Talk:Inez M. Haring
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Inez M. Haring article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Not Living edit
I removed the BLP stuff, since Haring is no longer alive, but am still looking for a reliable source for her date of death. The referenced book review from the 70s mentions that she is "no longer with us" but doesn't give a date of death. Anarchyshake (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Letters / honorifics edit
@Melcous: You have not satisfied me that the removal of the honorifics in Haring's Infobox is appropriate. There is a lengthy list of professional designations here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_designations_in_the_United_States). There is a suggestion that degrees can be mentioned in the narrative, which they are. Removing the degrees from the info box seems unnecessary and removes meaning and value from Wikipedia. The fact that this edit is one you made after I reverted a similar edit you made to an article of a woman with a PhD does lead me to some conclusions. I'm not going to contest this further. I disagree with the edit. Emjackson42 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you look generally at biographies across wikipedia you will see that honorific suffixes in inboxes are generally reserved for post-nominals. A large percentage of people have academic degrees, but we don't list these abbreviations after their names in the infoboxes, as I would suggest most encyclopaedias would not. There are specific fields in infoboxes for education which seems to be a much more appropriate place for this kind of information. The manual of style reads to me as, as you have said, that including them within the narrative with sources is the most appropriate way of expressing this kind of information. Melcous (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing this additional information about your reasoning. We are reading the manual differently. To suggest that there is a single standard for this is, I think, not true. Yes, there are preferences but preferences are not a compelling enough reason to remove information. That is my perspective. We have different viewpoints on this which I accept and will not continue to argue. Emjackson42 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)