Template:Did you know nominations/White slave propaganda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 09:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

White slave propaganda[edit]

Charley, a former slave child, with an American flag

Created by Ktr101 (talk). Self nominated at 22:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC).

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Well, it's certainly new, long enough, and cited. I'd feel more comfortable, however, if there was a second work used to cite the article (for notability reasons) but I guess that's not too much of a problem. The hook's 191 characters, so just fits the restriction, but the "in Louisiana" part could (I feel) equally be cut if needed. --Brigade Piron (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Note: I added "example" to the "pictured" entry in the hook. --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Symbol possible vote.svg That will not work, I'm afraid since it takes the hook over the maximum... Could the "in Lousiana" bit be removed to get it within its limits?---Brigade Piron (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Commenting only on the length of the hook: We don't count (pictured), so the hook is fine within limits, lengthwise. Besides, even if we counted the 'example pictured' bit, the hook is still 199 characters, which is just inside the limits. Manxruler (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I'm concerned that some of the wording in this article is too close to that of its single source. Compare for example "Their light complexions contrasted sharply with those of the three adults, Wilson, Mary, and Robert; and that of the fifth child, Isaac--" with "Their light complexions contrasted sharply with those of the three adults, Wilson, Mary, and Robert; and that of the fifth child, Isaac--". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'm more than willing to get to that, although the earliest I'll be able to dedicate some time to this will probably be Sunday, so I just wanted to leave a note here so that you knew that this notice was seen and will be acted upon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Looking that over, that is a direct quote that I used to show what Harper's wrote on the subject and I wasn't intending to violate anything. Could you be more specific on any other concerns, because if you are only concerned about quotes that are historical and not the website, I really have no idea what you are going after here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Symbol question.svg Oops! Sorry, I had missed that that was a direct quote. The other things I had noticed were paraphrasing issues: "in collaboration with the American Missionary Association and sympathizing Union officers launched a campaign" vs "in collaboration with the American Missionary Association and interested officers of the Union Army, launched a new propaganda campaign", "the argument could be made that the war was independent of class status" vs "made an argument for the Civil War that was independent of class status", etc. That's probably partially a function of having only a single source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Yeah, a lot of what was out there read to the tone of, "Hey, look at what our ancestors did!" so it was really hard finding sources. Do you want me to fix it? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
          • If possible. Do you have access to any history databases to check for more sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
            • I won't be back at UMass for another week, so I am not sure at this point if there is anything out there, as Google Scholar isn't showing anything at this point. Heck, almost nothing is coming up on Google, besides mirror sites, and hate group sites. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Anything new to report? I was surprised to see that this has only a single source: the DYK rules, WP:DYKSG#D12 in particular, states: "Multiple sources are generally required, to ensure the article meets the general notability guideline." Under the circumstances, I think other sourcing is called for if this is to be approved for DYK; right now, the paraphrasing issues Nikkimaria pointed out remain in the article, which is also a bar to approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not seeing anything viable on Google Scholar, although I did add sources that I tried to avoid at first, as they didn't back up the entire piece. Would you be able to fix what I have there, as Nikkimaria did point out the close paraphrasing, but also acknowledged that that is possible due to the fact only one source is stating most of it. I'm willing to work on it on my own, but I would need someone to point it out for me, because I could very easily gloss over all of the important stuff. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Kevin, I'm sorry, but I'm not able to take on the close paraphrasing as a project, even in the way you suggest. Perhaps you could find someone else to guide you? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about it, as I'll try to get someone to look it over for me in the next week or so, as classes start up today, although I also won't be at a full workload until next week, so I will be free. Sorry for the delay, as I hate putting this kind of stuff off. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Still nothing in two weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)