Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Dranga Campbell

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator; reconfirmed this on their talk page.

Mary Dranga Campbell

(

)

... that advocate for the blind Mary Dranga Campbell was the Delta Zeta's 1956 Woman of the Year?
- ALT1:... that Mary Dranga Campbell was the first trained social worker to help the blind?

Reviewed: The Bus Songs

Created by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC).

the article is long enough (maybe try to divide Personal life and career), is neutral, contains no close paraphrasing or copyvio (16.7% mostly positions that cannot be changed), the hook is neutral (ALT1 is the best), short enough, interesting, is properly sourced with an inline source citation (you need to include [1], the article itself is adequately sourced and written in adequate English (not English first myself, but I think it has to be reviewed: "When she became divorced?"). --Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm striking ALT1 as untenable. The idea that no trained social worker before her had helped the blind is absurd, and the source isn't in a position to know something like that. E Eng 02:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's fine and all I guess, but I can say that neither are you. SL93 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, I went ahead and removed your cross out. Unless you can show that you're an expert on the matter. SL93 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You can remove the strikeout if it pleases you, but such a hook can never run with such a source. I'm not in a position to know, but I am in a position to know who is likely to know; evaluating the reliability of sources is our primary job as editors. A statement on a college sorority's website is not an RS for anything outside its own history and, possibly, direct biographical facts about its members. E Eng 17:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It's on a college sorority's website, but it's a museum that has been around since 1902 that is located there. SL93 (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I started a request for discussion on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it would help that she was a member. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

"then go discuss it on the talk page" from your edit summary - I am trying to discuss it here, but you would rather never discuss anything when you think you're right. SL93 (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Member of what? The sorority? That's fine, but doesn't change the fact that an unsourced statement, on the website of a college sorority, to the effect that no one anywhere (in the world, presumably, or maybe in the US) did a certain thing until one their members did it, cannot possibly be taken as reliable. This "museum" [2] has not "been around since 1902" – the sorority itself has – but regardless of its age, a "museum" run by college students isn't a museum in any sense we can use here, and that's true even if "The home was purchased by Delta Zeta in 1981 and expanded throughout the years. It now serves as a museum and the headquarters of the sorority. The first floor holds all of the artifacts and memorabilia for the museum. It also holds two conference rooms, a kitchen, an executive office wing, and offices of the organization, and rooms where visiting alumni can stay." Find a modern scholarly source on the history of social services to the blind, or you'll have to go with another hook. E Eng 17:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Or I can wait till a discussion takes place (not just between us) before I start taking orders from you. SL93 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Okey dokey. E Eng 17:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw this. Not because I think I'm wrong, but because I don't think Wikipedia is one of the greatest things ever and this argument isn't worth my time. SL93 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem was only with ALT1. ALT0 is fine. Withdrawing the entire nom seems WP:POINTy. E Eng 18:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion about that is trash to me, but I will say that it is the same source for both hooks. SL93 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please control yourself. A source is rarely blanket reliable or unreliabite – it's reliable or unreliable in context for a particular claim. I said above that a college sorority's website is not an RS for anything outside its own history and, possibly, direct biographical facts about its members (e.g. there's no way a sorority can be considered reliable on the assertion that no one before Campbell was a social worker helping the blind -- they're not experts on the history of social work or the history of blindness); but the Woman of the Year is an award given by the sorority itself [3], and they're certainly reliable for their own awards. E Eng 21:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)