Talk:Elizabeth Alexander (scientist)

Astronomer?

...no, communicator. Radio kinda person. Early radar type. But her contribution to radioastronomy was incidental, and not actually pioneering. People had known that sunspots coincided with radio problems for a couple decades then, and her work wasn't to study the sun's output per se, but to mitigate its effects on radar. (I think someone could make a very good case that this was an example of pure science being set back by other technological advancement. Solar radio interference has stopped being a problem as transmitters and receivers got better, so basic research languished until WWII. Raw power minimized the need for refinement; some interesting parallels with other design during periods of "cheap energy".)

She did a lot more serious work with rocks. Lots of people did odd things in wartime that they ceased soon after. (astronomer) is a misnomer. Anmccaff (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Most sources about her refer to her as an astronomer - We used what was available. We knew nothing of her until we came across the article late last year - We also know nothing about radio-astronomy/ geology or physics! We just used what was out there and what we could understand in books! Please edit it as you see fit; have you got another suggestion for the title of the article - We came to it when it was already named. ツStacey (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

No, really, they don't. Most easily available sources on the internet do, but that's an 'orse of a different colour, and one of Wiki's larger Achilles' heels...and remember, when it comes to those, Wiki is a millipede. Anmccaff (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Then I apologise. I will not be changing it. It will remain as Astronomer because people complain and then won't do anything about it. I haven't got access to the books only the lazy rubbish sources you say we found. I'm not sure why you are not just editing to reflect what you have clearly found? ツStacey (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Leaving aside the lazy rubbish sources, you have an extensive list of good ones, publications, most of which scream "geologist!!!!", and none of which even suggest "astronomer." Radioastronomy hardly even [existed] yet then.

An article on this stage of development should never, ever, be listed as a "DYK;" since that's a great way to get an idea, right or wrong, onto websites which then become used as sources by later wiki writitors. Anmccaff (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you can judge other people on DYK contributions when you haven't done any? You still haven't edited this article to make it 'correct' so I'm not sure why you are arguing with me? I welcome new knowledge and would love you to make this article better. ツStacey (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course I can; so can anyone. You don't need to be a painter to spot a holiday. Before you, or I, or anyone, can ask another "Do you know?" we'd damned well better know it ourselves.

I thought it fairly obvious I'm not that sure why this article should exist at all, which I think might clear up that question. Anmccaff (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

How about changing the page title to Elizabeth Alexander (scientist)? She seems to have contributed in several fields; geology, palaeontology, soil science and astronomy. Mikenorton (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! ツStacey (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Correlation between sunspots and radio problems was indeed known for a long time, but those problems are caused by the effect of EUV (in the nanometer range) on the ionosphere, not by the cm to meter wavelengths that were detected by the radar. Previous attempts to receive radio signals from the sun (in 1933 for example) failed, they didn't have the technology. However, she wasn't the first to make the discovery, that was James Stanley Hey in 1942, later that year George Clark Southworth also detected radiowaves from the sun, and Grote Reber did it in 1944 and was the first to publish his results (he used his own radio telescope, the other two couldn't publish because work with radar was classified during the war).

Don't know where you got the idea that interference stopped being a problem because transmitters and receivers got better. Yes, local radio stations were transitioning to FM (on VHF), but that only works for ranges up to 150 km or so, long distance transmissions were, and are still, MW or LW, and depend on skywave propagation (reflecting against the ionosphere), and interference due to spread-F causing multiple signal paths with different path lengths is still as big a problem now as it was then. Prevalence 06:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Umm, yeah. Everything you say there is true, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the narrow subject at hand, though. Alexander was working not on getting information about the sun, but avoiding TMI about the sun. That it furthered radioastronomy, something that hardly existed yet, was just gravy. Also, you seem to have skipped through roughly three decades of commercial practice. Yupp, long-range communication still relies on skip, or relay, and I'm sure that some signals officers still have the unendearing nickname "Sunspot" like they did when I was a' servin' o' the Reagan. That didn't prevent a commercial broadcasting network from developing well before WWII. Receivers got good enough, and transmitters got loud enough. Anmccaff (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, title has been changed. Radar was of course her job from 42 to 45, but she didn't go to Norfolk to solve a radar problem. An effect only noticeable on a few days, and on these days only 4% of the time, wouldn't have been a priority problem, and it certainly wouldn't justify using that many resources. She went there to investigate if the sun was the source of the noise, and try and measure it. No, she wasn't really an astronomer, but at that time hardly any astronomers were involved. Some of them became astronomers, by continuing their work, but they weren't in 1945. Prevalence 18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it was about radar, actually. Her report "Long Wave Solar Radiation" explicitly mentions full-on jamming at dawn and sunset. Anmccaff (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, if you do not like the article please edit it! This article has now been through DYK and good article processes where other editors have approved it and think she is notable. You are clearly not satisfied; I notice you like edit warring from your previous contributions and I don't plan to play those games. I will leave the note on the article to give you a chance to nominate for deletion - if you haven't done this in the next 2 days, I suggest you unwatch the article as I will be removing the unhelpful tag after that. ツStacey (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yo, @Bbb23:, @Ponyo:, see my point about why certain admin actions should be appealable?

