Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Jaffray
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Jolly Ω Janner 06:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Elizabeth Jaffray
[edit]- ... that the first female chief servant in the history of the White House, Elizabeth Jaffray, was hired in 1909?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lisa Aschan
- Comment: Hold for women's history month?
Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 08:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC).
Created and nom on same day/new enough. 2106 char/long enough. Cited. No apparent copyvios. No image. QPQ done. Hook at 112 char is under minimum, interesting and cited immediately following. I believe there is an issue with tone and neutrality in the article. It is written more like an exposé with negative undertones toward subject. However, it seems reasonable that Jaffray would not have been retained by 3 presidents and begun working for a 4th had she not been competent. Case in point, the White House source for the claim that Jaffray imposed segregation states that the New York Times credited the decision to the First Lady. This source indicates Jaffray was "perfection" at her job. It needs more balance. Thanks. SusunW (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't have access to the source indicated to make the edit requested, vis a vis "perfection at her job", and the preview view does not allow the editor appropriate context to incorporate this into the article with a high degree of confidence in its veracity. If the reviewer has access to the unabridged source itself, however, he/she is welcome to do so. As to the other point, "it seems reasonable that XYZ was true" is not a reasonable method of research for encyclopedia writing. With no additional information, it could seem reasonable that J. Edgar Hoover must have been beloved by all presidents if he served under seven of them. With additional information we know the exact opposite was the truth. I'm only willing to contribute to WP based on material available from reputable sources, not on my personal guessing and supposition. A new review by a different editor better familiar with WP:OR is recommended. LavaBaron (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- LavaBaron I did not ask you to do original research. I asked you to remove the POV from the piece. You have chosen what facts to input or not from the sources you have cited. I will gladly withdraw. SusunW (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- What POV do you imagine I am harboring against a housekeeper who has been dead 82 years? The POV is the perspective, tone, and color provided by available RS. Yes, it's unflattering. Not everyone is Maya Angelou. I accept your withdrawal from this review; you made a good decision. LavaBaron (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- LavaBaron I did not ask you to do original research. I asked you to remove the POV from the piece. You have chosen what facts to input or not from the sources you have cited. I will gladly withdraw. SusunW (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
First: I reaffirm SusunW's report that this article is long and old enough, has enough citations, an interesting hook and QPQ is done. I disagree with her assessment that there would be issues with tone. However, this article does seem to claim some things which their cited sources don't back up. First off: the controversial racial segregration. Does the source say that it was one of her first moves? I may be missing things, but it doesn't seem to do so. But more seriously, according to the article Jaffray "scolded" president Taft over his eating habits, while its cited source merely talks about a conversation. Could you clear these things up for me, LavaBaron?—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Amberrock - I've changed "one of her first" to "one of her earliest." The source says she was hired in 1909, instituted segregation in 1909, and left employment in 1929, which validates that is was "one of her earliest," though you are correct we can't say "one of her first." I've also changed "scold" to "fret" which is the language of the source. LavaBaron (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
