Talk:Max Mallowan

	Biography portal 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 articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assyria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iraq Low‑importance

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Oxford Low‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rewritten

I have rewritten this article without the plagiarism (which affected mainly the central section about his professional work), adding some relevant material from other sources. See Talk:Max Mallowan/Temp. I hope an administrator will now find and insert it. Myopic Bookworm 18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Agatha Christie with Max Mallowan in Tell Halaf 1930s.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC about categorisation

Should this biographical article be added to non biographical categories Category:Agatha Christie, Category:Nimrud and Category:Nineveh? --wooden superman 13:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to revert these recently added categories but my edits have been reverted. The way I read WP:COPSEP and WP:OCASSOC is that we should have separate categories for biographical articles and non-biographical articles, where biographical articles are cateqorised by WP:DEFINING characteristics of the person. I don't think these defining characteristics would include people or places they are associated with unless there is consensus for a separate "people" category, i.e. something in a Category:Archeologists by location tree or similar, or the clearly inappropriate Category:Husbands of Agatha Christie. --wooden superman 13:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPSEP is not relevant here at all. I quote: "Keep people categories separate. Categories with a title indicating that the contents are people, should normally only contain biographical articles and lists of people, and perhaps a non-biographical main article" This is for people categories such as Category:Writers from London or Category:Writers from New York City, not eponymous categories.
Wikipedians have been disputing what are the "WP:DEFINING characteristics of the person" for over twenty years, and I don't expect the matter to ever be resolved.
We certainly categorize people by places associated with them, and it is logical for archaeological locations to be defining for their researchers.
"the clearly inappropriate Category:Husbands of Agatha Christie" Why would it be inappropriate? We have an entire category tree for Category:Husbands by person. Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree wholeheartedly. The spirit of WP:COPSEP is to keep biographical and non-biographical separate. Keep people categories separate. We should not have a mix of biographical and non-biographical articles in the same categories. Yes, we categorise people by where they are from, but in a "people from..." tree, not just after the name of the place. Again, we are keeping the categories separate. Look at some of the examples at WP:OCASSOC. And spouse categories seem to be almost exclusively for royalty and similar. --wooden superman 14:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"biographical and non-biographical separate" Categorization does not work that way, and the text says nothing about the topic. Eponymous categories are not people categories. Wikipedia never had a problem with overcategorization, only with undercategorization. And WP:OCASSOC specifically allows categories by association, specifically listing Category:Obama administration personnel as a good example to follow. Dimadick (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the spirit of WP:COPSEP is to work that way, and that is generally the way it works in practice. I have absolutely no idea why you have added Category:Agatha Christie to Reginald Campbell Thompson. This is textbook WP:OCASSOC. The association is clear in Category:Obama administration personnel, but these "associated with..." categories need to be WP:DEFINING. This is generally not the case for spouses, etc., as people are usually independently notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. --wooden superman 14:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"usually independently notable" People like like Archie Christie are only notable because of who they married or (in his case), a controversial divorce and a connection to his first wife's temporary disappearance. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:COPSEP is not relevant here at all." I disagree. Wikipedia:COPSEP clearly states,

This guideline concerns the categorization of biographical articles about people. This includes: *All articles named after a person or a group of persons. *All categories where such biographical articles could be expected to be located.

This article is literally named after a person and the dispute pertains to categories where such biographical article could be expected. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where biographical articles are cateqorised by WP:DEFINING characteristics of the person. I point out Categorizing pages,

While it should typically be clear from the name of an existing category which pages it should contain, the text of the category page may sometimes provide additional information on potential category contents.

But at the same time, Overcategorization By being associated with,

"Associations" can be problematic, §subjective and vague. As it can be determining what degree or nature of "association" with a particular subject is necessary to qualify for inclusion in such a category. The threshold of this may fail arbitrary inclusion criteria.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Associations are the gold-standard in Wikipedia for categorizing people. We have a category tree of Category:People by association. Dimadick (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Gold standard"? Nonsense. There are quite a few in that tree that are a bit of a mess to be honest. --wooden superman 12:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for Category:Nimrud and Category:Nineveh as the article clearly indicates that these are excavations they worked on. No for Category:Agatha Christie as a marriage to her doesn't cut it to be included in the category is my understanding (please ping me if my understanding is incorrect and I need some education). TarnishedPath^talk 07:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]