Talk:Denise Vernay

B class assessment

 * This is a really good article. It should make GA or better somewhere down the road.
 * I have made a few changes. Revert them if you don't like them.
 * Regarding B class I have an issue with the several very long quotes you include. Can I suggest that you paraphrase large parts of each. Or lose large parts altogether - their information content is low. (If the article has a fault it is that it is not 'tight' enough, not in an encyclopedic enough style; but not a worry at B class.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about how much I should direct quote her; so, special thanks for your feedback on that (and for the kind words re: possible GA status). My end goal with this one is to truly honor Denise Vernay's life; so I want this one to be the best it can be. Your other edits are also much appreciated. (I couldn't quite figure out where to place the medal images; your placement works beautifully.) I'll work on revising this week. (P.S. I still also want to shoot for GA status with the Reading Artillerists article as well, but wanted to wait on that for a few weeks since I'm trying to crank out as many women's bios as I can for the Women in Red/Milhist backlog drive this month.) 47thPennVols (talk)
 * If you are going to work on it you should remove it from the assessment page while you are doing that. If you want to ping me when you are finished I would be happy to assess it without it going back on the assessment page. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the nudge to edit the quotes. I think our respective edits have made the article even better. I did retain certain parts of the quotations because her thoughts about her WWII experiences are somewhat difficult to find online (because she avoided interviews during certain periods of her life and, even when she did, she was somewhat reticent to provide details of what happened to her). I think it's important to make at least some of her reflections available for future researchers because I feel they convey a more complete picture of who she was. I look forward to your feedback. 47thPennVols (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks
tweet, thanks from WiR Victuallers (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts for GAN

 * "Their difficulties mounted as relations between France and Germany began to deteriorate". I am not sure why the deteriorating international relations should cause difficulties for an ordinary French family.
 * Done 47thPennVols (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Something I always have an issue with is naming. The MoS says that an individual should be named in full on first mention, and referred to by their family name alone thereafter. It is natural to refer to women by their given name, as this article tends to. It also sometimes gives her full name. Are you ok with me making it MoS compliant and changing her name to "Vernay" throughout? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Me, too. (I've been wrestling with this issue with most of the female WWII Resistance members and Holocaust survivors I've been writing about.) Thanks so much for sending the link to the MoS. I spent some quality time going through it this weekend and mulling it over in relation to how best to reflect Denise Jacob/Denise Vernay. Looking forward to your thoughts on this. Here's my thinking:


 * 1) We should be referring to Denise as Denise Jacob during the parts of the article which deal with her life prior to her marriage (per MoS: "Any subject who has had their surnames changed should be referred to by their most commonly used name. If their most commonly used name does include their prior surname, and you're discussing a period of their life before the surname change, refer to them by their prior surname. In other words, when discussing the early lives of Hillary and Bill Clinton, avoid sentences like 'Clinton met Clinton while they were students at Yale.'")
 * 2) However, for the period after her marriage, using just her given name would actually be the correct course of action - particularly when we're discussing Denise in the same sentence with her husband, Alain Vernay, and/or her sister, Simone Veil - both of whom also were prominent figures in France post-WWII (per MOS: "To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity.... For example ... Correct: Ronald and Nancy Reagan arrived separately, Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car.... Correct: The Reagans arrived separately, Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car.... Correct: Jacob Grimm was 14 months older than his brother Wilhelm.")
 * 3) Regarding the initial presentation of her name, I think what we're using ("Denise Vernay-Jacob") is the most appropriate choice since this is the format which is used in the biography written about her by the Fondation de la Résistance. (She helped to found this organization, and several people still involved with it knew her quite well. So, my belief is that they would most likely be presenting Denise's name in the formatting she preferred post-war.) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That all seems like a reasonable, and MoS compliant approach. I think that I would try to avoid referring to her as just "Denise", except where other choices just didn't flow, but that is simply my personal preference. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Naming convention changes done. As per the naming convention outlined above:


 * 1) Lead (as Denise Vernay-Jacob, Vernay-Jacob, or she): done;
 * 2) Formative years (as Denise Jacob, Denise, or she): done;
 * 3) World War II (as Denise Jacob, Denise, or she): done;
 * 4) Post-war life (transitions from Denise Jacob, pre-marriage, to Denise Vernay-Jacob, post-marriage): done;
 * 5) Death (as Vernay-Jacob): done;
 * 6) Awards (as Denise Vernay-Jacob): done; and
 * 7) External resources (as Denise Vernay-Jacob): done. 47thPennVols (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

