# Talk:Olga Tufnell

This review is transcluded from Talk:Olga Tufnell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll finish this review tomorrow JAGUAR  22:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


### Initial comments
The lead needs to be expanded somewhat to comply per WP:LEADLENGTH. A couple of sentences mentioning more of her career and life should easily do it
"was a British archeologist" - archaeologist
"before taking on a secretarial role at British School of Archeology in Egypt" - before taking on a secretarial role at the British School of Archeology in Egypt
"She kept the role of Hilda Petrie's secretary for 5 years" - five (smaller numbers in prose)
"in fund-raising but also spent some time drawing and repairing pottery" - comma needed in between "raising" and "but". Also, should fundraising have a hyphen in it? I'm fine with it, but I've never seen it hyphenated before. Feel free to ignore
"There she was greeted by 200 local archeologists" - archaeologists
No dead links, though I trust ref 13 works
No dab links
I enjoyed reading this article, and could find little issues to bring up. Once all of the above are clarified then this should have no problem passing!  JAGUAR  20:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much again, you are a super-star! I have fixed all the minor issues and Dave (Worm That Turned) will have a look at the lead tomorrow. Thanks, ツStacey (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
No worries! Just a small expansion of the lead should do it. JAGUAR  22:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I've added a couple of sentences, Jaguar, do you think it needs any more? WormTT(talk) 09:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, looks great now! With the lead fully summarising the article, this should be good to go.  JAGUAR  12:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

His death when she was in her teens is probably relevant. Anmccaff (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It might be? I don't know. You offer no evidence to say that he died or that its relevant; I don't know where you keep finding these bits of information but without a source it shouldn't go in. ツStacey (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it almost certainly is.  Early death of a sibling, during the time everyone's siblings of her class and kind were dying...although her brother seems to have popped it from disease, not directly from warfare.  here's a gravestone of her parents and brother, next to Cathy Warwick, who is apparently a relation.  Finding cites for her brother is trivial, just off his very distinct name.  Anmccaff (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
You do know how to use Wikipedia, right? Everything must be sourced or it shouldn't be in the article. I can't read that grave stone to see who it is or when they died? How do you know Cathy Warwick is a relation? You are doing original research; that is not allowed on Wikipedia. Find reliable sources if you want to put something in any article. ツStacey (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
No, Original research, in the wikipedian sense, can only be in the article, discussing stuff known but not sourced on the talk page isn't OR.  Armed with the knowledge, a competent "editor" can then find sources.
I could read the gravestone, though, simply by enlarging the picture, but, if that's so difficult, try this.  BTW, here's his commisioning.  Anmccaff (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
How is this relevant to Olga? Have you found somewhere that she was affected some way by her brothers death which had an impact on her archaeology? Her brother & parents graves are not useful to this article as far as I can see? And I presume you don't have a source to link Cathy Warwick to Olga? Nor its importance even if they were? ツStacey (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd expect the death of an older sibling would be the sort of thing some people might notice.  YMMV.  If you can't see the relevance of birth and death dates of her parents to further research, I don't think I can help you there.
The gravestone picture is identified in Warwick's blog as  Cathy visiting family graves, 6th May 2006. The picure itself is identified as Beauchamp Tufnell Family. Anmccaff (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Find a source that says her brother's death had an effect on her relevant to her biography, otherwise it's WP:OR and not suitable for inclusion in the article. This page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not as a forum for speculation. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense.  There is one single solitary personal fact -her mother's friendship with Hilda Petrie - that is supported in this fashion.  Should the rest of her personal biography be removed?  In fact, there are several elements of her professional life that show no explicit larger connection.  Perhaps "we" could...purge those out, too, and bury the article in a shoebox?
Of course her upbringing is significant; everybody's is. Anmccaff (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This section is about her brother. I will reply at the duplicated message. ツStacey (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Anmccaff: You're talking rubbish. The sources that tell us about Tuffnell's time as Flinders Petrie's secretary make it clear that she was in that job partially as a result of her mother's close friendship with Petrie's wife. It's the sources that make the connection, not this article's editors. Not a single source that you've adduced makes any connection between her brother's early death and any reported event in her life. If you can't see the difference in sourcing, you've no business editing an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Outside of preening wikinewspeak, no one here is "editing" an "encyclopedia."  If you feel this is too close to Wikipedia's peculiar -in every sense- idea of "original research," then let's get a few outside eyes on it.  Anmccaff (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Tufnell's mother appears to have been heavily involved in the  Royal Institute of International Affairs, which seems itself noteworthy.

