Talk:Laura de Force Gordon

Possible Further Reading

Would be great to comb this student piece for more information/resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisVilla (talk • contribs) 07:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is now cited, and I have pulled a lot from it, but it still has a lot to give. —Luis (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Lesbian?

I note that this is tagged as being a subject for the LGBT studies WikiProject, but other than the one letter-to-the-editor to Ms. magazine, none of the sources I have at hand say Gordon was a lesbian, and one quotes a private letter saying her husband had been "nearer and dearer than life" (Babcock, p. 24). I'm not sure where to go next on this issue: if there are credible sources on the issue (perhaps the Stryker book, which is not online?) we should obviously add the information, but the Ms. letter seemed very trivial, and I don't have any other sources to add. Noting that here and will return to it when I can. —Luis (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

If there has been significant discussion by reliable sources about her orientation, the best approach may be to note just that. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Rivertorch. This prompted me to push at the one cited source a little harder, and I found a copy of the relevant chapter, which is actually just the forward - she isn't mentioned in the body of the book at all. So I have updated the relevant section to address the topic more squarely. Still not super-satisfying, but better than it was. —Luis (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's an improvement. The Shilts ref is interesting, too. I read that book too long ago to remember details like that. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Shilts was a bit of a stretch, since it is only a quote and no commentary. But given the success of that book it is probably the way many people will first come across Gordon. (That's how I first came to this article, a lot of edits ago!) —Luis (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: the GA reviewer (ComputerJA) pointed out that this still has lesbian-related categories; any thoughts on whether those should stay or go? (Or better yet, references to relevant policies if you know of any?) Thanks! —Luis (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

From the relevant guideline:

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc.

and also

For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. Historically, LGBT people often did not come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification is, in many cases, impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP. For a dead person, a broad consensus of academic and/or biographical scholarship about the topic is sufficient to describe a person as LGBT. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such — but no such doubt exists about the sexuality of Oscar Wilde or Radclyffe Hall.

You can draw your own conclusions, but but I read that as deprecating the lesbian categories for the purposes of this article. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 12:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Laura de Force Gordon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ComputerJA (talk · contribs) 02:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Review

Hi, I'll be happy to review this article. I took a look at the article and I think this is ripe for promotion. The layout, prose, and sources look great. My review usually consists of two parts. In my first part, I will review the article's prose and post any suggestions/mistakes that need to be addressed. In my second part, I will try to go through every source and make sure the information is attributed correctly. Thanks and look forward to reviewing this! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Part 1

@LuisVilla: Hi, thank you for writing this article. Below is my GA review. I decided to make several changes myself to make it easier for you. Please check the updates and feel free to disagree with any of them or with any of my questions/comments/concerns below. Let me know if you have any questions! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 05:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@ComputerJA: Responses below in italics. Thanks for the excellent and thorough review and copyediting — a stronger article as a result! (I probably won't get to Part 2 tonight - hopefully come back to that tomorrow.) —Luis (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• and the second female lawyer admitted to practice in California. – The article says she was admitted to the California bar on December 6, 1879, but there is no mention she was the second one in the state (as the intro suggests). There is a mention she was the second one for the U.S. Supreme Court, however. Please make sure the introduction/body paragraphs are correct.

Excellent catch. Fixed.

• daily newspaper in the United States (the Stockton Daily Leader, 1874) – Was it the Stockton Daily Leader or the Stockton Weekly Leader (as mentioned later in the article)?

It was the Weekly when she bought it; she then turned it into the Daily. Added another citation that clarifies that, but open to any suggestions on how to better represent that in the text.

• Laura toured the Northeast – link to Northeastern United States

Feels like overlinking to me? But done.

• giving public speeches and exhibitions – what kind of exhibitions? I usually think of art exhibitions when I see this word.

I think state fair-style speaking booths, but I can't find the source I got that impression from, so struck that text.

• including a speech in Boston at age 18 – Boston

• then to Nevada,[5] and finally settling in California in 1870.[1] – I would link the two U.S. states for our international readers.

Very fair. Done (along with Boston).

• Perhaps as a result, in the late 1860s, Gordon's speaking career turned from Spiritualism to women's rights – I'm not sure I understand what this sentence is trying to say. As a result of what? Please consider rephrasing this sentence altogether.

Rephrased as part of this edit. Still not sure it makes clear what I'm trying to say; suggestions welcome.

• is believed to be the first in California – according to whom? You do not have to put “X historian” or “X source” states this if you do not want to. I just want to make sure if the sources mention it as an absolute statement of fact (like the fact that she was the first female newspaper publisher in the U.S.)

I see your point re "believed"; I think I put it there because I'm personally skeptical of "firsts" where there are broad social movements plus no hard records, but obviously that's my own interpretation. Since there are at least two sources that agree about this, I removed "believed"; moved the cite to the end of the sentence to make that more clear; and added a second cite for the same proposition (though I'm not enamored of citing to other encyclopedias - curious about your thoughts on that).