Just to make your point clear here, so it will be more easy for them to review at ANI, AN3, &cet, what exactly are you insinuating? Anmccaff (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't see your point and have no clue why you've pinged me here.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo:[Scroll down to "Re message re block."] Anmccaff (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elizabeth Alexander (scientist)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Keilana (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• If you don't hate sfn, it might be nice to have Sullivan and Orchison linked in the reflist. (If you do, that's okay, it's definitely not a dealbreaker for me.) Otherwise wrt references, you seem to have used all the major ones and it seems complete.
• "gained her PhD" sounds weird, maybe "earned her PhD"?
• "Her correct interpretation in 1945 of anomalous signals picked up on Norfolk Island as coming from the sun" needs rephrasing
• Is there any information on her mother?
• TIL that a flying boat is a thing.
• "interred" means buried, I think you meant "interned"

@Worm That Turned: To be honest, that's about it. Lovely article! Let me know if you have any questions or whatever, this should be a pretty quick promotion. :) Keilana (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Keilana! Thanks for such a speedy review, and for such positive comments. I've fixed the simple things to fix, attempting to rephrase the line in the lead, let me know what you think. I've also stuck sfn in, as I've recently got my head round it for another article I'm writing. We've looked and looked, and found no information on Alexander's mother. I vaguely recall seeing some trivial mention in a self published source, but there was nothing that was worthwhile for the article, so I had dismissed it and now I can't find it again! As for the flying boat, they turn up all the time in movies and tv programs, but I'd never realised what they were called! Had to mention it! Worm^TT(talk) 09:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Thanks for the quick fixes! I like the rephrases and the use of sfn. Too bad about her mother, but if it doesn't exist you certainly can't be expected to include it! I'm passing the article, great work. Keilana (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

So, are you refuting your borderline libel of Orchiston?

(remove nonsense/troll tag. See http://www.piha.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Alexander.pdf, 2nd page of pdf, 2nd paragraph)

No matter how many times you revert accurate information, you can not change facts. Patna Science College was founded 10 years after Dr Caldwell returned to England for her secondary education, it's trivial to find many, many confirmations of this, in fact, the second reference given here, which you have obviously not read, does so. Anmccaff (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The article writes "She [Elizabeth Alexander] spent some of her early life in India, where her father, Dr. K. S. Caldwell, was the first Professor of Chemistry and later Principal at Patna Science College." Orchiston writes "Frances Elizabeth Somerville Alexander née Caldwell (Figure 1) was born on 13 December 1908 at Merton, Surrey, but spent her early life in India, where her father was the first Professor of Chemistry at Patna Science College and later was its Principal."

That the college was founded after she was in India is inconsequential. As for whatever allegations of 'libel' you're trying to make, my only response to that is PYGMIES+DWARFS??. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not inconsequential, it is both inaccurate, and an indicator of the degree of attention given the editting.