Source? ツStacey (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
See their 1948 annual report, pg 46.  Anmccaff (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
She was noted in a list of members - is that what you are referring to? ツStacey (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
No, she was noted in a list of dead, distinguished members.  Do you want to argue that she was there by accident?  Anmccaff (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
There was quite a long list of people, I don't think its evidence of being "heavily involved in the  Royal Institute of International Affairs" as you suggest. I've had a look for any other reference of her being a part of this society and I can't find anything else substantial. ツStacey (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Really?  Just from googlication, I can see her a a fairly regular speaker, back to Versailles. Jan 21, 13 Nov. '28, 12 Feb '29.  It's also straightforward to see the connection between her and Hilda Petrie - the Anglo-Czech society.  (That, in turn, connects indirectly back to another recently featured subject, Rosalie Slaughter Morton.) Anmccaff (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Tuffnell's mother is not the subject of this article. Find a source that says her mother's activities had an effect on her relevant to her biography, otherwise it's WP:OR and not suitable for inclusion in the article. This page is for discussion of improvements to the article, not as a forum for speculation. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense.  There is one single solitary personal fact -her mother's friendship with Hilda Petrie - that is supported in this fashion.  Should the rest of her personal biography be removed?  In fact, there are several elements of her professional life that show no explicit larger connection.  Perhaps "we" could...purge those out, too, and bury the article in a shoebox?
Of course her family background is significant; everybody's is. Anmccaff (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

