Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Popular image of Native Americans in German speaking countries

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 HalfGig talk 13:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox
[edit]
(
)

Indian reenactment in Leipzig 1970

Created by User:Serten (talk), with help from Yngvadottir and Hafspajen. Self-nominated at 14:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC).

  • Hooks sourcing based on Lutz and others
I agree with your gut feeling, but as it stays the official title of the article, I tend to keep but link it. No German would write "Ostdeutschland", but some anglos propably wont find GDR/DDR on a map or think its a computer spare part. Serten (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
You could say communist Germany, to not support a strange view on the Main page, otherwise it sounds as if there was also a communist West Germany. East Germany means today the eastern part of Germany. There is nothing "official" about the article title, just the "consensus": it's common, and we always did it that way. "Official" would be different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
the "consensus" is a strange beast, at least if you try to edit climate articles. I changed the wording. Serten (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Ambiguity, for the sake of brevity, is fine in DYK, and just "East Germany" should be better. It definitely shouldn't say "Eastern Germany" as nobody uses that term. —innotata 20:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Done so. Serten (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • - I'm pretty sure there isn't actually such a thing as adorable racism, but if there was, this would be it. It's got a nice tone, and there are plenty of references with no visible copyvios that I can see. All images are on Commons and fine. There are, however, some big sourcing issues in some places. I've very little doubt that most just need ref name" " in there to sort it out, but there's a few sentences in the Wandervogel and youth movement section that need sourcing. Same with Karl May. Literature and art is probably one source citing three paragraphs but it would be nice to have that reinforced with a little number on the end of the paragraph.
I'm sure this can be sorted easily, but it needs sorting. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that "adorable racism" repectively the noble savage concept is as old as Tacitus Germania (book), will say much longer in existance than racism per se. I did add some sourcing as required, but I am wondering on which base DYK may be so picky respectively why - compare Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Sutton_Heritage_Mosaic_pulled_from_main_page based on a POV statement like " You can't affix tiles to an outside wall with flour and water" - DYK reviewers sometimes seem to think their personal ignorance is beating sourced content. Sorry to sound harsh, but I am loosing interest when DYK tries to beat GA (the article in question has 52 references now and I won't go much further for a DYK) but doesnt show basic expertise topicwise. Serten (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Serten:, please do not lose all hope! It's simply because it goes on the front page. When a Featured Article goes on the front page, admittedly it gets a million more views, but it also gets hammered under the scrutiny of the increased editor traffic. So in this case, it's obviously a good candidate, it's obviously very well written and sourced, but if the small nitpicks aren't sorted, as soon as it's extra visible, it will get (a) pulled or (b) hammered. I put up Rhapsodomancy, and now it's got a by whom tag on it. I know it's by the author that wrote the book I'm referencing, but I'm not at the British Library anymore so I can't pull up a direct quote to support it. I'm extremely confident that my latest DYK submission is suitable to go in a queue, but I'm having to get out exact quotations because the subject is rather contentious.
The nitpicking is your shield against the denizens of increased public scrutiny. We will wield it for you when everything is set up. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I would not care a dam to avoid such tags and hints, I wwould welcome them as a benefit. That sort of nitpicking is not the task of DYK and its not along DYK rules. Reviewers should ask about basic issues being in line and be willing to reject articles as well. I have done that several times btw. in my reviews. You never will beat a million guys having a closer look on an article, they will find something. Serten 14:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

for ALT1. Sourcing meets and exceeds DYK requirements. Good to go. If it was me, I'd move the article to Native Americans in Germanic popular culture maybe. First hook has the untranslated "Indianer", but is really the better one. "Re-enacting Native American life was popular in communist Germany" or something. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thnx Johnbod, I did the move, but used German instead of Germanic, think it should work as well. Serten 08:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

  • also for ALT2 Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I realise this must've taken quite a while to write and I appreciate the effort being made here. I don't find it in anyway racist to write about the academic value of Native American influenced German culture (the German wiki version has more info) but I am finding this article rather clunky to read through. A few other problems:

  • "The most successful author in the German language, Karl May (1842–1912)" - not in NYT article (could instead use "German author" for neutrality).
  • Poor writing can lead to sources being taken out of context. "The German image of Indians did not care much about actual Native Americans and their current situation." - Der Tagesspiegel quotes museum representatives in Berlin discussing how there's a lack of interest for their Native American art collection.
  • "Germans still have an easygoing approach to using blackface or redface; compare Heidi Klum." is an uncited WP:BLP violation.
  • Poor generalisations made by cobbling unrelated sources together. "It is however still somewhat disturbing for both sides when German hobby Indians meet Native German enthusiasts." is cited to a cartoon and an academic author.
  • Claims should be cited. "There are allegations of plastic shamanism versus mockery about Native Americans excluding non-Indians and banning alcohol at their events."
  • ALT1: I haven't come across the phrase "scientific term" being used to describe a cultural concept before. In the article it states Lutz coined the term. I wouldn't consider the two synonymous.
  • ALT2: Needs to be explicitly stated and cited (DYK rule 3).

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but unless someone comes round to extensively copyedit this article I don't see this moving forward. Fuebaey (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this is DYK, what are you intending, featured article status? This is ridiculous. Serten 13:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I have highlighted my concerns above. Apologies if you took my attempt at explaining specific problems with the article as something different. If you prefer me to be blunt this fails DYK rules 3 and 4. Cited hook – The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article. Facts should have an inline citation. The article as a whole should use inline, cited sources. Within policy – Articles for DYK must conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright. Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources, violate WP:BLP, or have problems with the close paraphrasing or copyright violations of images and/or text. Fuebaey (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
FUBAR. Johnbod gave after some discussion and changes his check mark, then someone else comes along and unreviews it? How you dare to overrule based on a big fuss out of nothing? a) the Heidi Klum issue is far from BLP, she got US flak for a behavior totally normal in Germany (Source inserted) b) Tagesspiegel writes well about the general setup c) the german article has less about the science, not more. d) Cartoons might have a science background and might be uses as sources. This is even more ridiculous. Serten 08:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
There are some valid points there, though others are not. The Heidi Klum bit needs a referenence, if only to explain it (I have no idea what the story is here). Otherwise cut it. In Alt1 "Scientific" might be better as "technical", or just cut the adjective. I have added a ref (from the bio) re Karl May & copyedited a bit. I presume the current ref 36 (in german) supports the hook fact. If so, reffing the image caption, & maybe adding to the text sorts this. But for DYK it is not necessary to produce an ideal article, and "clunkyness" is not a reason to delay the nom further. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Klum got a sourcing from me, the difference in easyness about going redface a further one), kudos to Johnbod for his contributions but I won't bother at all over the other points raised. To quote [http://www.taz.de/!123995/ „Defence – Attack – zack!“ Marcel Reich-Ranicki, I have been bored to read that sort of nitty gritting. DYK is- as being clearly stated in the rules - not a ersatz playing field for Good Article reviewers. Go for it or leave it. Serten II (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Once again, I'm happy. Let's do this! Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Can we get a good English translation of the German caption on Commons? HalfGig talk 03:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
My english has been doubted, see Draft talk:IPCC consensus, but for a try :
  • Zentralbild/Raphael/28/6/70/ (1970, District of Leipzig, city of Taucha 800 years anniversary festivity week: Leipzig counties hast still some Indians, as this foto shows. Ours are no immigrants, but consists of "Interessengemeinschaft Mandan-Indianer", an association founded 1958, which demonstrates dances and games at our city swimming pool. Citizens of all trades keep the old indianic traditions) User:HalfGig, hope thats the one you need. Serten II (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • User:Serten, I put this on Commons. Thank you. I only changed the English a little bit. HalfGig talk 13:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Popular_image_of_Native_Americans_in_German_speaking_countries&oldid=1017166947"