Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Gertrude Guillaume-Schack

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 97198 (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Gertrude Guillaume-Schack

[edit]
(
)

Created by Aymatth2 (talk). Nominated by Carabinieri (talk) at 05:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC).

  • Needs a QPQ by either author or nominator. Article creation date and filing date okay. Article length easily okay. Hook length comes up as 201 characters but more to the point, it flows poorly, with four comma-separated clauses; a rewrite is suggested. Sourcing of the article brings up a problem – the major source is an entry on Libcom.org, which by itself is not a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4#http://www.straybullets.org for example). Who is the author of this entry, Nick Heath? It in turn seems to be largely sourced to this German-language piece by Christian Weidel in a set of biographical archives at an apparently defunct site called sausenberg.eu. Who is Christian Weidel and who is the publisher of these archives and what makes any of it a reliable source?
And some items likely beyond DYK scope, but worth mentioning anyway: It looks to me like Uszyce is the Uschütz of this article; there should be a redirect created and a link from this article. I'm sure more categories can be found than just the three give here. Retrieval dates on books make no sense (that's the good thing about books, they will always be there). Wasted Time R (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is a QPQ needed when the nominator is not the author? If so maybe user:Carabinieri could do one. I suggest the more compact ALT1 below. A Google search shows Nick Heath is a prolific author of articles on anarchist topics, so seems quite a respectable authority (if an anarchist can be respectable). I used his sketch biography for the skeleton of the article, fleshed out some of the details from other sources, then got distracted. Anyway, I have added more content now. As usual there are contradictions in the information given in the books and papers on the subject, so I picked the most plausible. Thus Schönfeld 2000, p. 12 says the subject moved to Britain in 1886 and died there seven years later, while the other sources give date of death of 1903. An arithmetic error. I have added a link to Uschütz and redirect as suggested - good catch. Also added some more categories. I am sure there are more. See User:Aymatth2/Citing books. I belong to the camp that likes to give all available information about any source I used, as opposed to the opposite camp that prefers to give the bare minimum. Think this is just a question of personal preference. The article has grown a lot, so probably needs a fresh review. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that Gertrude Guillaume-Schack founded the German Cultural Association in 1880 to fight state-regulated prostitution?
  • Regarding the QPQ, it is needed by someone, I don't care which of you does it. Regarding your web search for Nick Heath, that's of no value. You have to show that his work appears in fact-checked news sources or peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Regarding finding contradictions in sources, yes I agree you have to figure out the most plausible narrative, I've faced this dozens of times. Regarding retrieval data for books, I agree with many points in your essay, but not this one. I rarely use the online metadata when citing a book I've seen online; instead, I look inside it at the first title/verso pages where it all is for real. And ideally, I go to the library and get the physical thing – a number of times I've found much more of value in the actual book than the excerpts online. Either way, I end up citing the actual publishing info, not the online metadata, and thus there is no need to use a retrieval date. Regarding the article growing, yes it has; the DYK nom was clearly too soon. Let me know when you're finished and I'll take a fresh look. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria #5 says "DYK uses the concept of quid pro quo (QPQ). Reviewing another editor's nomination is part of the nomination process for self-nominations.,, New nominators (those with fewer than five DYK credits) are exempt from this review requirement, as is the nomination of another editor's article, although they are strongly encouraged to do so." It is user:Carabinieri's decision. If all sources have to be either fact-checked news sources or peer-reviewed scholarly sources that would rule out all books, magazines, government publications etc. About 95% of WP would have to be trashed. We have to use some judgement on whether we consider the source reasonably reliable for the information cited. But see the footnote in Die Staatsbürgerin. There are a lot of sloppy authors around. Re. book metadata, I may check for front matter publication data, but it is not always visible, and if visible may be unrelated to the scanned page being cited, as in the example in my essay. The chances of my local small-town library having a copy of the type of book I cite is next to zero. It is simpler to just give the accessdate for all urls. It takes no effort, may be useful. I think I am done with this article, but may come back if related articles turn up other relevant information. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like Carabinieri does a lot of DYK administrative work, so I guess that's a pass on the QPQ requirement. As for sources, quality magazines do fact check their pieces and quality book publishers do send chapters out for review (I've personally had experiences in both of these). I'm no innocent and I know how often things end up getting published that are wrong, but the idea is that at least they are making an effort. As for Nick Heath, this little memoir of his captures his viewpoint; I'm not sure it quite equates to 'respectable authority'. Anyway, I have a pragmatic concern regarding the article. It doesn't make clear a) what the state of prostitution was in Germany at the time or b) what change it was that Guillaume-Schack wanted. The use of "abolitionist movement" suggests she wanted to end prostitution but "fight state-regulated prostitution" suggests she wanted it allowed to continue but without government interference. Some clarification is necessary. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Nick Heath obviously has a point of view, but is also steeped in Anarchist history. I have found no errors in the mini-bio he wrote. All references to it are gone now, though. The "Abolitionist" section tries to explain Guillaume-Schack's position, which is a bit alien to most modern people. International Abolitionist Federation (linked) gives more on this rather blurred subject, although I am not satisfied it is clear either. The Abolitionists thought prostitution was evil, and wanted state regulations abolished since they legitimized and possibly encouraged prostitution. They wanted to ban state-regulated brothels and give vulnerable women better education and work opportunities. The more liberal thought a woman should be able to do what she wanted with her body, while the more conservative thought harsh laws should apply equally to women and their male clients. To a modern reader the laisser-faire and prohibitionist positions are opposite ends of the spectrum, but at the time the key issue was that state regulations imposed a form of state-sanctioned slavery of women, hence choice of the term "Abolition". Slavery had only recently been abolished by Abolitionists in the United States. Whether prostitution should be legal or not was very much a secondary issue, which Guillaume-Schack seems to have avoided. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding the explanation (although I'd put it in the regular article text, not a Note) (and your explanation here was even better). Interesting; I had no knowledge of this movement and yes it is counter-intuitive to modern perspectives. Anyway, another question - I'm looking at the ALT1 hook referent and source, which is this statement: "On 7 March 1880 she founded the Deutscher Kulturbund (German Cultural Association) in Berlin.[1]" which points to this online reprint of the 'Hoffman 1904' source. Yet in this reprint I don't see 1880 anywhere, or März, or Deutscher Kulturbund phrased as such. Are you sure you have the right footnote here? Wasted Time R (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer to describe the movement in a footnote, separate from the chronicle of the subject's life. I slipped on the Kulturbund foundation date footnote – probably a residue from Heath. I put in another source. The date is also given in Christian Weidel and the de.wikipedia version. Dickinson 2014 p. 16, Schönfeld 1997 p. 11 and others give the year of foundation, but not the exact date. I see no reason to doubt it. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, at the end of the day, formatting decisions reside with the author, as it should be. Re the date, I wasn't doubting it, but DYK reviewers are obliged make sure the hook source sources the hook. Anyway, thanks for your patience, and we are good to go with ALT1. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Gertrude_Guillaume-Schack&oldid=808437775"