We can't include everything and your sources are putting 2 facts together - No-where does it say anything about Olga? ツStacey (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Anmccaff: The usual resort to the fallacy of the excluded middle: someone objects to including a piece of cruft and your reaction is to swing to the extreme and ask for all of the significant information to be removed. Of course there is a position between including everything and including nothing. We manage that by using our policy on WP:WEIGHT to decide by consensus what content has sufficient support in the reliable sources. If her family background is so significant to her biography, you'll have no problem sharing with us the sources that say so. Otherwise, make the case for inclusion of particular details, rather than simply assuming that your assessment of significance must be right. --RexxS (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
No.  It's a very specific reply to the concern you raised.  None of her personal information -and certainly not her father's commissioning into the militia before she was born, shows any sourced particular connection to her career in this aricle, except her mother's friendship with Petrie. I suspect the fact that her father drilled with the Essex once in a while had far less impact than growing up in a place where you surname was the same as the Deputy Lieutenant's or High Sheriff's...because he was your uncle or your granddad.  Anmccaff (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The Tufnells appear to have been a prototypical "county" family; being a militia officer was a minor, unremarkable part of that.  They also had a -strong- Army and colonial connection, which would seem a great deal more relevant.  Anmccaff (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Source? ツStacey (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The source -you- added to the article, IMS, "Armorial Families: A directory of gentlemen of coat-armour (7th ed.). London: Hurst & Blackett. p. 980", doesn't hint at that at all to you?  Anmccaff (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a leap, User:Anmccaff. I'm disturbed at how much you're putting your opinion into articles - forcing tags on them based upon your personal bias. The source you refer to, I added, not Stacey - despite your best efforts to treat us as the same person. I used it for one fact, the names of the children, and to my recollection that was the only bit of information that was useable from that source. Prototypical "county" family, with -strong- Army and colonial connections is not written in any sources, but is actual you synthesising information based upon your own knowledge.WormTT(talk) 17:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
If it could, and would, be synthesized any anyone, then it is not OR at all, but I agree that this isn't in that category, and probably doesn't belong in the article until better sourced. Neither, however, does a well out-of-date note that a person of the class and kind that were born to be magistrates, militia officers, &cet. was a militia officer add much aside from checking off a box on a "good article" rubric. Anmccaff (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
You may wish to review WP:SYNTHESIS, the policy (part of No Original Research) which disagrees with that statement. Then review your comments. WormTT(talk) 21:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe you mislept this  Anmccaff (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Wikipedia is open to all, which is one of the reason for no original research - Wikipedians are not meant to be putting facts together with information that they happen to know. But, of course, you already know that, which is why you're not adding information to the article, instead you're just tagging it with your opinion. WormTT(talk) 17:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
There's no "opinion" involved.  Describing someone's career by a single minor fact from 15 years before isn't good writing.  Anmccaff (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
10 minutes looking, and there they are in Burke's (Landed). A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain & Ireland, Volume 2 p 1495  Tufnells of Langleys. So, Olga's grandfather was the the Lt Col commanding the local battalion of the Essex regiment, the JP, &cet, and the family owned not too long before (and may have still had ground rent of) Tufnell Park.  There was some coin floating around here. Anmccaff (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Well done Anmccaff, I don't have access to that particular source, so if you want to put that into the article (only what source says of course, no speculation or synthesis) - I'd be most grateful. WormTT(talk) 07:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Why no access?  Blocked for copyright there, but not here? Anmccaff (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
No idea. Google doesn't give me access to the book beyond a snippet view, and I cannot glean enough useful information through the snippet view. WormTT(talk) 09:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting.  The link and direct search both?   Does this one work? [[1]] Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned:, dunno if you saw this yet; does the Hathitrust link above work in your neck of the woods?  Anmccaff (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep, that one worked. Can't see anything that needs adding though, feel free if you'd like to. WormTT(talk) 20:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Aside, I suppose, that far from being from a pack of Essex yokels who owned a few more pigs than the average, she was from a family that had been High Sheriffs, Deputy Lieutenants, and field grade commanders of the militia, all the way back to Chuck-the-Beheaded?  That's a very different picture from what the article now paints.  Anmccaff (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing any sources that tell us what effect that family had on her life and works. Or are we going to make a guess at that? --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
First tell me who this "we" is.  Royal "we"?  Lurkers who support you (in email)?  Deficiency of vitamins H or T? Anmccaff (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Anmccaff Maybe you should keep your comments about the article instead of trying to provoke a reaction from other users? We (all the other users on this talk page) want to work together to improve the article. ツStacey (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I am commenting about the article.  It depicts a person who grew up in a place that had been run by her ancestry for about 300 years as "from a farming family;" that's like describing Elizabeth II as "a former truck driver."  A person's family and early life are uncontroversially part of their biography.  Most of "us" don't have to guess at that, just you and your running dog, Rexx, by the look of it. Anmccaff (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Anmccaff: Stop the trolling. This particular "we" is an editor in good standing with experience of featured content and a clean block log, unlike you. That's all you need to know. Now, where are the sources that tell us what effect that family had on her life and works? It's time to put up or shut up. --RexxS (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
(Yo, Bbb23, see my point about block appeals?)  A person's family is an unremarkable part of their biography.  Even by Wiki's standards, this isn't OR.  As for the "featured content," if it's at the level of some of the other efforts associated here, I'd put that as a distribution from Wiki rather than a contribution to it, they wrote a DYK that was positively martian. If you think this is "trolling", then take it to ANI.  Anmccaff (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(→‎Early life: Source says "family of farmers", but doesn't make it clear if it's historical farming family or current farming family. Either way, it's plausible that Beauchamp was a farmer. Either way, this statement should help remove the "dubious" ta)

