Talk:Euphemia Steele Innes

Please discuss significant edits on this page before publishing

This is in response to unilateral edit decisions being made without discussion during DYK exposure. Storye book (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have very little to add beyond my commentary in this edit summary. WP:DYKSG does not mention WP:CREDENTIALS specifically, but does discuss checking for other facets of WP:MOS compliance before passage and promotion to the main page. WP:CREDENTIALS does not list a caveat or special case rules if the degree or lifespan is groundbreaking or significant in any way. In fact the significance is well sourced and already prosified in the article body, where it belongs. At risk of other editors considering the following examples to be WP:OSE: I edit in Taiwan topics mainly, and I can find Lin Mosei, the first person from Taiwan to earn a doctorate, Hsu Shih-hsien, the first Taiwanese woman to complete doctoral study, Henry Kao, the first Taiwanese person to receive an honorary doctorate from a specific Japanese university, and Chuang Shu-chi, the first Taiwanese person to obtain a doctorate at a specific Japanese university, that also fulfill similar first-degree-related accomplishments similar to Innes. In none of the Taiwanese cases do they go against WP:CREDENTIALS with the reasoning that Innes does. I am aware of WP:IAR as well, but at this time, Innes is the only article on the main page that contravenes MOS, every piece of main-page content must adhere to before appearing there. (e.g. WP:FACRITERIA#2) The fact that the article about Innes violates the style guide, to me, is not very common-sense at all. Regarding the removal of the lifespan in the article body, which per MOS:OPENPARABIO, is to be placed in the lede. What should be the focus, in quality, main-page-level content, is the subject's accomplishments, not the ability of the subject's article to stick out for not following the style guide. Vycl1994 (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Qualifications belong in the introduction and should not be repeated within the text. Adding the place of birth within the brackets after the dates of birth and death is potentially confusing. Deb (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Academic or professional titles and degrees. Deb (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

@Deb: I have replaced the dates of birth and death for Innes in the Background section, because they need to be repeated next to the sources. Otherwise, the reader can see the birth and death dates in the header only, but would not be able to connect those dates with their citations.

I have replaced the qualifications of Innes' father, because his educational status sheds light on her start in life, and her own potential for a career. In the 19th century it was rare enough for rich British women to attend university and get qualifications, due to cultural limitations on women. Innes' father was educated, but in his position as a local nonconformist priest he would not have had access to the funds necessary to educate his daughter at university. This, together with a comment made by Innes later in the article about education for nurses being available for free, may give an insight, or at least raise a question, about why Innes chose to take that direction in her career, bearing in mind the academic potential that she clearly had.

I think that all biographies should include all information which may have a bearing on the subject's background and beginnings, because that may help to explain how and why they achieved what they did. Of course, as editors we can't include our own conclusions on those questions, but we can include all possibly relevant cited facts, which the reader can reflect on, if they wish. The place of birth and death of her parents is relevant too, in that Innes left her country of birth as a young woman, and did not return until she was soon to die. That information about the location of her parents, brief though it is (it's all we have at the moment) does rather give the impression that they did not follow her to England, even though she was so successful. That also sheds a little light on the private life of the woman. There is so very much that we can never know, so even a tiny bit of information such as the place of death in Scotland of her mother, while Innes lived and worked in England, is relevant to the biography Storye book (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC).

These details may be relevant, but if you can't include them in a manner that actually sheds light on their relevance, they shouldn't be included. There's no point in merely adding the place of her mother's death without making it clear what its relevance is - and of course this must be referenced; there's no point in saying that it's relevant that "they did not follow her to England, even though she was so successful" unless you can provide a citation for that. We don't write creative biographies here; we have to stick to the facts as far as we can ascertain them. Deb (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There will always be a variety of opinions on the relevance of specific facts in biographies. If one were of a negative or destructive turn of mind, one could go through any WP biography and remove any facts which one did not understand the potential relevance of.

I tend to work mainly with British 19th-century material, and clearly there will be many readers here who would not immediately grasp the significance of certain facts relating to a 19th-century British woman. There are times when we need to exercise some good faith, and give benefit of the doubt as to the inclusion of biographical facts by an editor who has worked in that area.

Of course I have "stuck to the facts as far as we can ascertain them" in the article, and of course I didn't add any opinions that can't be referenced, in the article. You know that, and you do not need to reprimand me for something that I did not do. There is a difference between creating an article, and in discussing how it can be improved (or how it can be not diminished) on a talk page. Storye book (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vycl1994:. Re your examples of articles not including postnominals in headers and infoboxes, there are plenty more that do. Here are a few to start with (not created by me): Patrick Abercrombie, Bryan Avery, Hugh Casson, Terry Farrell, David Adjaye, Stephen Hawking (featured article, news article), Max Newman. There will be many, more - it only took me a few minutes to find those.

