Talk:William James Wanless

See also" sections on William James Wanless‎ and other pages
This is currently being discussed on Talk:John Rabe. -- . Shlok  talk. 20:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Excessive cross-linking in "see also" section
I have considerably pared down the "See also" section on this page, as it was clear that many of the links had no cirect relevance to either the events in Nanking in general, or Rabe in particular. William James Wanless, for example, seems to have never even set foot in China, yet on his page there are many of the same exceptionally tenuous links. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please refer to the guidelines set up in the MOS section WP:See also. Quote: "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."


 * The guideline was created to help readers expand their over knowledge of subjects tangentially related to the article they were reading, and thus benefits many lay readers. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nick Cooper that all these "see also" links to people who had no connection with the subject are inappropriate, and I just re-deleted them from the Wanless article. The wording under WP:See also does allow for subjects "only peripherally related" to the one in question, but the connection between these people is not merely peripheral, it is almost nonexistent. If the idea is to give people a way to learn more about medical missionaries, or about missionaries in general, or whatever these people are supposed to have in common, then an article or category should be created - for example Medical missionaries. --MelanieN (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the majority of these people merit categorisation, but not cross-referencing on the individual pages. "Medical missionaries" would certainly be a start, but there could be seen to be a need for a category for similar actions of mass rescue/protection of this type by non-missionaries, whether religiously motivated or not (e.g. Schindler, Winton, etc.). Nick Cooper (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The narrow interpretation of WP:See also guideline that you've created is doing a disservice to Wikipedia's lay readers. Nothing within the body of the article is saying that Wanless, Bethune and the others had a connection to Rabe. The addition of those links is allowed within the 'See also'  section in order to encourage readers to look at other articles 'peripherally related' to the one they've just read, which is the intent of the passage: "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. "


 * Rabe was a humanitarian and is thus categorized as a German humanitarian; each of the other 'See also' links refers to other foreign humanitarians serving far from their homes. Allowing readers to explore peripherally related articles is the intent of the guideline for the 'See also' section, and deleting such links only creates a lesser article.  For those reasons the See also links should not be deleted so long as they are relevant to humanitarians such as Rabe.  Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Humanitarians? Is that the connection you see? "Foreign humanitarians serving far from their homes"? Or is it more like "white people doing good things in Asia"? In any case, "humanitarians" is a real stretch and could include thousands of people. It could be OK to link someone like Rabe to others who also protected civilians during war or occupation - for example, Oskar Schindler and Raoul Wallenberg - and maybe an article could be written about such people, as Nick Cooper suggested, though I am not sure what you would call it. (Many of those who specifically helped Jews during World War II are already referenced at Righteous among the Nations.) But any connection between "British missionary doctor in India in early 20th century" and "German businessman who helped protect Chinese people during wartime" is far too tenuous for a "see also" link. Same is true of most of the others you listed - Kotnis, Endicott, Bethune, Harrison - their inclusion here seems almost random. I think you may have to accept this consensus view even if you don't agree with it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Harry complains about a "narrow interpretation of WP:See also guideline," yet the corollary of that would obviously be an overly broad interepretation that, frankly, would not be tolerated on many pages on Wikipedia. What he seems to be advocating would - for example - be akin to listing every other Righteous Gentile on each page for a specific Righetous Gentile, and then on top adding in the likes of Nicholas Winton, for good measure! Nick Cooper (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's slow down. I see that HarryZilber restored the disputed list of "see also" links to William James Wanless - even as I was deleting it from the other articles. Please let's not get into an edit war. Let's not make any more additions or deletions until we resolve the question. Let's resolve it here at this discussion page, or if we can't reach agreement, let's ask for a Third opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My summary of the question at dispute here:
 * Is it appropriate to use the "see also" section of a biography article to provide links to numerous other persons, whose activities or biography may be similar in some way to the subject of the article?
 * If so, how strongly connected does the linked article have to be? Can it be anyone who worked in the same field or the same country? Can it be as general as "humanitarians"?

--MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No connection with the subject- Deleting ". John Rabe " from see also as he who had nothing to do with Sir Wanless or his work, Mr. John Rabe was a businessman and he work in war in relation to  his business as businessman, whereas Dr. Sir Wanless was a medical missionaries  providing quality health care to all irrespective of caste, creed, religion or financial means and living only on his missionary's salary sent by the Bryn Mawr Presbyterian Church, while donating his personal staff salary to the mission. Very different to connection with the subject Business of mr. John Rabe.

Dr. Sir Wanless was working for:
 * five hundredthousand to one million lepers in India.
 * The total bed capacity of all tuberculosis sanatoria in India does not equal that of the Municipal sanatorium in Chicago.
 * Fifty million people died of malaria and kindred fevers in India every year.

Not as a Business, nor as a businessman.