More betterer, but the source doesn't just say "family of farmers", it says "well-to-do family of farmers" i.e. yeoman "strong farmers" or "gentleman farmers". It's obvious from other sources that the family was studded with colonels and generals, which implies, but doesn't guarantee the latter, as does the amazing collection of personal names.
The mention of a festschrift is useful; has anyone read it?  It's also worth noting that it explicitly relates her low profile to her personality, rather than to blind prejudice. Anmccaff (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
You have a choice here: find a source that says her social status was that of a child of gentleman farmers (or whatever text you are suggesting) or get your own research published in a peer reviewed journal with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, then we can cite it. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You do realize, I hope, that you are addressing a question already asked and answered over 12 yours before your edit, and already responded to?  Is there a point to this?  Anmccaff (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
No I don't. Please enlighten me. Enquiring minds want to know. How long is a "your"? --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Now, don't ask for too much.   For a light undimming, though, a your is probably about sixty nimutes.  Anmccaff (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Tufnell and Christie herself both almost certainly show up fictionalized in Agatha Christie's work.  Dunno if there is a decent cite to show for this easily available, though. Anmccaff (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not keen on in popular culture sections for biographies. WormTT(talk) 21:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Oddly, I agree with you.  I think the Christie-Mallowan-Woolley-Petrie connections might make this a worthwhile exception. Anmccaff (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Unsure why that's odd, but you'll forgive me for not putting in work to write a section that I'm generally not keen on just based upon your opinion. I'd be interested to read whatever you add though. WormTT(talk) 07:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Worm... I used to love the "in popular culture" sections of most articles, but over time I've come to your way of thinking. It's just not that important that you can hear three seconds of such and such a song playing faintly in the background at the 1:02:33 mark of Loose Screws...and what HASN'T been referenced on the Simpsons, Family Guy, or South Park? PurpleChez (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112118417200;view=1up;seq=9  Beth Pelet I burials.  Anmccaff (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Blanche's stepfather (?) appears to be Adolph Friedrich Lindemann, her father Benjamin Davidson.  Fort's bio of Lindemann's kid would be worth looking at.  This bunch gets more interesting.  Anmccaff (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
PS:Lindemann's wife shows both as Mary and as Olga (Noble) Anmccaff (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The Mormon genealogy site seems to confirm this; here's their extract of the 1891 census.  So, Lord Cherwell was Blanche Tufnell's step-brother, and Olga's maternal grandmother was also Olga.  Anmccaff (talk)
...and, better still, Blanche's father seems to have done business with Schliemann in San Francisco.  Lordy.  Anmccaff (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Although it's not obvious that Lindemann had any impact on Tufnell's life and works, it is probably worth a mention if the sourcing is solid. Even as a piece of trivia, it helps to flesh out her immediate family background. What text would you suggest should be included in the article? --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I did remove the women scientists category but am  not attached. My reasoning was that at the time Tufnell's work was less science related and more related to the practical aspects of archeology as well as writing. At that time scientific aspects of archeology were less developed if developed at all. Just a few thoughts and not attached to my edit.(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC))

Sorry, Littleolive oil, I admit that I understood your "not a scientist" comment to be a critique of her credentials as an archaeologist rather than a denial that archaeology was a science. Had you worded it that way, I'd have thought differently.
My reading of the article is that her introduction of computers to the study of artefacts might well be considered part of the "scientification" of archaeology, but it would be better if we had some sources that made the connection explicitly.
I'm more-or-less neutral on whether those categories should be re-applied. The Category:Women archaeologists is not a sub-category of Category:Women scientists, which makes it likely that you are more correct than I am.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a subcat of Category:Women social scientists, which is a subcat of Category:Women scientists by field. My (shaky) understanding of category trees is that this means this article doesn't need to be added to Category:Women scientists.
For what it's worth, I'm not certain but I think archaeology was still considered a science in Tufnell's time. Computers aside, the "practical aspects" as Littleolive oil puts it included the precise and systematic retrieval, recording and classification empirical data. – Joe (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I doubt those I know working as archeologists consider themselves scientists. While we can say the handling of empirical data is "scientific" this doesn't mean the field itself can be considered a science. That said, I'm fine with whatever; this not a big issue for me. :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC))
It's a perennial talking point that most of us are sick of by the time we've graduated. I'd always describe myself as as scientist, and the general consensus is that archaeology is both a (social) science and a humanity, with the emphasis shifting depending on which subfield/theoretical orientation you belong to.
More to the point, I see that the cats in question are Category:British women scientists and Category:20th-century women scientists. Category:Women archaeologists doesn't have subcategories by nationality or century (perhaps it should), and I think in that case the practise is to go up the tree until you find a parent category that does, so if it's all the same I'm going to go ahead and reinstate the categories. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)