This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The plot summary says both that Alan is a sociology lecturer and that his field is anthropology. The text says, 'Crispin Maynard had been a pioneer in the field of the history of pre-literate peoples .... This was Alan's subject, too, but he had come to it from anthropology whereas Crispin had started out as a historian.' So 'anthropology' seems closer than 'sociology', though I'm not sure that the name of Alan's 'department' is ever spelt out. Snugglepuss (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given Pym's great knowledge of anthropology, that seems more appropriate than sociology. But as the summary refers later to 'their shared field of anthroplogy' it might be simpler to just say in the opening sentence that Alan is a lecturer, and leave it at that.Sbishop (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion at User_talk:Sweetpool50#Recent_revert. Thank you! 02:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC) CaptainAngus (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

CaptainAngus and Sweetpool50; First, we can acknowledge that WP:NOTBYRELATION is not a policy. However, the guidelines it suggests are fair and reasonable, and I find myself in-agreement with the vast majority of its contentions. Sometimes, the spirit of both policy and of consensus-driven best practice is better interpreted by essays. However, I have always felt that interpretation of this essay would need to be balanced by case-by-case historical context and by keeping WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in-mind. Secondly, I would support reversion to the previous diff, utilizing "married." Sweetpool50, your best argument is also the reason I cannot support your preferred verbiage. I understand your position, but attempting to contextualize and analyze the novel's themes (in a plot section) is not what an encyclopedic article does. If you were to introduce a sourced "Themes" section and wished to discuss "Pym's intentions," "irony," and broader themes of an individual discovering (or perhaps re-discovering, as the case may be) their own identity, outside of marriage; then I would say, "go for it." Lastly; Not to harp on you, but I would further second CaptainAngus' contention that you should not be accusing other editors of "bullying" and attempting to impose an "ideological dictatorship." I understand your concerns, Sweetpool50, but nothing CaptainAngus has done or said would seemingly support your accusations. I can tell that you are passionate about this subject and perhaps you are defensive because of this; I can appreciate that. But you are an experienced editor; You know very well that you are not going to win any arguments with that sort of language. Indeed, you, yourself, may be accused of attempting to "bully" another user into submission with that sort of language, apart from the obvious CIVILITY and AGF issues. I apologize for the length of this response, but again, it appeared to me that you are both passionate about this topic and — as someone that almost exclusively edits military and law enforcement-related articles — I did not want to appear as though I had not analyzed this carefully. I hope you two can shake hands and move-on. I will give my usual disclaimer when dealing with THIRD requests regarding a small amount of content such as this; Given the small "amount" of content in-dispute, I would contend that consensus has been achieved via this THIRD. CaptainAngus should feel-free to revert. The onus has shifted to Sweetpool50 to further dispute the content (which is your right, either via attempting a broader RfC or DRN.) MWFwiki (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MWFwiki: Thank you very much! Your analysis is appreciated. CaptainAngus (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I realise I'm adding to an ended discussion, but as the original writer of the text in question I was mentioned initially in the conversation. Glad to see it worked out - I certainly have no qualms about the change and agree with the overall intention. My use of the phrase "wife" rather than "married" was certainly not a deliberate choice. I agree that it makes sense for characters in a novel to be defined on their own terms when initially described to a general audience. As an armchair Pym scholar, I also don't feel that her intentions with any of her protagonists can be so easily explained away - her ironies are endless, yes, but so is her characters' richness, and Caro's status as Alan's wife is a vital but not overwhelming element, regardless of her feelings in parts of the novel. Thanks to CaptainAngus for making a considerate amendment. The Cardigan Kid (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I've never read Pym myself, I'll have to check out her work! CaptainAngus (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]