• behalf of the movement in the 1888 election. – just out of curiosity, which election is this referring to? The association’s election or something else (i.e. presidential elections of 1888)?

Good point. Believe from context in the source that it was the fall 1888 election, which included presidential and California ballot issues, so added a link.

• lobbying campaign for the Women Lawyers Bill – Should this bill be redlinked per WP:REDLINK? I will leave it up to you.

Huh, interesting suggestion. Done! Perhaps my next project ;)

• Gloria G. Harris, Hannah S. Cohen. Women Trailblazers of California: Pioneers to the Present. pp. 45–48. ISBN1609496752. Retrieved 17 December 2013 – Please add publisher.

Done.

• Babcock, Barbara. "150th Anniversary of the Supreme Court" (PDF). Retrieved17 December 2013. – Please add publisher and date of publication.

Done, though it's a slightly odd publisher - I believe she basically runs the site, and it's not a publication per se but a transcript of a speech. In any case, I added a cite to the part of her book that discusses the same material, with the only omission being that the book doesn't specify what Article the relevant Section was a part of..

Part 2

• she published the Oakland Daily Democrat, after which she left journalism. - According to the source, she wrote for the Daily Democrat until 1878, but I'm not sure if it actually says she "left journalism" after that. You mentioned later that she used her position as a journalist to lobby and stay in touch with lawmakers/the governor.

Good catch. I think I extrapolated from another source, but can't find it now and didn't cite it, so... away it goes.

• Women Lawyers Bill, which granted women the right to practice law in California in 1878 - According to this source (used later), this bill granted women the right to practice any profession (not just law). From my understanding, she pushed for the inclusion of a section in the Constitution that granted women the right to practice any profession. Which one is right?

The constitutional change (all jobs) and the statute (limited to lawyers) were different things, which I think the Penn State source confuses. I've tried to clarify a bit in the article here. Further suggestions welcome. Earlier versions of this article (before my involvement) relied very heavily on the PSU article; I've tried to remove it everywhere I can, to be honest. This finally pushed me to remove it altogether.

• Early life and career - Not a requirement for GA. Just wanted to say that there is a lot of info on her early life in this source. If you ever want to promote this to FA, definitely use it.

I honestly hadn't considered FA. I do like that source, and the annotated biography is great, but I only came to it late in the game - will consider at some later date!

• later referring to herself frequently as a widow rather than a divorcée - I think it would be great if you can mention why she would say this. According to the source, during this time the lack of "male protection" via divorce was a taboo so saying she was a widow was the "most acceptable explanation". If you think it might be off topic, feel free to add it as a footnote (this bullet point is just a suggestion).

It's quite on-topic, but the source initially felt so speculative to me that I was somewhat reluctant to include it. On re-reading, it's stronger than I thought, so including.

• Her February 19, 1868 speech in San Francisco, titled "The Elective Franchise: Who Shall Vote" - the source mentions the large audience in attendance, the impact this had for future suffragist organizers in California, nor the fact that she did this speech independently from the Spiritualist movement.

Tracing the sources to flesh it out, the paper's claim is... not really supported by their citations? e.g., that paper goes to another paper, which goes to a book, which doesn't actually say what either paper says about the book. I'm sure it is supported somewhere, but not very inspiring, I'm afraid.

• [1] If you have more info on her Independence Day speech of 1880, that would be a great addition!

I'm not finding anything but will perhaps make another pass soon.

• According to this source, she was also an officer of the Pacific Coast Press Association.

Added, though did not hyperlink as I'm not sure it is the same organization (nothing I've seen in other sources suggest she was an Adventist).

• She also spoke strongly for the Democratic Party, and was a correspondent for the Sacramento Bee. Feel free to add these facts too.

Added the Sacramento Bee part; there's a whole thing to be done about the speaker's circuit but that's not going to happen tonight - perhaps as an FA push.

• I saw that there are two categories that make an absolute statement of fact that she was a lesbian. From my understanding, this is not proven. Please let me know what you think of this and how we can work to improve this.

Great catch - I removed the more firm language from the body of the article a few months ago, but did not catch the categories. I'll remove them momentarily. That said, I think we need a better title than "Legacy" for that section - her legacy is that women can vote and practice law; 75+ year later speculation about her sexual orientation does not a legacy make. No great suggestions yet, though.

On further thinking, I did not delete the categories - I assume there is policy on that sort of thing and would like to search for that first, given the delicacy of that subject. If you know of such and can point me at it, great, else I'll take a look for it soon.

• Thank you for addressing the points above. All other GA requirements check out – congratulations! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 01:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Another picture!

Picture here. Will try to upload and use later. —Luis (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)