As for your border-line libel, see this dif. You claim, inaccurately of course, that Orchiston attempted to himself take credit for other's work. You did this because you were unable to understand that "Smith, 2007" means "the thing written by Smith in 2007;" a very, very common way of citing references. Anmccaff (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Simply put, no. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

"No," you continue to assert, as you have before, that Orchison is a bad source? "No," you have realized your error? Which of the many "no"s are you claiming, in your simple way? Anmccaff (talk)

No, that the college at which her father thought was established after she was in India is of any consequence. No, it is not inaccurate to write "She spent some of her early life in India, where her father, Dr. K. S. Caldwell, was the first Professor of Chemistry and later Principal at Patna Science College." when Orchiston writes "Frances Elizabeth Somerville Alexander née Caldwell (Figure 1) was born on 13 December 1908 at Merton, Surrey, but spent her early life in India, where her father was the first Professor of Chemistry at Patna Science College and later was its Principal." No, it is not libel to claim that Orchiston cannot be relied upon for claims about his own role in radio astronomy. No, I did not do this because I'm "unable to understand that "Smith, 2007" means "the thing written by Smith in 2007". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

And I'll point out WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is to discussion improvements to the article, I've got no interest in discussing what keeps you awake at night. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the tags just designate the mess.

that just makes a mess. Take it to the talk page, please.)

I believe most of the points were adequately covered in the tags, but let's look at them again here.

(re using her personal name only){{dubious| As mentioned in talk and elsewhere, this is both questionable, recentism, and possibly circular. Her professional name belongs in both the article and the lead.}}

I think that's pretty straightforward; articles should prominently include names needed for identification or reader research and fact-checking. J B S Haldane isn't called "Jack" in too many of his papers.

Alexander was born Frances Elizabeth Somerville Caldwell on 13 December 1908 in [[Merton, Surrey]].<ref name=Rigby />{{rs| Note the number of errors on other matters}}

I don't particular doubt either fact is correct, but that's a crap source, wrong on simple particulars.

here has been some controversy over whether Alexander or [[Ruby Payne Scott]] was actually the first woman to work in the field of radio astronomy.<ref name=Controversy/>{{dubious| There's no serious scholarly controversy over this.}}

Scholarly controversy? No, a little fluff in a lab newsletter. That's not a source with any real weight.

Anmccaff (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I know nothing about this. I just saw an edit that put the wrong tag at the top of an article and I fixed it. What's your proposal? Bradv 00:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. That would explain why I found myself thinking "I would swear I'd started this tag already..." a bit later. Thanks for catching it.

For a very small start, removing the "good article" which this is miles away from. Switching to some better, if less accessible sources. Covering in more detail -and this will be real work, because Google Books ain't so good on Singapore or pre-oil Nigeria - on the other 30 years of her fairly remarkable career instead of the largely meretricious claims about "first woman radioastronomer!" It's a sad thing when a stub gives a more accurate picture than a so-called "good article", but her lasting radio achievement in weather prediction was covered in the stub, and removed.

Any problems putting it back, minus the floating dubiety? Anmccaff (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it back. I just read through the whole talk page, and I don't understand what you want to change in the article. You seem to have something against one of the two sources that this article uses, but don't ever clearly spell out what the problem is. Putting tags on things doesn't really help in this case. It would be much better if you clearly spelled out which words or sentences you would like changed in the article, and what your reason would be for changing them. Then the other editors can all weigh in and we can reach consensus. Bradv 00:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This article has pretensions of being a "Good Article" which is described as:

They are well written, contain factually accurate and verifiable information, are broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses. Good articles do not have to be as comprehensive as featured articles, but they should not omit any major facets of the topic: a comparison of the criteria for good and featured articles describes further differences., correct?

• It's well written, in the sense of gramatically correct.
• There are many questions of factual accuracy, and one of the participants has denounced one of the sources in terms I think a clear BLP violation.
• It is -not- broad in coverage. It devotes more space to her husband's experience as an internee than it does to the subject's entire career, outside of a single incident.
• It elevates a minor sideline into more than that, largely in service of Wiki's war between the sexes. That is hardly NPOV.
• It is only "stable" because the owners revert any disagreement.
• As for "not omit[ting] any major facet of the topic", it glides over, minimizes, or ignores almost all of her career.

I think the reader's and the subject both deserve better, and the first step is to stop trying to make it "good" by fiat. Anmccaff (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think I follow. But criticizing the work of the editors doesn't do anything to make the article better, does it? What changes would you like to make to the article? Bradv 01:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the nowiki-ating. Of course criticizing the article is necessary, and you can't help but hit the authors a little in the process. Leaving the article as is a disservice to the readers, and the OWNers have, in all likelihood, far better availability to sources than I would, since some of this means going after hard copy. A bio of the subject is due out fairly soon; it had been listed for 2015, but it's now slipped to next year; once it's out that will change radically.

