Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2023 July 23

= July 23 =

Writing historic biographies
Back again with another question.

What is an effective way to write a biography of a person who had a lengthy career in multiple areas during the same span of time?

I am currently working on a draft about a man who had career as a real estate developer by flipping land and building subdivisions, but also an equally pertinent civic career by assisting in local government affairs and taking part in philanthropy. These two career paths take place during the same time, but constructing a meaningful bio based on two engagements in one section seems inefficient and messy (currently only working on real estate). If I split them into two different sections, it would also seem out of place hopping from the end of one career in, say, 1940s and jumping back to the earlier engagement in the 1910s. Does Wikipedia have a Manuel of style guideline for biographies that lays out how multiple careers should be written (not MOS:BIO)? Adog ( Talk ・ Cont ) 02:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can give you my opinion, but the link you provided involves many different people. Could you name the specific person in question? I ask, because each person should be treated separately based on their source coverage.  There’s no one size fits all answer.  Perhaps one way to move forward is to look at how articles do it.  Elon Musk is one example. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This one, a C. Perry Snell. To give you an idea of the civic engagement, it mainly delves into his involvement in establishing St. Petersburg, Florida's waterfront parks, investment in social clubs and businesses, donation of art, sculptures, and private land for parks, and establishing early institutions of the city, such as the St. Petersburg Woman's Club. I was looking at Donald Trump (similar engagement areas, not content), but was not sure if the narrative jumps in timeline from sub-section to sub-section were appropriate or if we have another point of reference. Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 03:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Both engagements roughly started in 1906, and ended during the Great Depression and his death. Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 03:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the narrative jumps in the timeline are fine by subsection, as long as the establishments are chronological. Elon Musk does just that. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I get easily stuck when there is not a cookie cutter guideline to help with what content goes where. Makes sense in the realm of Wikipedia, haha. Thank you. Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 03:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No question that it's one of the hardest things to do. My approach when writing big chronological articles (some I've written: a biography, a technology, a company, an artistic style) has been to split it into general sections of time and within them approach it thematically, but you do have to let the content guide you a bit in deciding what those sections are going to be. You could also write an ending section with a title like "Influence" or "Legacy" which describe the person's overall effect on society not the chronology of their career. I find endnotes very helpful to fit in asides which are interesting or worth clarifying but shouldn't get in the way of the main thread of the story. Taking time away from it can help with seeing what's important. With my wood type article I found that the first version I published just tailed off with no real ending or conclusion: I realised that adding an "after people stopped using it" section helped round things off and make it satisfying. I find it's helpful to decide the "detail level" you're going to cover in the article: are you going to explain everything or are you going to say "there were lots of companies in the industry" and link to sources for anyone who needs to know more? You can decide this based on how much source materials you have.
 * Sometimes there's something unusual. I found when writing the article on Vincent Figgins that I really needed to put a list of the few primary sources at the front, otherwise I was shoe-horning in explanations of what they are at the most random places. With only a few sources kicking off with a bullet point list felt structurally right.
 * I've luckily been able to visit some big libraries to do research. Reading through the entire back archives of journals is like nothing else, you never know what's going to come up. It looks like you've already done this, but some of the most important bits of editing I've done have been realising "look, I think this is very interesting, but no source discusses it. I wonder if I can research this more deeply to find out if someone's written about it..." It's really satisfying when you discover that someone had that feeling in 1981 and wrote a really obscure but excellent article on a topic. Getting hard to access sources the exposure they deserve is one of the most satisfying things about editing Wikipedia, I feel. Searching Twitter also can throw up unexpected things and directions for more research, even if what you find isn't itself a reliable source it can be a good direction finder. Blythwood (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful piece. That last part about somebody was interested and therefore, led me to the book: Wells, Judy L. (2006). C. Perry Snell: His Place in St. Petersburg, Florida History. Orange Blossom Press. pp. 1–192. ISBN 0977371506. I knew that he developed Snell Isle, but I did not know he also built other major subdivisions, facilitated early spring training ballparks, these statues at the waterfront park, and helped to establish the parks themselves. Though, of course, he did have deplorable aspects that are not widely discussed (barred African-Americans from building or purchasing lots on his developments). I was thinking about how to discuss these development philosophy/rules/motives in another section apart from his biography, but not sure how to title it (to include the aforementioned, plus only allowing Mediterranean Revival architecture in his subdivisions, barring signage, or the likes).
 * I think I am taking a break from it to better organize my thoughts on the subject since I took on information overload once I found other reading materials (especially that contradict each other or have a COI with the person in question). It is funny when you read a long-bulky history book that is rich in information, then read a contemporary book that tells you that first book's author had a direct business relationship with the person you are writing about (looking at you Walter Fuller). Or better yet, when book A and B claim that said real estate partnership started in 1906 but books C and D claim it started in 1909, and newspapers suggest A and B are correct because they log the partnership in the years before 1909, but not definitively in 1906 (at least with the level of access I currently have. Also involves Conflicting sources).
 * I very much subscribe to the Narrative flow essay when it comes to writing. I'll be sure to come around in a month or two to look at the books again and re-read our policies. One day, I will have to take a dive into our city's history museum archives. Adog  ( Talk ・ Cont ) 03:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)