Talk:1918 Liechtenstein putsch/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 11:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this - comments to follow. Should be over the next few days, but please ping me after a week if I forget. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nicely-written article on a fascinating topic: I much enjoyed it and learned a lot. I've made a copyedit throughout: please do come back at me with any changes where you disagree.

The major doubt I have at the moment is over the designation as a putsch or coup: I appreciate that a coup doesn't always have to involve parking tanks outside the legislature, but it does have to involve some kind of extra-constitutional use or threat of force. I think the crux of the matter is this sentence:

While the Landtag unanimously expressed its confidence in him it was decided, against the constitution and the princely appointed Landtag members, to transfer the power of the state administrator to a Provisional Executive Committee led by Martin Ritter.

Who decided, and how did they enforce their decision, given that so far everyone who held the levers of power was opposed to this idea?

More specific nit-picks:

There seems to be an understanding that Liechtenstein was not self-sufficient for food in 1914: it would be worth finding some information to spell this out explicitly and give a vague sense of scale (did the country need to import a bit, or a lot, to keep afloat?)
It would be wise to introduce both Imhof and Beck in terms of the vague contours of their politics.
The Christian-Social People's Party was formed in February 1918: we've buried the lead here that Beck founded it.
~~Best to use list templates in the infobox rather than jerry-rigging them with line breaks: I've done this for you.~~
~~In the wake of means "immediately after": we mean something like "in the months before the outbreak of World War I".~~
Imhof asked for a vote of confidence and at the same time agreed to submit his resignation: I don't understand how both of these things could go together. Was Imhof intending to serve out a transitional period, if the Landtag expressed confidence in him?
~~I think we should outline in the lead how long the coup's effects lasted: when did the PEC cease to hold power?~~
I'm a little hazy on the unconstitutionality of the 'coup': clearly, the prince thought it was unconstitutional, but did Beck and his allies agree? It might be useful to clarify exactly why the motion to transfer the governor's powers was felt to be unconstitutional.
"Erster Weltkrieg" ('First World War': the name cited for ref 2) is clearly not the author's name.
I am now very unclear from the body text about what happened after 13 November. Beck and the committee clearly lost power (or stepped down?) on 7 December, though this isn't set out clearly in the body -- we then have something about it taking until 1921 to write a new constitution. What happened in the interim: did Beck's ideas carry on in power, or was there some kind of reversal or backlash?

Image review

File:Martin Ritter.jpg: to be US PD, this needs to be published before 1929, as its licence avows. However, the page only says that it was published before 1945 -- a date between 1930 and 1945 would be no good. Can we find more specific information?
File:Landtagspräsident Fritz Walser.jpg has a similar problem: we can't use it as an unpublished work, as it's not from pre-1904, and 1930 wouldn't quite cut it (though, if we do have to remove it, it might be worth commenting it out rather than deleting it, with a note that it should come into the PD next year).
File:Beck Wilhelm Dr.jpg: as File:Martin Ritter.jpg.
File:Imhof Leopold.jpg: strictly speaking, we only have a creation date for this: what does LI LA in the credits mean?
- I see that you've made changes here: none of them, unfortunately, fix the problem. In particular, we need to prove that each image is PD in the United States (where Wikimedia's servers are based), not only in Liechtenstein. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean, the status of the images are proved through the sources. They are all at least 70 years old and do not have any attributed author, which makes them public domain in both Liechtenstein and the United States. TheBritinator (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case for the US, unfortunately. See Commons:Hirtle chart: if we can show that they were published with no copyright information, and were PD in Liechtenstein in 1996, we can use PD-1996. Otherwise, if they were published after 1929, the earliest they can become PD is 2025. Regardless of any of that, they need to at least have a US PD tag on the Commons page, which some of them don't. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I will add that aswell. TheBritinator (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you have to first check that it applies! Take File:Martin Ritter.jpg, for example: if it was published in 1945, 70 years PMA is 2015 at the earliest, so it wasn't PD in Liechtenstein in 1996. We also can't just assert that it was published without copyright notification unless we can show the original publication. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled-out discussion

Alright I have taken the time to address some of the points you have made on my article and have updated the image licensing to be more accurate. However, I do have some points I would like to address separately.