First, and most obvious: this isn't a good article, except as coin collectors use the word "good." It shouldn't be designated as one. Next, there are genuine problems with sources and points of fact; when they are designated, the solution isn't removing the tag, it's fixing the problem. If you can't fix the problem, that suggests that the text needs to change, no? If a source is unreliable, because it contradicts higher-quality sources on other matters, it should go. The Encyclopedia of Australian Science may be quite good overall, but its piece on FESA(n.C) is unmitigated crap. Authors must be listed how they publish. Part of the reason so much is missing from her history here is because "Elizabeth" (or "E," apparently, to her biographer/daughter) didn't publish as such; she used her full initials, married surname, and sometimes followed it with "nee Caldwell."

So, dump the "good" tag, remove a couple sources, fill in a little more the 30 years of career that is all but missing, we might have a decent piece here. I do not think that can easily happen in the short run without a source or two in Singapore, England, and Nigeria. Anmccaff (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: (re using her personal name only){{dubious| As mentioned in talk and elsewhere, this is both questionable, recentism, and possibly circular. Her professional name belongs in both the article and the lead.}} FES Alexander was her full name. That's the very first thing mentioned in the lead. Everyone refers to her as Elizabeth Alexander, and that's what we used per WP:COMMONNAME. See Richard Feynman as a parallel, who published under RP Feynman.

No. Feynmam was a popular author, among other things, and wrote as such, was interviewed as such, &cet. Dr Alexander was not, and lived before that really was common, and died before it became so. That's presentism, to use the Wiki-barbarism. There are next-to-no decent modern sources now for most of her career, and what few there are, good, bad, and indifferent, mostly are incestuously intertangled. That's not multiple sources, that's the same few sources multiplied...and one of them, from the look of it, is Wiki itself.

Re: Alexander was born Frances Elizabeth Somerville Caldwell on 13 December 1908 in [[Merton, Surrey]].<ref name=Rigby />{{rs| Note the number of errors on other matters}} If you don't like the source, provide a better one. WP:SOFIXIT

The first step in fixing anything is designating the problem. Well, that's how I see it, you seem to think the first, intermediate, and final step, generally, is reverting. If it's wrong, mark it now, fix it when you can.

Re: here has been some controversy over whether Alexander or [[Ruby Payne Scott]] was actually the first woman to work in the field of radio astronomy.<ref name=Controversy/>{{dubious| There's no serious scholarly controversy over this.}} Controversy may be the wrong word here, but Payne Scott is quite often credited as the first woman radioastronomer, though Alexander has done radioastronomy work before her. It is this disagreement between sources that the word 'controversy' refers to, but that can easily be fixed by replacing the word 'controversy' with 'disagreement'. Again, WP:SOFIXIT. However, the source cited quite clearly calls this disagreement "highly controversial."Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That's because Ruby Payne-Scott was the first woman working in radioastronomy. Dr Alexander was doing a job because there was a war on, and she did not want to sponge off the in-laws, and dropped the whole business, almost entire, once the war ended. She left an impressive wartime legacy, but very little of it applied to radioastronomy. It had more to do with not finding a bunch of aircraft with funny markings coming in at you at dawn, out of the sun, and you blinded twice over. On the other hand, I know from personal experience that her stuff on Singaporean rocks was still in active use in the '80s.

Also "source" overdignifies it. "Will the first Female Radio Astronomer Stand Up" should be a clue, the fact that the piece is sourced to...Wikipedia, surprise, surprise, should be another. "Controvery?' Tempest-in-a-teacup. Anmccaff (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You really shouldn't put your comments in the middle of someone else's - it makes it really difficult to see who said what, and in what order things were said. Apart from that, you are using really strong language to say you don't like this article, but you aren't proposing any improvements. If you think some information is missing and you have a source for it, go ahead and add it. The goal is to write an encyclopedia using the best sources available. When new sources become available, the article can and should be improved. But for now, just criticizing other writers and placing tags on things that make you grumpy really isn't helping build an encyclopedia. Bradv 03:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've proposed a great many improvements; removing the inaccurate "good article" designation, and marking areas that have problems. Those -are- improvements. This can not be a good article now, since it covers only a tiny part of the subject's career, and well, I think you've seen some of the sources by now. This isn't about "feeling grumpy," this is about seeing things as they are, and not sweeping problems under the rug, and misleading the readers. You can't build anything good like that. Anmccaff (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

