviously wanted them here -- the page was created and maintained by her.


 * There are three editors who disagree with you on this. WP is an encyclopedia; this article is a biography of a living person and follows special rules. You don't have consensus to put this in, so it needs to stay out until you can convince all of us. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That you have made efforts to preserve this absurd discussion is enough to keep me happy. Good work, EPadmirateur (and beware of large boulders). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.228.100.130 (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)