GAN Copy-edits
I have given the article a rapid run through. A mix of what I would do if I were copy editing for GoCE and what I would do if I were its GAN assessor. Let me know what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thank you!! 47thPennVols (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you have finished adding new material and I'll give it another run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. 47thPennVols (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Picky bits
Some picky bits as I go along.
 * "she moved with her parents and siblings, Madeleine (born in 1922 and also known as "Snowy"), Jean (b. 1925), and Simone Annie Liline (b. July 13, 1927), to Nice later in 1924". While I like the idea, she probably didn't move to Nice with siblings who had yet to be born.
 * GREAT catch!! (I caught another age-related error earlier today, but completely missed this one so HUGE thanks.) I've tweaked the wording, but it now feels a bit awkward. When you have a moment, could you take a look? (If you can figure out a better way to phrase, please do.) 47thPennVols (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Er. That's it. Good work.
 * I tweaked several more of the references/citations earlier today. Are they good to go? 47thPennVols (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I like the naming. I like the post war additions especially, it rounds out her life. It looks done to me. (Bar the point above.) Time to put a GAN tag on it I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, and especially for your insights, guidance and brilliant edits. It was fun working with you on this, and I think we've done justice to this heroine's incredible story. Are you able to tag for GAN? If so, and if you feel comfortable doing so, please do (barring any last changes you'd like me to make). 47thPennVols (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I would feel most uncomfortable tagging this as I have only made a passing contribution. Instructions are here. My version: go to the talk page and click edit. hit return to create a blank line at the very top. Insert . Check your edit via preview. Publish. Wait for an assessor.   Gog the Mild (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, many thanks for your guidance. (I wasn't sure if the nomination should come from someone other than the article creator.) Followed your instructions above: re: tagging, and just hit send. So, it's official. Denise Vernay's profile has been nominated for GA review. 47thPennVols (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Woo hoo! Good for you. "Articles can be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly to the article..." Just waiting now. Unless you know a friendly editor you could ask to assess it? Sadly not me - "The nomination must be reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article and is not the nominator." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm now worried that I made some sort of mistake during tagging because I'm not seeing the article title appear on the Warfare subtopic, and the coding above states "without topic parameter". (Maybe I'm missing its listing, or maybe I did something wrong during the tagging process?) Can you double check the talk page for me to make sure I tagged it correctly? 47thPennVols (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops. Well spotted. Yes, that's a GA symbol, not a GAN one. I thought that I had checked for that. I must have been sloppy. I have removed it. What you need to do is type in exactly what is on the next line at the top of the talk page. (It is case sensitive. Don't cut and paste it. Don't sign it.) Gog the Mild (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. I re-tagged, following your instructions (typing the case-sensitive tag without cutting and pasting or signing), but the article still isn't showing up on the Warfare list, and the same,incorrect visual tag for GAN that was showing up on the talk page after my first GAN tagging attempt seems to be there again. On top of that, the "nowiki"text below was automatically added to the talk page when I hit edit to send this message. I'm not even sure what the nowiki text means, but I'm clearly doing something wrong, and would appreciate your help. Thanks in advance. 47thPennVols (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I am very baffled. I just deleted the strange GA template, typed in what should be there, clicked on preview and saw just what I would expect. Let's give it one last try before I nominate it with a note that it is really your nomination. Could you go into edit mode on this whole page, then cut (as in cut and paste) the middle bit of the tag below, including the curly brackets, then paste it at the top of the page? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * . Glad to know it's not just me. Something's clearly not working. I just followed your instructions yet again. This is what I entered onto the top of the talk page:

}}. But as you can see, the incorrect tag is back at the top of the page and that weird "nowiki" text is appearing again at the bottom, and the article is still not showing up on the GAN listing for Warfare (or even for Miscellaneous). Help? 47thPennVols (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Strangely, I just had the same issue. Anyway, it is now up, nominated by me, but with a note explaining that you are the actual nominator. Is that ok? If not, do say; it is easy to undo. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 47thPennVols, I edited your comment above by inserting a new line before . This is because on a line beginning with a wiki bullet (*) causes a Multiline table in list lint error. So I solved a technical error, but I'm not sure if this deals with the substance of your "complaint". —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Link to 3 October law
Hi,, can we talk about the link to the Vichy legislation of 3 October 1940 in section #World War II? I don't understand this edit of yours:


 * 07:58, May 15, 2021 (UTC) (diff): Partially reverted prior edit because editor removed existing link to a viable, useful Wikipedia article and replaced with a wikilink to an article that is currently under dispute

First an apology: I had a dozen tabs open, and did not realize I edited the same article (this one) twice, the second time undoing a revert you had made of my previous edit. That was not intentional; I assumed my second edit was my first one, on a different article. I've self-reverted back to your version while we discuss this, but I think that leaves it in an inaccurate, or at least sub-optimal state, pointing to the wrong article.