So again I ask, what improvements to the article are you proposing? Be specific. Bradv 03:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I've made as clear as can be, without an illustration, so... take a look at the first pass. Anmccaff (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(Of course, that still leaves out the GA reassessment, which is still needed.)

I'm afraid I'm very time limited at the moment, I'm going away for a few days, but I just wanted to say thank you to Anmccaff for actually making some edits to the article rather than tagging it, I've no objection to the substance of the majority of the edits, and have made some further edits myself. Anmccaff , I do have one question though - you've added 2 bits of information with {{cn}} tags. That's a little concerning - where did you get the information from? If it's just personal knowledge, it probably shouldn't go into the article until there is a source that corroborates it. My other issue is removing the poor sources, which can still be accurate for basic factual information (we use self published sources regularly for basic information such as birthdates), and I do generally believe that a poor source in those circumstances is better than no source at all. However, the information is accurate and non-contentious so I'm certainly not going to fight to keep a poor source in an article. Worm^TT(talk) 08:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Anmccaff for your edits. I agree with Worm that a poor source is better than no source, so removing source tags should be avoided. Nevertheless, I hope that some of your concerns are addressed - please keep working on the article. You might want to talk a look at WP:BRD, which outlines one of the styles of editing that may be useful here. Bradv 13:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

(FES Alexander is obvious,

No, really it isn't. Three given names are unremarkably common anywhere with a high church tradition, and yet the use of three is quite rare, and often seen only when they form a pronounceable acronym - Stuart or Vandeleur, for examples.

and she was one of the first to work in radioastronomy. that stays in lead)

No, she wasn't. She worked with radar, and was studying interference with it. There was almost no such thing as radioastronomy then, and she obviously did not see herself as part of it.

You are using a source which explicitly says she "unwittingly became the first woman in the world to work in the field that would later become known as radio astronomy." That is, she was not working to that end, and that end was hardly even there, or even identified as such. It goes. Anmccaff (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I just edited the article with what I think may be a bit of a compromise. There is nothing that says we have to identify which of her given names she went by, so I dropped it. Look at Donald Trump for example - the title of the article is Donald Trump, but he is introduced as Donald John Trump. That's fine. Secondly, seeing as how we have several sources that identify her as the first woman to work in radioastronomy (however contentious that claim may be), she definitely was one of the first women in the field, and therefore that is relevant in the lede. I hope this helps. Bradv 17:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Nearly all sources nearly go by Elizabeth Alexander, including her own daughter. But fine. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

While I'll re-iterate that most sources do not use EA, but only most readily available modern ones, removing the common name found in most modern sources is not progress. The article should include, fairly prominently, her full name, the name she published under, and the name she used personally. The name in full would seem to exist only to explain the initials used as an author, and to explain how her granddaughter, Frances, could be "named after her." Reader who wish to explore further need to know that the easy pickin's on the internet almost all use "Elizabeth," while older primary, secondary, and tertiary sources do not. Anmccaff (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Going to go with a big fat on that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Simply looking in the bibliography here will tell you that. Looking through Google Scholar and books will readily confirm it. Can you show anything she published as Elizabeth? It's easier to find her under "nee Caldwell" contemporaneously. Anmccaff (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Evacuation by flying boat

(restore original phrasing, this one makes no sense/unsupported by sources. no mention of specific model in sources.) user:Headbomb

Not only does the source list the type, it names the particular aircraft, and gives its registration number.