See Medicine in India.-- .  Shlok  talk. 17:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fifty million people died of malaria and kindred fevers in India every year ??? What kind of fact is that? India would have ceased to exist at that rate within six years (in the 1920s). Alandeus (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know What kind of fact ( What it should be called) but it is from website of U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature. article about Medicine in India Delivered before the Section of Historical and Cultural Medicine, November 13, 1929. "Discussion" on page 128., "See Also" This -. .  Shlok  talk. 12:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

MelanieN: You're a hard one to satisify!.... quoting you: "''Foreign humanitarians serving far from their homes"? Or is it more like "white people doing good things in Asia"? ''"

White people doing good things in Asia?? It almost sounds as though you have an underlying bias against 'white people' receiving credit for their good works. You should recheck your own work as one of the links you deleted was for Dwarkanath Kotnis who was Indian and would not be mistaken as a white westerner.

Aside from that, you've chosen to rewrite a Wikipedia guideline, without actual rewriting it, except above where you state: "Is it appropriate to use the "see also" section of a biography article to provide links to numerous other persons, whose activities or biography may be similar in some way to the subject of the article?"


 * WP:See also quote: "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."

As you probably know, 'peripherally' relates to 'periphery': "...an area lying beyond the strict limits of a thing". Adding a link to a like humanitarian in an article about a humanitarian complies to the guideline you're seeking to change without consensus, so I'd suggest it is you who is acting outside of Wikipedia's norms by deleting such edits (please, lets skip the semantics debate).

If you'd like to discuss the number of links that are appropriate to the article (yes, 40 would probably be too many), or who should be included as a 'like' humanitarian, I'm more than open to suggestions; however please do not redefine Wikipedia's operating guidelines and policies on your own since that would obviously lead to anarchy. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * with whom you are talking.?, I ( also any one) don't deleted Dwarkanath Kotnis Link. . Shlok  talk. 17:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review
I was asked to provide an impartial peer review of the article.


 * There are four very short paragraphs in the lead, I see this throughout the article as well. Try to combine paragraphs, this helps with flow and readability.  One sentence paragraphs should especially be avoided, please expand or combine them.
 * I don't like referring to him as "Sir William" when discussing his childhood and adolescence. He didn't become "Sir" William until much later in life.
 * Watch weasel wording in this quote, "He was considered India's most famous surgeon and was known throughout the Orient..." Who considered him India's most famous surgeon?
 * Put in-line citations at the end of sentences rather than in the middle, just a stylistic thing that helps keep the flow of the text going.
 * Usually with biographies you start with the person's early life, childhood, education, and into early adulthood and then you move on to their career. The Biography section in this article gives an overview of his entire life all the way to his death.  The career and twilight of his life should be placed in chronological order within the article.  Does this make sense?
 * How did Dr. Wanless get to Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania? I'm left wondering this as I read, he graduated from New York University school of medicine and then he being sent by a church in Pennsylvania.  Any info on how he got to this church and why he chose to go to India?
 * Quote: "...and the Goheen Psychiatric Clinic were started in 1937 and 1955 respectively. The Goheen Clinic was named after Dr. Robert H. H. Goheen, father of Robert Francis Goheen, president of Princeton University and the United States Ambassador to India. Under the management of its expert surgeons, physicians, and nursing staff, these facilities have effectively served the purposes for which they were established, that is in providing quality health care to all irrespective of caste, creed, religion or financial means[26]."
 * What does this have to do with Wanless? Make sure to keep the focus of the article on Wanless and his work.  If there is a connection then please make that obvious.


 * Ref 15 needs a publisher and access date.
 * I don't think you need a photo of Wanless in the external links section that is found within the article. Seems a bit redundant.

In conclusion, I would take the later life information out of the biography section and put it in its own section towards the end of the article before the honours section. This fits within the chronological order of his life and then you aren't having him die before he begins his career. I would also expand this information as much as possible. It says his first wife died, did he have a second? I don't recall reading that, though I may have missed it. We know he had one son, did he have any other children? Overall it's a good article about an amazing man. Thank you for your work. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ....and thank you for your time and interest doing the review. The disjointedness of its articles, for which Wikipedia's collective works is well known, is of course similar to the popular saying that "a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee". Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made some changes to the article. Regarding Goheen, i will add more text soon. Kindly have a look.-- . Shlok  talk. 19:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're on the right track. I would still try to make the lead two or three larger paragraphs rather than four small ones.  If there is more information on his life after India you could make that into its own section.  But there would need to be more than what is currently in the article to justify a whole section.  I would suggest nominating at GAC and allowing another editor there to give constructive feedback and perhaps earn the article a GA rating.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Honours
For the second time, I have removed the inaccurate category of "recipients of honorary British knighthoods" and the inaccurate link to the Order of the British Empire. The citation for Sir William's knighthood from the London Gazette clearly establishes that he was created a substantive knight bachelor, not an honorary knight of the Order of the British Empire.-- Ibagli ( Talk ) 05:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)