Jump to content

Talk:Cécile Fatiman/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caeciliusinhorto (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 14 June 2024 (→‎GA Review: initial comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 10:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Looks interesting – marking my spot to review this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read through the article a couple of times now. In two places, it's somewhat unclear to me what is individual historians' theories and what is Historical Consensus(tm).
  1. Fatiman's early life. The section starts by telling us in Wikipedia's voice that she was the daughter of an African woman and a Corsican prince. Then we get told a bunch of different historians' theories. It's unclear to me whether these theories are all compatible with 1) each other or 2) the African slave/Corsican prince theory. Do e.g. Khan and Césaire agree with this theory? Where does the suggestion that she was Kongolese come from? Where does Salnave get the name Attiman from – not from King Theodore of Corsica, as far as I can work out?!
  2. The ceremony at Bois Caïman. The section on §Revolution makes it seem as though this is the historical consensus, but §Historiography suggests that whether the ceremony happened at all has been disputed! It says that Carolyn Fick "was able to say with certainty" that it happened – but the source for that is Fick herself. Is her view the historical consensus? (And unmentioned in either section is that, from a quick look at Fick, while she believes that the ceremony definitely happened, she seems to cast doubt on whether the priestess at the ceremony actually was Fatiman...)
In both cases, ideally there would be a good recent source that explicitly says "most historians believe X" which could then be used the cite what the historical consensus actually is.
Other than this, there are a few places where the article could do with some work to make it clearer to the layperson. For instance: She saw the body itself as a form of praxis, through which knowledge could be interpreted by entering an altered state of consciousness. Or filling in the archival gaps with diaspora literacy, through a dialectical method.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]