"In the wake of means "immediately after": we mean something like "in the months before the outbreak of World War I"."

Not sure what the problem is here, the source is talking about the mood in Liechtenstein upon the outbreak of the war, not before it.

Right, but in the wake of World War I means "immediately after World War I": that is, in late 1918. We're talking about early 1914 here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So 'in the wake of the outbreak of World War I' would work better, correct? Made that change.TheBritinator (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a MOS:IDIOM issue here: more literal language would be preferable. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it again. TheBritinator (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It would be wise to introduce both Imhof and Beck in terms of the vague contours of their politics."

The image already does that for Imhof by stating that he was Governor since April 1914, but for Beck it's barley necessary as was not really a notable figure before 1914.

I more mean their political beliefs: Beck, for instance, seems to have been a broadly left-wing populist, while Imhof seems to have had more conservative politics. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Imhof asked for a vote of confidence and at the same time agreed to submit his resignation: I don't understand how both of these things could go together. Was Imhof intending to serve out a transitional period, if the Landtag expressed confidence in him?"

That is again, what the source says. I don't necessarily disagree that the process is odd but that's what it was.

Could you quote the material you're working with? Whatever the source says, we can't write something that is clearly contradictory. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://historisches-lexikon.li/Imhof,_Leopold_Freiherr_von - "In der Landtagssitzung vom 7. November stellte Imhof die Vertrauensfrage und erklärte sich gleichzeitig bereit, seine Demission einzureichen." TheBritinator (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm: this would normally be the place to look for another source, but I am struggling to find any. We might have to simply accept that we're working with less information than we'd like here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean omit the information? Or just ignore the strange aspect? TheBritinator (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we can find another source, I think the current wording is the best we can do. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I hope this clears things up. TheBritinator (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- a few replies above. For reference and the future, it's much clearer if you reply to points directly underneath them, using an indent -- I can then strike out matters that are resolved. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist I have once again worked to address the points you have raised, please advise. TheBritinator (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that most of my content points have been addressed: apart from the struck items, all of the bullet-points in the first section of the review still seem to be as they were before. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific I have addressed each one of them to make them more clear and/or with clarification. What more do you need? TheBritinator (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat them here, with a few adjustments and notes:

There seems to be an understanding that Liechtenstein was not self-sufficient for food in 1914: it would be worth finding some information to spell this out explicitly and give a vague sense of scale (did the country need to import a bit, or a lot, to keep afloat?)
It would be wise to introduce both Imhof and Beck in terms of the vague contours of their political beliefs.
The Christian-Social People's Party was formed in February 1918: we've buried the lead here that Beck founded it.
I'm a little hazy on the unconstitutionality of the 'coup': clearly, the prince thought it was unconstitutional, but did Beck and his allies agree? It might be useful to clarify exactly why the motion to transfer the governor's powers was felt to be unconstitutional. Here an EFN has been added, but doesn't address the problem: we've said that it would have been unconstitutional to dismiss Imhof, but the committee didn't do that (he resigned): they simply redefined the Governor's powers.
We still have no real sense of the narrative between December 1918 and October 1921. See in particular a constitutional committee was elected: what was that about? Who decided to call for one -- is this a continuation of the coup's aims or a sort of counter-revolution?

UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have specified this slightly stating that it soured the initial war support due to Liechtenstein being reliant on food deliveries, do I need more?
I have mentioned that Beck ideas were social liberal in nature. As for Imhof - he was an independent, and there isn't actually any sources attributing him to being a conservative, even though that can be reasonably assumed. I don't think I can just synthesize sources to make a conclusion.
They assumed the powers of governor and Imhof was only de jure governor until November 13 when he resigned due to pressure from the Landtag. The reason its dubbed a coup in Liechtenstein history is because they had no constitutional power to do this, yet it succeeded. I have specified that even more, but I am not sure how else I can make this clearer.
Specified that the constitution was a continuation of Beck's ideals and more people who were involved. TheBritinator (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Any update? TheBritinator (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that any of the image issues have been fixed, which are currently the biggest obstacle to promotion. None of the images has suitable evidence to show that it is PD in both its source country and the United States. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I do not agree. I believe I have provided suitable evidence for these images (two of which weren't even uploaded by me) and if this was a big issue then this would of been brought up far sooner. If this is going to keep holding it back, then what would you recommend? TheBritinator (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the images still don't show evidence of the correct licences. There are two options here: either remove the images or find sufficient evidence that they are PD in the United States and add that to their pages on Commons. Again, it's not enough simply to add a licence template unless we can also show proof that the licence conditions are met. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What more proof is needed exactly? The site clearly attributes its source and any author if applicable. TheBritinator (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might not be able to do a whole lot, here, but this is my best effort at explaining:
File:Martin Ritter.jpg and File:Beck Wilhelm Dr.jpg both need proof -- not just a statement -- that they were published without compliance with copyright formalities. The linked sources do not contain that proof.

In addition, both File:Martin Ritter.jpg and File:Beck Wilhelm Dr.jpg need proof that they were published before 1936.

File:Landtagspräsident Fritz Walser.jpg has no US PD tag at all. It needs one, and supporting evidence that it fits it. This is likely to end up similar to File:Martin Ritter.jpg.

File:Imhof Leopold.jpg needs evidence of when the image was published (that is, made widely available to the public). The linked source only says when it was taken.

It might be that this simply isn't the time to get this article to GA: to do so, you're going to need to understand the relevant copyright policies, and it might be wise to give this process another go once you've been able to read up and ask around about them. Equally, it is also entirely possible that these images are not PD in the United States, which would necessitate their removal unless a fair-use rationale can be constructed -- it's unlikely that we'll be able to do that for this article, as it's not specifically about any of the people in the images or the images themselves. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have two other GAs similar to this already. However, if you insist, I will remove the images to put this to rest. TheBritinator (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist, images are now removed. TheBritinator (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That solves that one. The GA standards do require articles to be illustrated where possible: suggest perhaps:
File:Regierungsviertel Liechtenstein 1.jpg as an illustration of where most of this took place.

File:Hochzeit von Elisabeth Fürstin von Urach Gräfin von Württemberg und Prinz Karl Aloys von und zu Liechtenstein.jpg (though needs original publication tracking down and source link fixing)

File:Johann II portrait.jpg

By no means an exhaustive list. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it appears that a third party has reverted my edit on removing the images. I'm honestly not very willing to argue this since I don't agree that they are supposed to be removed in the first place, but I dunno.TheBritinator (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup: I re-reverted (courtesy ping to User:Furius: this is the discussion I was talking about in the edit summary) -- the main issue there was that you left an edit summary saying that you'd removed the images, but not why, and the rationale wasn't obvious to anyone not following this page. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, what now? TheBritinator (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my last comment at the bottom of this page. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Quaderer's surname is given in this source as "Quaderer-Vogt".
Quaderer 2011 says that a major problem for Liechtenstein was that it did not formally declare neutrality in 1914: this should be added, as we currently have Liechtenstein remained neutral, which gives the opposite impression.
I have some WP:CLOP and WP:TSI concerns (remembering that translation is a form of close paraphrase):
- Our article has The general population, however, was supportive of the Central Powers, particularly Austria-Hungary, which had been in a customs union with Liechtenstein since 1852. The majority of the Liechtenstein government did not expect the war to last long, thus no food or economic preparations were made for it: compare Quaderer 2011 (via Google Translate): When the war broke out, the population, ... were on the side of the Central Powers and especially Austria-Hungary, with which a customs union had existed since 1852. Liechtenstein did not declare neutrality at the start of the war because those responsible were of the opinion that the war would only last for a short time. I also note that the statement that no food or economic preparations were made appears unsupported by the source.
- From 1916 Liechtenstein was embargoed by the Entente countries, which caused mass unemployment in the country: I cannot see that this is supported by the cited source.
- While the Landtag unanimously expressed its confidence in him does not appear to be supported by the cited source.
- Other figures who opposed Beck's ideals, such as Albert Schädler, had also attempted to prevent the establishment.: this also does not appear to be supported by the cited source.