So, as to the content question at hand: I don't understand the edit summary you left, or why you made the edit. First, what article is under dispute?

Secondly: your change removed the link I added to "the law on the status of Jews", and replaced it with "the Statut des Juifs (Statute on Jews)" (putting it back to how it was originally). But that link is a redirect to the article Vichy anti-Jewish legislation, which covers various laws from 1940 and 1941, whereas "the law on the status of Jews" covers only the law of 3 October 1940, which was the one that defined "Jew" and restricted professions open to Jews, thereby throwing a lot of people out of work. The wording in that portion of the article, originally comes from your edit of 17:07, April 21, 2018, and has three things in it all of which lend credence to the law on the status of Jews being the right target, namely: 1) the date of 3 October; 2) the comparison with the Nuremberg laws regarding the "definition of a Jew", which was also a major part of the 3 October law; and 3) the reference that mentions the changes Petain made to the law to make it stricter. This last item is based on a 2010 discovery. and refers to Petain's hand-written annotations to the 3 October law, the only such law of Vichy known to have been personally altered by Petain in his own hand to make it more antisemitic than the original draft.

It seems very clear to me that this all applies only to the law on the status of Jews of 3 October 1940, and no other law, and also that law is the only one that makes total sense in this context, since Vernay's father Andre was an architect, meaning he would have been no longer able to work legally after 3 October, date of the law which prohibited Jews from exercising a profession liberale. So, can you please put back that link? Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your apology and taking the time to reach out, Mathglot. I'm happy to have a dialogue with you about this. First, let me say that I'm pleased that you've recently created and have been working on "law on the status of Jews." Your Wikipedia article did not exist at the time I was researching and writing the Vernay article, and I think it's a very good thing that additional research and writing is undertaken with this aspect of WWII history. (The reason I wikilinked "Statut des Juifs" to the Vernay article in the first place was to ensure that high school and university students researching Vernay's life would have access to as many thoroughly researched Wikipedia articles as possible to help them better understand the motivating factors behind Vernay's decisions.)


 * That being said, I was uncomfortable with the change you made from the wikilinked article ("Statut des Juifs") that I had included when researching and writing the Vernay Wikipedia for two reasons: 1. the article that you changed the link to ("Law on the Status of Jews") was tagged as a stub and contains a notation at the top of the article that recommends the addition of more content to it (and still is tagged as a stub and still includes the content expansion suggestion); so it appeared to be less well-developed than the article that I had used as the original wikilink, and 2. the article that you changed the link to ("Law on the Status of Jews") was written and/or translated by you, which felt like a potential conflict of interest. (And that seemed to inject unnecessary instability into the existing article when the article you wanted to wikilink to still appeared to be a stub that was still undergoing revision and review.)


 * As for the date(s) of regarding the laws on the status of Jews as they applied to the Jacob family, one of the important citations related to this article - a bio created for Denise (Jacob) Vernay by the Fondation de la Résistance - mentioned only the "Vichy's new 'status of the Jews'", but specified only a timeframe and not a clear date: "Au moment de la guerre, les enfants furent mis en sécurité à Toulouse chez un oncle et  regagnèrent Nice fin juin 1940. Le 9 septembre, la Gestapo s'installe à Nice. Le nouveau « statut des Juifs » décrété par Vichy prive alors le père du droit d'exercer son métier. La pénurie s'installe. Les trois sœurs étaient parfaitement soudées : Denise donne des leçons particulières de mathématiques pour aider la famille. A la rentrée scolaire de 1940, elle entre en première au lycée à Nice." (Roughly translated: "At the time of the war, the children were taken to safety in Toulouse with an uncle and returned to Nice at the end of June 1940. On 9 September, the Gestapo moved to Nice. Vichy's new "status of the Jews" deprives the father of the right to practice his profession. The shortage is settling down. The three sisters were perfectly connected: Denise gives private math lessons to help the family. At the beginning of the school year in 1940, she entered the first school in Nice.")


 * All of that being said, I note that you've continued to work on your article, and think you make a good case with your speculation, "It seems very clear to me that this all applies only to the law on the status of Jews of 3 October 1940, and no other law, and also that law is the only one that makes total sense in this context, since Vernay's father Andre was an architect, meaning he would have been no longer able to work legally after 3 October, date of the law which prohibited Jews from exercising a profession liberale."


 * So, I would be happy to wikilink to your article, but hope that you will continue refining it further so that is becomes least a start-class article soon, rather than a stub. Best wishes for continued success with your research and writing, and again, thank you for reaching out. 47thPennVols (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)