Template:Did you know nominations/Josephine MacLeod

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: promoted by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Josephine MacLeod[edit]

Created/expanded by Nvvchar (talk), Titodutta (talk). Nominated by Titodutta (talk) at 23:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC).

Date request
  • Reviewing it. But have to go log off now. Will come back with comments. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Its not clear that Mrs. William Sturges is actually Betty MacLeod. "Attractive" for her, might be true, but we should probably attribute the source for such opinions. We have the File:Josephinemcleod.jpg to use on the article and hook. Or how about using the image of her's from here? Is there a good redirect for Madras Boys? Or is that your next to-do? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello, a) William was Betty's husband. b) I have removed tall etc sentence, c) I am asking @Nvvchar: if he wants to use that image. d) a better redirect for Madras Boys (at this moment) might be— RKM Chennai#History (if there is any such article or section), or Alasinga Perumal. --TitoDutta 22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Linking to Alasinga Perumal should be OK. The second img is not clear while the first img could be used. --Nvvchar. 14:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Fine with all. Take your pick of the snap and add it. The section of Relation with Swami Vivekananda has few one sentence paras. Maybe they can rearranged better. Rest all seems okay. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have fixed the one sentence para issue. If not really needed, I'll not add the photo right now. There are two more photos here. I need to learn and find refs of publication dates first. My experience has taught me to prepare citations for PD image publication dates first. I'll do all these when we'll cover disciples of Vivekananda section. --TitoDutta 16:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Okay! Good to go. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I copyedited for grammar and spelling, which were still a bit rough. Someone should probably double-check that my edit didn't change the meaning of anything. Thanks! EricEnfermero HOWDY! 16:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg I don't think the edit changed the meaning of anything, but I'm puzzled by the use of "Hollywood Center" as her death place, and indeed the entire second paragraph of the Later life section. I'm honestly just guessing at this, but perhaps the Vedanta Society had a "center" (meeting place? living place?) in the city of Hollywood, California, and Josephine was living there in the final years of her life? She would have turned 91 in 1949, which is quite old, so the description of her should be in that context. Also, saying that her eccentric actions were still evident when there has been no previous use of the word "eccentric" strikes me as WP:SYNTH at best: the source seems to be trying to characterize her, but I think it has to be mined very carefully, and more meaning not be put on it than it can handle. Note: since the next prep set to be loaded is the best one for September 15 daytime in India (though the one following it wouldn't be so bad), you may want to give September 15 to the already passed Golpark statue article; indeed, it might get picked up for that set anyway, since it's the oldest approved hook DYK has. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, it appears I wasn't clear. "Hollywood Center" is meaningless in context within the article, and it's called either that or "Hollywood center": my first guess, as a reader, would be either the center (downtown) area of Hollywood, or a neighborhood called "Hollywood Center", not anything associated with Vedanta. This would be reinforced by the infobox, which has that as where she died, and that field is supposed to be the location in terms of city or the like. I'm glad the phrase calling her eccentric has been removed, but more needs to be done in that final paragraph to make it useful. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: Nvvchar has posted at my talk— "I have made changes in Macleod artcile. But the references mention this ..."until her death at the Movement's Hollywood Center in 1949 at the age of ninety". I don't understand what more is to be done? Is it part of Los Angeles or Los Angeles County, I am not sure". Me too. All I can think at this moment— remove that sentence and directly stating "she dies in 1949". --TitoDutta 04:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, there is still no indication in the article that it is "the Movement's" "Hollywood Center"; the words "Hollywood Center" by themselves convey no relation whatever to Vedanta. If the source says she was 90 when she died, that should be in the article with an inline source citation. The problem is that what is written now is unclear: if it can't be made clear, then it should indeed be deleted. (The county is not germane, in my opinion, and shouldn't be mentioned.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Tito, the sentence now reads "Josephine was residing in the Vedanta Society of Southern California." It makes no sense: how does a person reside in a society? This is your nomination and article, not mine: I've spent a fair amount of time doing cleanup on various Swami Vivekananda-related articles lately, and Sister Christine and the Golpark statue used up what I'm willing to donate in terms of searching out sources and trying to determine what the article should say, and editing accordingly. In this case, when I looked earlier, I couldn't see enough definitive information that would allow me to say precisely where she lived and for how long: it's like Josephine is out in the world doing indeterminate things until she suddenly is spotted in California, age 90, a matter of months before she dies. So I'm not going to do a), for b) "seems it means" isn't good enough for Wikipedia (we need to know for sure it means that), and c) and d) issues follow from above. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset:, please be polite. You are claiming you have read sources, but, I am unsure. Sources clearly mention she was living in "Hollywood Centre". I don't know which portion is triggering confusion here, so I'll explain one by one: a) Hollywood does not mean "the film industry" or "film studios", it is a district. b) there IS a Centre at Hollywood (district) which is known as "Hollywood Center" c) I don't know what you meant by how does a person reside in a society?! If you study a little, you'll see, here "society" means "The Vedanta Center" which is located at "Southern California". --TitoDutta 05:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think that's exactly where you guys are running into problems: The reader should not have to study anything to have a clear understanding of a Wikipedia entry. There should be a source to back up the information in the article, but the writer can't rely on the source to clear up ambiguous wording within an article. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 08:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  • It depends on who the reader is. Even Google recognizes Vedanta Hollywood Center, and when you search, you are correctly sent toVedanta Society of Southern California. 