Heres from the source

Evacuated by flying boat Ceres G-AETX 4/1/42 By Air unknown seaplane, possibly of Asian Petroleum Company Mrs Elsie Irene Stone with Peter James (4). To New Zealand [MH] Elizabeth Alexander with Billy 5, Mary 3 and Bernice 4 months [MH] Robert Arbuthnott with mother and brother [MVG &MH]

"Ceres" was a Shorts S23; it's as trivial to find as looking on Wiki itself, but there are several others easily available. Anmccaff (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you link to the specific diff where that was removed? Was there a source? Also, please don't put leading spaces in front of the text - it makes a mess of the talk page. Bradv 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I think I should put leading spaces. It conveniently boxes off the quote, without the rigamarole of Talk Quote.

Here's a dif Note the excruciating grammar of the "improved" version. Anmccaff (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The source doesn't say Shorts S23, so interpreting it as that is original research. Again, if it's contentious we can leave it out.

More concerning here, I think, is your tone. You really need to stop insulting the other editors, as it is completely counterproductive to your stated purpose of trying to improve the article. Bradv 17:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

OR? No, it's as trivial as adding "White Star" or "Harland and Wolff" to something about Titanic. It's something that is easily accessible and uncontroversial from the cited fact. If you feel it needs a separate source, and are unable to find one, add {{cn}}.

Tell yahh what, why not bring up all the interaction between Headbomb and me, and, if you still feel I'm the main problem, then take it to AN-whatever. Otherwise, though, zip it. You are coming across a bit like a fuzzy-bear kindergarten teacher, and that isn't productive for your stated purpose of trying to improve the article. Anmccaff (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to see why it's so difficult to build consensus on this page. Your talk page is full of examples of people asking you to try to work with others. There's several things that I've agreed with you on, but you're still upset. Your behaviour doesn't fit with the process of collaboratively building an encyclopedia, and perhaps you need to re-evaluate why you're here. I have no intention of taking you to ANI - I'm just trying to help. Bradv 19:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, am quite willing to take this to ANI, because were I not involved in this article I would be taking action. That said, I despise the place, and would much rather see some form of consensus coming round. Instead, whilst I've been away for 2 days, I come back to see 20kb of fighting. It's quite clear we have 2 entrenched parties at loggerheads, but we have one party insulting others, including those who have come to the discussion in good faith. I'll mull over what needs to be done. Worm^TT(talk) 18:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No, let's not just just sweep a problem under the rug.

(Just skip the alternate name, if it it's so contentious. And clearly she was one of the first women, so there's that.)

No. As it stands, this is a little like a piece on Mark Twain that insists on identifying him mainly as Sam Clemens. "Elizabeth Alexander" was what her friends, family, and colleagues might call her, but it was not her professional persona.

The source: unwittingly became the first woman in the world to work in the field that would later become known as radio astronomy. Orchiston &cet

Note the words "unwittingly" and "would later become;" this is very different from later, deliberate radio astronomers. Now, she did radio astronomical work in the process, but I think it's well established that she was a competant scientist who looked at all the implications of her work. Anmccaff (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I edited the article to remove the name "Elizabeth Alexander" in order to find compromise and try to build a consensus. The fact is, most of the sources call her "Elizabeth", but she published under her initials. No one is denying that. They aren't two different names, like Mark Twain and Sam Clemens, they are just alternate versions of her full name, like many of us have.

To your second comment, you say that "she did radio astonomical work" in your comment, which is precisely what the lede says. I don't see why you're upset about it, and I'm not sure what you would like changed. Perhaps we should change the word "briefly" to "unwittingly". Would that help? Bradv 18:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, most of the sources do -not- call her Elizabeth. Most of the readily available online sources do. This has already been discussed upthread, I believe. Very little of her work is readily available free on the internet, and that hampers many wiki "editors."

No, I believe I spelled "astronomical" with the "R", although that is always a bit of a crap-shoot.

Radio Astronomy barely existed before the end of WWII. She was not a part of it. The folks who were, of course, soldiered on, and a good many people like her who had done radio or radar work moved into it as it developed...but she did not. Now, had she lived, it is almost certain she would have shown up again, since both her school and her husband were heavily involved in the follow-on to the International Geophysical Year at Ibadan.