If I've got any of the above wrong, could you please provide the text from the original -- in German or English -- that supports them? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realised I have some of the sources mixed up, in that the statements were true but the source wasn't in the right place. I have fixed that now. As for the first one, I have not seem him called that anywhere else, despite it all being the same person, quite honestly not sure why it is like that, perhaps its another author? TheBritinator (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cite that source (though have also managed to mix up his names: he's listed as "Rupert, Quaderer"), so should follow, at least when citing that source, the name he gives on it. For other sources, we should likewise follow the name he used for them.

On the more pressing CLOP/TSI issue: the first close paraphrase issue remains. Remember that translation is a form of paraphrase, and so simply turning a set of words from German into English is insufficient to allow them to be used: the writing in our article has to be original to that article. I also don't see a fix on the "mass unemployment" point, nor the suggestion that Schaedler had previously attempted to prevent the establishment of the Committee. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already believe I fixed this - I have changed the wording on the background part and adjusted the others you have mentioned. TheBritinator (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK: these seem to be better now. Could I ask you to do a full check of the article to make sure that a) every cited statement is unambiguously supported by its cited source, and b) there is no close paraphrase, including close paraphrase of a translation, remaining in the article? I'll do another check after that: sourcing and copyvio are pass/fail matters, and the fact that a random sample of four sources turned up four problems is concerning in this regard. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everything is in order. Did you have an opportunity to check yourself? TheBritinator (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist Any update? TheBritinator (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet: I'll ping you when there is. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2:

Imhof attempted to resist the establishment of the committee does not appear to be supported by the source (note 9)
I cannot find evidence for Within the general population of Liechtenstein the coup was popular, as Imhof was largely seen as the reason for the country's economic crisis. However, in the Landtag it was far more controversial in the cited pages, though as a large range is cited here, I may have missed it: could you provide the supporting quotation from the original if so?
Note 12 links to the wrong page. It also doesn't support Martin Ritter in particular was a controversial figure in the government, due to him being the first Liechtensteiner head of government, or the assertion that his unpopularity was due in part to having only served for one month. There is another source cited, which appears to be a list of members, but it's a dead link.
Neither note 7 nor note 12, both cited for it, appear to support Martin Ritter and Fritz Walser ... were deeply dissatisfied with Imhof's handling of the economy and who wanted a Liechtensteiner head of state. One of those sources says that Beck wanted a Liechtensteiner head of state, but that's not the same thing.

If I've missed any of these in the sources, could you provide the quote from the original? More generally, I'd suggest citing the smallest page ranges possible: if the information is given on two pages that are separated, you can give it as e.g. pp. 2, 4, 6. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping as promised: TheBritinator UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should have these fixed now. Source 12 had the wrong link (my mistake) and 17 now seems to be dead, so I have replaced it, matches up now. TheBritinator (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I cannot pass this article as it stands: in two rounds of spot checks, every single citation checked has failed, either for WP:CLOP or WP:TSI. I note that one of the fixes made here (amending the note 9 cited text to Imhof soon faced accusations that the measures he took to address the economic crisis were inadequate and that he was incompetent is a direct copy of the source (via Google Translate: Imhof soon faced accusations that the measures he had ordered were inadequate). I'm afraid the article needs to go back to the drawing board and undergo a thorough check for TSI and close paraphrasing before being nominated again. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.