Template:Did you know nominations/Emilie von Berlepsch


 * 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Emilie von Berlepsch

 * ... that Emilie von Berlepsch told German readers about Mary Wollstonecraft and the nature of misogyny?


 * ALT1:... have a go
 * Reviewed: QPQ = Maiasmokk
 * Comment: Copyedit by a German speaking editor very welcome

Created by Victuallers (talk). Self-nominated at 20:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Interesting life and writing! Few sources, but good, - German has more, literature could be copied for those interested. I don't see Goethe in the German article, but Jean Paul. I think the name of the first husband should be mentioned. If possible avoid squeezing text between infobox and image. Hook fine, subscription source accepted AGF. Image free and a good illustration! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Goethe's in the Emglish source. I can see that she was briefly engaged to Jean Paul. That's notable but I don't have the skills/courage to find/add a German source. Useful to include. I have added a bit about Robert Burns and her first husband. OK? thx again. Victuallers (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. Jean Paul should be added for interest's sake, but his name missing is not in the way of approval. I though again about the hook. Can you add a hint at early writing on women's rights, for those who don't know Wollstonecraft and misogyny? At least link the latter which I had to look up? Our readership is international ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... I've tried to take the ideas and remove the need for prior knowledge. Victuallers (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt1: ... that Emilie von Berlepsch told German readers about how a woman writes about Women's Rights?
 * Alt2 ... that Emilie von Berlepsch told German readers about why it appeared that men hated women?
 * Symbol voting keep.svg All hooks possible, I prefer the slightly quirky touch of Alt1, said "a" instead of "the" because she wasn't the only one, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed the link to the Misogyny article above. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 15:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Those hooks don't look right to me. I will take a closer look at this one tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not following up on this one sooner. Both alts are awkward in my opinion and inaccurate, I don't think either are acceptable. The original hook looks viable in terms of fact but again is a bit awkwardly expressed - does "told about" mean "introduced to" (ie Wollstonecraft)? And I don't think you can say she "told about" the nature of misogyny either, as if she's an impeccable authority - she merely had an opinion and wrote about it. So I think this hook at least needs some clarification. Gatoclass (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If Berlepsch did indeed introduce Wollstonecraft to German readers (the article says only "discussed" so that would need to be clarified) then I think the original hook could be reworded to something like:
 * ALT3: ... that aristocrat Emilie von Berlepsch wrote about women's rights and misogyny and introduced German readers to the work of Mary Wollstonecraft? Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you telling us about this or writing about it? I'm not sure there is a difference. I'm quite happy with either or even if you are "introducing" your view to us. I presume this difference is important and I'm happy with any of these very similar interpretations. This alt doesn't address Gerda's objections (who can read de:wiki) however which I feel have been ignored. Victuallers (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is that "told" can mean a lot of different things and have different connotations, whereas "introduced" has a more precise meaning. However, you didn't confirm for me that Ms. Berlepsch did actually introduce Germans to Wollstonecraft - the article still only says she "discussed" W. for German readers - any chance you could clarify that in the article? Regarding Gerda's comments, they weren't really objections, rather suggestions as to how the article might be improved, which are beyond the scope of this process, as I think the article already meets the criteria. We really only need to confirm the hook at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda said " I though again about the hook. Can you add a hint at early writing on women's rights, for those who don't know Wollstonecraft and misogyny?". This is not about the article and it is the reason why the hooks were written. The original hook said "told". I would have thought that translations might be useful for introducing a writer to German readers but maybe she was just discussing/telling/saying/writing. If you want to insist on Alt3 then I suggest you change it to the word you like. I think introduce could have read re-introduce but discuss will do. Victuallers (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I added "womens rights" to the hook (and also "aristocrat" as I think it adds to the interest). How does it look now? Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (still watching, on vacation:) please don't change hooks which have caused comments, because it makes the discussion hard to follow. "Aristocrat" is redundant for readers who know that the "von" in her name stands for that. Mentioning women's rights and Wollstonecraft and misogyny seems one thing too many to me, please decide on two of the three. Is "introduced" now in the article and sourced? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which would you prefer to see in the hook, misogyny or womens rights? Regarding the "introduced", the article states that She discussed various writers for German readers including particularly Mary Wollstonecraft.[1] She notes her similar role in raising these subjects for the first time in German.[1]. If she "raised these subjects for the first time in German" then she introduced them to Germans.Gatoclass (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Women's rights better than a word I never heard before, - but that's just me. You might convince me that it is a catchy term, and the source indeed says that she gave what she fought that name. As for "first time", I can't access the offline source, and the article says that she regarded herself as the first, which makes "first" not a fact. I like the phrase in source 2, "fighting against the prejudice that wants to grant women neither a will of their own nor the courage to express it", but see that it's long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm the off line source says that she re-introduced as German readers may have forgotten Wollstonecraft - I think this is Gerda's point. I do feel we are dancing on the heads of pins (sorry Gerda that means that we are finding very tiny differences in meaning). Pleased to see Gerda is involved as I feel we are sending the wrong message when we re-open a review by a competent reviewer. Victuallers (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well Vic, I must reject your suggestion that I am nitpicking, but it won't help move this nom forward to have a debate about that. As for "sending the wrong message", however - rechecking of others' approvals is supposed to be standard procedure here at DYK and I think it's the frequent failure to do so that if anything "sends the wrong message" to reviewers. So I'm not going to apologize for doing my job. I will concede though that some of my earlier comments on this thread were unintentionally blunt - due in part to tiredness and an at times very slow editing window on this PC which is very frustrating to use - so I will apologize for that. Now can we please try to get back to finding a hook we can all agree on? How about we just went with something simple:
 * ALT4: * ... that Emilie von Berlepsch is considered an early proponent of women's rights in Germany? - the article says as much in the intro, though it would need to be cited. Gatoclass (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a summary of cited material which I could approve, but I find it a bit boring and a bit misleading because readers unfamiliar with the times - thanks for the infobox! - might expect rights to vote etc. Can one of you write a hook using the above-mentioned quote which describes one of her topics exactly? I could but then we would need another reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm fine with going with your proposal for a hook, the problem is that someone needs to add it to the article first. Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I can't because first to introduce a fact in the article and then approve it seems to go against the rulez, written or unwritten. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda, you are the one who proposed this idea for a hook. You are not permitted to verify your own hook, so if you want this for a hook, I or someone else will have to verify it. Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think we've all wasted enough time on this nom, so I've added the quote to the article myself and am proposing the following hook:
 * ALT5: that Emilie von Berlepsch described herself as "fighting against the prejudice that wants to grant women neither a will of their own nor the courage to express it"?
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Can somebody uninvolved please review ALT5? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Sure thing, Gatoclass. (All I did previously was fix a typo in an intralink, so I think I count as uninvolved.) ALT5 is short enough, interesting enough, has an inline citation in the article, and the source backs that citation up. Looks to me like this DYK is GTG. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 20:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)