"Unwittingly," out of context, comes across as patronizingly dismissive, which the subject hardly deserves. Anmccaff (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, I'm trying to offer a compromise to help you out, and you insult me? It was a simple spelling mistake. Bradv 19:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, just noting the error, which I could easily have made myself. No insult intended. (On the other hand, why personalize things like that? It's not to help -me- out, it's to help the article out, no?)Anmccaff (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Her own daughter calls her Elizabeth Alexander, and most sources we find too. Likewise for her contributions to astronomy. We go by WP:V, if you have a problem with that, then feel free to write your own encyclopedia. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You find it remarkable that a daughter might use the familiar name for someone? Harris also uses "E", just "E", quite commonly, perhaps we could rename the article that, with a disambiguation for the letter? As I've said above, most sources seen easily are based, in turn, off of a very, very, limited number of sources, none of which cover the overwhelming majority of her career. Many of them are written from the golly-gee-wizz! The First GIRL!!!! perspective that cuts out nuance, and even fact. Now, my cuz Woody, there, had something to say on this, which you seem to claim to have ready access to; perhaps you could provide an actual quote. Page 75, with any relevant widows or orphans. Anmccaff (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to be understood, write so that you can actually be understood, because I got no damn clue what in the world you're ranting about. Harris? Who's Harris? Why is that guy (or woman?) relevant? And who claimed to have 'ready access' to Sullivan's book? And if Sullivan's your cousin, you should considered recusing yourself from any discussion, because you can't seem to be able to remain level headed about any of this. And if you've got access to the source, then pull the quote from it yourself.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Simply reading the piece would answer the question. Elizabeth Alexander's daughter, and biographer is Mary (Alexander) Harris. It's mentioned more than one in the article, and I think may be above. She is the daughter in question. I think it fairly obvious by context.

Well, I think you claimed to have ready access, in that you've cited it...or are you saying you are depending, for a pretty persnickity meaning, on something you haven't even looked at?

I rather doubt Woodruff T. is any near relation. If on the other hand, his ancestry hails from Beara, who knows? <FoghornLeghorn>It's a joke, son.</FoghornLeghorn> Anmccaff (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I (and others) tire of your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Speak plainly and focus on the article. Or go away. Or get blocked. Your call. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Will the first Female Radio Astronomer Stand Up

http://radio-astronomy.org/pdf/2013_aug_hi_res.pdf appears to stovepipe right into Orchiston, by way of a dead link, and stovepipe into wiki itself as well. That's a circular reference.

It is also obviously meant as light humor, the title itself (along with an educated guess about the age of the writer) tells us that at first inspection.

This is not a work useful for documenting a serious history of science controversy. Anmccaff (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is fine as a source, and this is also supported by Orchiston. I got no idea what in the world you mean by 'stovepipe', so I'm going to assume this is yet another example of axe grinding. And ageism has no place here. If the author is 27 or 72, it doesn't matter. And from the looks of it, he's on the older side.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If you constantly assume something is some vague insult or threat or axe-grinding, I'm sure you can find all sorts of examples of it, but "stovepiping" or "stove piping" is a pretty common metaphor, and even has its own Wiki article, although this use falls outside the examples covered there. I can refer to stuff -information, money, url redirects, &cet that go straight from one thing through the intervening steps undiluted and unchanged. So, for instance, some special education money is "stovepiped" from the state government in my state to individual schools. In theory it goes to school districts , but in practice they move it intact to the individual school.

Where's the "ageism" you reference? Lichtman is making a reference to an old TV show, i.e. making a reference more easily understood by his contemporaries. That's one of the clues that this isn't an attempt to document a serious controversy in the history of science. Again, you are creating a problem by assuming bad faith. Anmccaff (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Father's career.

I beieve this is a relevant part of the article, and it isn't something Orchiston particularly focuses on, the sections about her early life are obviously broad-brush, and wrong on minor details. That her father was an academic, too, is important, but I don't think we have a source that shows he was full professor at Patna College at the time she was growing up in India. with this dif, I added {{when}} to the article. Note the reasoning for the change is clearly noted. Headbomb disagreed, and removed the {{when}}...again, discussing his reasons for doing so in the edit summary. So, back and forth, with discussion of why, not big enough to take to talk yet. A very common editing pattern.

Bradv then reverted. His reason? (Undid revision 715257099 by Anmccaff (talk) discuss on talk page), followed, of course, by no discussion. I think my point, and Headbombs, are self-evident; what's your point here, @Bradv:? Anmccaff (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My point is that you and Headbomb disagree over whether there should be a {{when}} tag on that sentence. When two people disagree on something it should be discussed on the talk page so it doesn't turn into an edit war.