1) firstly "Hollywood Centre" was not clear (thought that was sourced) 2) no, they have problem with "society", a single click on it shows, it is a building. The original editor who wrote this portion has already given up, I am still trying to explain it. I have further clarified the portion. --TitoDutta 10:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If it takes a Google search (by any reader) to clarify the language in an article, that's not a clear entry. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 13:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, I find it ironic that you are adjuring me to "please be polite" at the same time you effectively say I have falsely claimed to have read the sources. I am not a liar and have read the sources, thank you very much: they do not flesh out the details of how the Vedanta center in Hollywood worked at the time, though apparently, in 1949, there were at least two ladies living there: the original donor and Josephine, both of whom died that year. (Without those additional details, constructing a more informed sentence about that period becomes problematic.) A basic problem with this nomination and article—which, with all due respect, you must be aware of—is that your prose, and that of Nvvchar, sometimes needs assistance. So far, each time you have edited this section, you have introduced new problems while attempting to solve old ones, so this last time I'm editing it so it both reads well and reflects the sources. (I would have liked to give her age at death, 90, but although Nvvchar quoted a passage with that age (on your talk page?), I have no idea what source he was quoting, and without a reliable source citation, it can't be included.)
One other change I've made to the article is the previous "Later life" paragraph: the word "salutation" is not used correctly, so I've deleted it; let the wikilink help elucidate the meaning of "Pranams". I don't know how officially reliable this source is, and I have some doubts as to whether it meets Wikipedia's standards, but it gives the complete texts of both letters referred to, so we have an idea as to their context. (If you know a better one with these letters, by all means use it.) The "Pranams" letter clearly has a bad date (1990; if the final zero is correct, it would have to be 1900), and the final letter is missing the actual date in May on which it was written, but in both cases these quotes are from the final sentences in their respective letters, and if the earlier one is indeed late Dec. 1900, written between 16 and 17 months apart. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
a) The change you have made Hollywood center in Hollywood — is this an elucidation? It is similar to "United States in the United States". Of course, "Hollywood Center" is in "Hollywood". It is unnecessary repetition. "Wikimedia organizes annual meet-ups every year" — here "annual" itself means "every year", so, either "annual" or "every year" should be deleted. Similarly, "Hollywood Centre in Hollywood" is unclear. It should be either just "centre in Hollywood" or "Hollywood Centre". That's the thing we did in our last two edits. ii) this edit was similar, when only two people are captured in a photo, one does not need to state position of both, b) you have used Wikilink to elucidate a non-English word (Pranam), but, we also used wikilink of "Vedanta Center of Southern California" c) the source is added at the end of the sentence which reads— She too was residing at the Hollywood center when I first attended services there; and there she died a few months after Sister died, in the autumn of 1949. Clearly mentioning "Hollywood Centre". d) this source is officially very much reliable, not only because the site publisher is a notable journalist and Vivekananda researcher, another reason is, (as you have noted) those are Vivekananda's own letters, and copies of these letters may be found everywhere, including our Wikisource. --TitoDutta 19:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it is an elucidation. In the U.S., things can be named inexactly: a "Hollywood Center" may, in fact, be in the next town over, either because it originally opened in Hollywood and later moved (but kept the name of the nicer town), or may have been so named because of the cachet in the name "Hollywood" even if it never had been located within its borders. However, the sentence can certainly do without the first "Hollywood" and not be harmed, so I've removed it. Your invocation of "ii" as a bad practice falls flat, since the original version had failed to identify who was whom until after the second name; using "left" and "right" is clear, and that's how I've seen two-person photos done, but failing to identify immediately who matches the first name certainly isn't best practice. b) The wikilink on Pranams was there already; I merely removed "(salutation)". c) The "Vedanta Society of Southern California" link (not "Vedanta Center of Southern California", which doesn't have a link) was also there before, but I thought "Vedanta Society" was a better phrase to link to it with than "Hollywood center". (Note that the American spelling is "center", not "centre", and should be used as this is about an American person at an American place.) d) Thanks for the information. I found the source of the "death at the age of ninety" quote: http://www.uky.edu/Centers/Asia/SECAAS/Seras/2006/French.htm. I'm not sure what a paper from someone at the University of South Carolina is doing at the University of Kentucky website, but there it is, and I imagine it wouldn't be there if UKy didn't think it had adequate scholarly rigor. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • a) Now, as you have made changes in "Hollywood center in Hollywood", note the two options I provided it should be either just "centre in Hollywood" or "Hollywood Centre", you have followed the first option, but, the second one is also applicable and that's what we had in the article. About the photo issue, no, no, if there are two people in an image, then state position of one "Person A (left) with Person B". I can find this example, where only "Barack Obama"'s position has been stated, not Jacob Zuma's. Always follow "N minus 1" rule, if there are three people in a frame, mention position of two etc. similar example, one more, Anyway, if you do not agree, leave it here, no need to debate on it. b) I replaced "society" with "center" because of your comment "how does a person reside in a society?") I see no reason of not mentioning the actual name of the place, i.e. Vedanta Society of Southern California. The only thing I can understand from the current version's pose is we don't have adequate data and don't know the name of the place. Something like "she was residing in the Vedanta Society of Southern California, Vedanta Society's centre located in Hollywood district" could be helpful, but, it will once again create "Hollywood Centre in Hollywood" type confusion. c) The only valid question (in my opinion) which could be asked here— "She died in the Hollywood center" that's fine, but, "Hollywood center of "What"?" And the answer was not so difficult "Hollywood Center of Vedanta Society --TitoDutta 22:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC) 07:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tito, I've just rephrased to include the full name of the society. Are you satisfied with the sentence as it is now or not? Let's concentrate on getting something we both can live with, so the nomination can be approved. "Hollywood district" (or the word "district" in this context) is not an option; it reads poorly for Americans. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Hook is still supported; other issues with the article have been addressed. Restoring approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)