I have not seen any mention of not having postnominals in infoboxes in the WP guidelines links that you gave. In fact, some infoboxes have parameters for postnominals, as do some of the infoboxes used by the example articles I listed above, including the infobox that I used in the Innes article. Storye book (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe you have mischaracterized my position here. I have linked to WP:CREDENTIALS in every post of mine during this exchange, and that is what I want to focus on. The point I wish to stress here is that, postnominals are perfectly fine. People who have won awards or decorations in the former British Empire, or Commonwealth or UK-based WP:NPROF#C3 fellowship, do use postnominals. As such I do not support, and did not ever remove, the mention of Innes' award, mentioned as a postnominal. But notice that Hawking has earned a doctorate, and several honorary ones, all of which are sourced in the article about him. However the first mention of his name in the article about him does not include any British degree abbreviations, because again, despite Hawking, and every other example you cite being entitled to degree abbreviations...the appropriate guidance on degrees is explained at WP:CREDENTIALS, not WP:POSTNOMINALS. It does not appear that Innes ever used her academic titles as a stage name or pseudonym (unlike Judy Sheindlin, Dr. Seuss, Ruth Westheimer, Drew Pinsky), and Innes's degrees are sourced and described in the article about her, so... "Post-nominal letters for academic degrees following the subject's name (such as Steve Jones, PhD; Margaret Doe, JD) may occasionally be used within an article where the person with the degree is not the subject, to clarify that person's qualifications with regard to some part of the article, though this is usually better explained in descriptive wording. Avoid this practice otherwise." Vycl1994 (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The operative word here is "within", which refers to the body of the article as opposed to the header. I have not used Innes' name with postonominals attached, in the body of the article.

Innes' Diploma of Nursing was given as an honorary degree, and was the highest academic award that she was permitted as a nurse at that time. She had already earned it academically, and had been teaching its subject matter (and supervising its teaching) for years. As a teacher, and as a supervisor of teachers of the Diploma of Nursing (which she had to teach under that title immediately following that award), that honorary academic qualification would be recognised as a doctorate today, because one would need that knowledge and qualification to carry out that job today. We have to see this in context. That phrase Diploma of Nursing meant far more for women in the 19th century than people may realise today. That makes it historically significant, and part of her notability, which is the reason why it is mentioned in the header and infobox.

Please note that I'm not in this discussion to play at winning arguments with you. I am trying to explain Innes' notability, and how that should be represented. It is there in the header in the same way as Hawking's awards are in the header - as a mark of recognition and respect. Storye book (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You have done an admirable job sourcing her accomplishments and notability...which is exactly why WP:CREDENTIALS states that listing any degrees in postnominal format is unnecessary. Per WP:POSTNOM: "The lead sentence should be concise: Academic (including honorary) degrees and professional qualifications may be mentioned in the article, ( Done) along with the above, ( Done) but should be omitted from the lead, as should superseded honors (e.g., the lesser of two grades in an order), and those issued by other entities (e.g., sub-national organizations)." The goal of this project is to be encyclopedic. Its tone is not concerned with respect or sensationalist detraction of any article subject. The first two words of the article on Stephen Hawking are "Stephen William", not Professor Doctor. In day-to-day life, respectful titles for the less academically accomplished include Mr./Mrs., etc. but WP:SURNAME advises against using them in articles, as well. Vycl1994 (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Storye book: I think you are having a problem with "ownership". This is a fine topic, and most of what you've written is fine. However, because you've worked long and hard on it, you've not noticed how cluttered that "Background" section was looking, and that led you to take offence when others tried to improve on it. I was not admonishing you for taking a detailed interest in the topic, I was trying to give you guidance to help you make the article more readable. Deb (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No it's not ownership. It's about getting the facts right. There has just been an uncited edit saying that Innes was awarded her Diploma in Nursing by the Royal Red Cross?? There was already a clear explanation and citation in the Nursing section, saying that she got it from the University of Leeds. The Royal Red Cross does not give people academic qualification, honorary or otherwise. I do not take offence, there is no need here to waste emotion on getting the facts right. It is others who choose to attribute inappropriate attitudes to me, as you may see above. it is also necessary to make clear that Innes' parentage was Scottish. That is a fact, and without such facts, we cannot say that she is Scottish, or any other nationality. Giving the place of birth and death of her mother is a reasonable and acceptable way of saying that her mother was Scottish. Storye book (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Your edit stated that she had a Royal Red Cross Diploma in nursing. There was no explanation of what that meant. If that doesn't mean that the Diploma in nursing was awarded by the Royal Red Cross, then what does it mean? Deb (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember saying that myself, and cannot find any record of it in the article or in the last page of edit summaries. Please could you give us a diff link? Either way, it is not true. Storye book (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you have seen this {(diff) in edit mode where it looks like this: [[Royal Red Cross|RRC]], [[Diploma in Nursing|DN]]? In reader mode it's just the postnominal abbreviations, but in edit mode seen at a quick glance, as by a blind man on a galloping horse, it could look like an intended phrase putting the Royal Red Cross together with the Diploma in Nursing? Storye book (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Or perhaps as seen by the average reader? Does this help you to understand why it's a good idea to explain things clearly instead of just firing off abbreviations as part of the text? Deb (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The average reader would see it as reader text, not as source code, and therefore as postnominals: Euphemia Steele Innes, RRC, DN, (but linked for checking of course) at the top of the header or infobox. If that's a problem for readers, then so are the postnominals on Stephen Hawking's page, which are in the same position in the article. The postnominals for Innes are no longer in the body of the article, anyway. That bit is resolved. Storye book (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Euphemia Steele Innes's rank and official position

If you are in disagreement as to the above, please discuss it here on the talk page so that the discussion is open. It may be that others have better sources to contribute. Please kindly do not email me, because a closeted discussion is not helpful here. Thank you.

My current position on the matter is that, whatever Innes's official position and rank, she was actively and in practical terms in charge of other matrons during World War I, because that is what my sources say. If you have sources to the contrary., please let us know here. This is because we have two options here. If you have new and vastly superior sources proving beyond reasonable doubt that the existing sources are lying or misinformed, then we can change the facts in the article and properly cite them. If your new sources merely disagree with the existing sources, then we can state in the article that sources disagree, and we can state both contradictory facts and cite them. Thank you for your understanding. Storye book (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)