Biography: Science and Academia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Classical Greece and Rome

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The page from the Princeton Classics department has become unavailable. Please use the archived webpage found here: [1] Thriley (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is for me now: https://classics.princeton.edu/ and https://classics.princeton.edu/people/faculty/core 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:ED2F:6084:B27D:FC82 (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the page for Katz used in citing this article. It appears to have been deleted. Thriley (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is some near-edit-warring going on between anonymous editor 149.169.81.81 and GuardianH. The anonymous editor (not me!) added a personal life section. GuardianH removed part of it, noting that the detail was extraneous. Anonymous editor restored it. I was doing some independent editing, which created an edit conflicted, and included some material simila rt o the anonymous editor. Since GuardianH raised an issue, I figured best to discuss here.

The critical piece discusses his wife's description of their relationship when she was a student, and not personally involved with him. Normally, this might be considered unnecessary. However, without doing OR, it does allow the reader to recognize how the subject may have had many relationships with students that went beyond pure academics. This does shed light on the original sexual conduct inquiry. It does not tar him with anything by implication, it just gives the reader a fuller piuctiure of how he may have dealt with students on a personal level, albeit in a way that to some may raise concerns. Therefore, I believe it is relevant in a soft way to other material in the article.Dovid (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding earlier. If you think it should be included, then I think it's fine to add—I was just being cautious because that particular detail seems more in line with Katz's controversy regarding his relationship with former students rather than an unbiased description of his personal life. GuardianH (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that any future edits may not be reversible automatically because of intermediate editing (according to the system). As such, if any serious overhaul is done to the article, other editors will have to manually reverse those changes. This is a problem as the article has gained a lot of popularity in the last few days and is vulnerable to edit-wars. All big changes should be discussed first here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuardianH (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies Your removal of the entire second paragraph of the main article with reasoning: "Disagree. previous version was better, certainly the lead was" and "this is mostly fluff and certainly should not be in the lead--and note the primary sourcing" are subjective changes based on your own opinion and should be discussed in the talk page FIRST! The changes you made are very difficult to reverse by any editor because the "intermediate editing" (whatever that might be) prevents those changes from being automatically reversed. The introduction of Katz's academic background which you labeled as "fluff" is standard for most academics and provides a basic background. I'd be willing to discuss with it more if the bunch of editors could stop carpet bombing a lot of the paragraph sections... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuardianH (talk • contribs) 02:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The papers needed citation. I would support the list if it was entirely cited. Thriley (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thriley, as I noted in my edit summary, articles need secondary sourcing. GuardianH, you were writing up a resume; that is not acceptable. I've edited hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles on academics. We do not list every article someone published: that would be ridiculous. Also, feel free to use the ping function. And four tildes to sign your posts. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would ten or so widely read articles be warranted? It doesn’t appear Katz has written any books. Thriley (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: "fluff" here is not unjustified--and the sourcing is of course unacceptable for a BLP. No, it is not standard for every academic. No, it should not be in the lead. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]