Rather than putting a tag on the sentence, I think the discussion should be whether that sentence could be reframed in order to agree with the available sources. I know you're trying to get the GA tag off this article for some reason, but I think the common goal should be to fix whatever is perceived to be wrong with the article. How would you change that sentence? Bradv 19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"For some reason" strikes me as a bit disingenuous; I've explicitly noted above how the article fails the objective standards Wikipedia sets for WP:Good Articles. I've also noted that it strikes me as extremely unlikely that it will be able to meet it in the short term, and extremely likely it will in the long term: a good bio has that effect, and Imperial College published relatively little crap. Anmccaff (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Six days, and no discussion. Perhaps I should put the {{when}} tag back. Anmccaff (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There has been no further discussion because no-one can work with you! You are determined that you are right despite everyone else disagreeing with you on this page. User:Bradv asked how you wanted the sentence changed.. you haven't answered. ツStacey (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I have. I want the sentence changed by adding a {{when}} to it, to reflect the fact that a relevant fact needs research and sourcing. Anmccaff (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Then you can do that research and add that information when you find it. However, given the article is about Elizabeth and not her father, the date of her father's appointment at Patma is a rather inconsequential factoid at best. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

(→‎Biography: Removed unsourced statements as no references have been found.)

The fact that EA was acting under navy orders to bring back equipment was explicitly mentioned by Harris at the COFEPOW site, a reference that WTT added, and other cites by Harris and Orchiston. Anmccaff (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

WHATTTTT?! YOU PUT THE CITATION NEEDED TAG ON IT! You can't now accuse me of removing sourced information when I was doing that because YOU said it wasn't cited. Make up your mind?! ツStacey (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You introduced the idea, I pointed out that it...or, rather they, weren't directly supported in a nearby cite. Hence, CN. I am now highlighting the fact that two separate things are involved: she may have been on official orders to get radar equipment, but not to personally evacuate her kids. If you read the cited works already introduced to the article, you will see that Harris makes a strong point about the fact that she left on orders -because, among other things, feelings still run high about people leaving when others felt they should stay. Any source for navy orders to personally evacuate her children? No? Then "citation needed." Anmccaff (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Going to side with Stacey here. You put the tag, live with the removal. Or restore the material, and put the citations in place. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out, in an admin capacity, that you're all being unnecessarily aggressive towards each other at the moment. CAPS and "live with it" included.--v/r - TP 19:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologise; I didn't mean to be aggressive. It is just frustrating when it feels someone is tagging an article for seemingly no reason other than they don't like the subject. He is also targeting the Olga Tufnell so I perceive it as a problem with myself or Worm as editors. I am trying to fix the issues as they are raised but I can't seem to do the right thing. ツStacey (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Alexander (scientist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160127182244/http://nzsm.webcentre.co.nz/article1263.htm to http://nzsm.webcentre.co.nz/article1263.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

New Source

Rocks, radio and radar: Elizabeth Alexander and the DSIR Radio Development Laboratory, 1942–1945 has come out. Judging from the title, and its keywords, I suspect it might be a section of the upcoming full biography, and well worth a look. Anyone have good (spelled out "c-h-e-a-p") Taylor and Francis access? Anmccaff (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately not but I agree, that looks like a fantastic article! ツStacey (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary Source and "Sunburst" bit

I should note that the primary source for Alexander's solar work is now online at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1945rdlr.book.....A. It doesn't make a strong case for variation with solar activity, which came later.

I also want to get rid of the sentence involving "sunbursts" simply because this isn't a thing - solar radio bursts, sunspots, solar activity, these are all things, but not "sunbursts".Dicaeopolis (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks. I’d quibble a bit here: the problem isn’t that “sunbursts” has no meaning, it is that it has far too many of them, and the central one, the sun breaking cloud cover, is not particularly helpful. Qwirkle (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

PS: Note that on page two it explicitly does link highest interference to cloud breaks (“bright patches on the sea”) when the sun itself was well obscured, so this is less a question of inaccuracy than of imprecision. Dunno if it needs to be addressed in a stublet of an article like this.Qwirkle (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)