Talk:Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz/GA2

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

Kept as a good article. Apologies for the delay in closing. AIRcorn (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz" page, we the readers are encouraged to contribute: "This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

However, I have encountered some difficulty attempting to do just that: I am a history enthusiast who has been happy to come across information recently on the topic of the genealogy and portraiture of Queen Charlotte.

I noticed there is no more than one quotation (in the above-named article) from contemporaries of Queen Charlotte providing a physical description of her, so I added two direct quotations: one, a more complete form of the quote from royal physician, Baron Christian Friedrich Stockmar; and the other, a quote from Sir Walter Scott, both with in-line citations. I also included a quote from Janice Hadlow's book, A Royal Experiment: The Private Life of King George III, about the King's reaction upon seeing his wife-to-be for the first time -- this is one of the approved source materials to cite from, on this page.

Also, I came across a line of research that is not addressed in the article: a theory by historian Mario de Valdes y Cocom, arguing that Queen Charlotte may have been the direct descendant of King Alfonso III and his concubine, Ouruana. This, I thought, should be included in the theories listed on the "Ancestry" section of this page. I referenced this theory along with an in-line citation to an article in the reputable online newspaper, the Independent, that cites the theory as well.

In order to provide more than one perspective on the matter, I also included a quote from a sceptic, David Williamson, co-editor of Debrett's Peerage, suggesting that Queen Charlotte may not have stood out from her peers in appearance that much.

To my surprise, just hours later, I returned to find all of these quotations (and their corresponding in-line citations to reputable sources), had been removed! Wikipedia clearly states that non-cited material can be removed by editors; but never that well-cited material (I made sure to include a reference at the end of each and every paragraph I contributed) can be deleted without providing an explanation.

The "Ancestry" sub-section of the article has reverted to its previous, somewhat un-nuanced state, giving more weight to more sceptical theories with few direct quotations from the Queen's contemporaries.

In light of this, I cannot see how the Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz article meets number 4 of the "Good Article" criteria: Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

--2605:A601:A1AF:CF00:3D08:6D49:7947:D557 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why I undid your edits in my edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz&type=revision&diff=930415569&oldid=928718069. We can't copy from other websites when those websites are copyrighted. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- Thank you Celia Homeford, for responding to my thread with your explanation -- I am a frequent user of Wikipedia, but I have not ventured to contribute to this degree before, only to learn from what is there already. Although, when reading this article, I encountered what I considered to be a gap in the knowledge provided here, and wanted to fill it out in accordance with the rules. Your response is indeed clarifying.

A couple of questions, though: If I proceed as Wikipedia encourages in this passage of its FAQ on copyright infringement: "[Y]ou may need to reorganize as well as restate [the facts] to avoid substantial similarity infringement," then will it not be seen as adding too much creative license to the presentation of facts gathered? If rephrased, can one still attribute the website that one got the initial information from?

Or, can a passage from a copyrighted source be added to Wikipedia verbatim if the entire passage is put in quotation marks? My other question: If one quotes directly from Wikipedia's list of approved source material on the Queen, will this, also, be seen as copyright infringement and removed?

I would like to understand the process in more detail. Thank you for understanding. 2605:A601:A1AF:CF00:157B:293C:A5DF:C172 (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should rephrase but not copy exactly, while retaining the meaning of the original. The website should still be attributed in a footnote.

Quotations should be kept to a minimum and attributed, but yes they can be used within reason. I'm not sure what you mean by 'Wikipedia's list of approved source material'. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Celia for your timely reply. In answer to your question, I was referring to the line in the box above the body of text in the "Ancestry" subsection of the Queen's article, which says:

"This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. ... Find sources: "Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR"

This is where Wikipedia seems to have a row of links labelled "books," "journals," etc. When I clicked "books" I was led to a google books page which listed all the books which I assumed represented Wiki's "approved list" of material to quote from. If this is an inaccurate inference on my part, how are these resources meant to be used? If one quotes materials from these sources, will it be seen as a copyright violation and erased? Or does Wiki have a special relationship with these publishers/authors to allow us to quote from them? What is the purpose of this list? Any clarification would be helpful. Thank you. --2605:A601:A120:3400:4D5B:DBC0:CB1C:4E2 (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Celia,

You might have seen my last reply but not had time to address it. I have read on the "Good Article Reassessment" page that every good reassessment discussion should end with:

"8. To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article. State the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments."

I would love to get to this step, and your answers to the last questions I submitted will be useful in helping me finalize this thread.

I will be happy to take all these guidelines into account the next time I am contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you again for your time! 2605:A601:A120:3400:E072:2B75:D7F:EF41 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Celia,

Okay, so I am going ahead with Step 8 of Good Article Reassessment: "To close the discussion, edit the individual reassessment page of the article. State the outcome of the discussion (whether there was consensus and what action was taken) and explain how the consensus and action was determined from the comments." In so doing, let me produce the exact text of my pending Wikipedia contribution which I have edited to the standards which you have elucidated in your prior responses.

In Queen Charlotte's Wiki page under the subheading "Ancestry", I wished to contribute some more exact quotations from her contemporaries. To this end, I gathered source material from the following article, which I will then show how I have paraphrased. These contemporaries of Queen Charlotte are quoted here, in the following passage from this article:

"[Valdez] discovered that a royal physician, Baron Christian Friedrich Stockmar, described Queen Charlotte as “small and crooked, with a true mulatto face.” Sir Walter Scott wrote that she was “ill-coloured” and called her family “a bunch of ill-coloured orangutans.”"

As you have stated above, "We should rephrase but not copy exactly, while retaining the meaning of the original." And, "Quotations should be kept to a minimum and attributed, but yes they can be used within reason." Therefore, in the passage I'm attempting to contribute to Wikipedia, I have rephrased the context in which the quotations are placed, while keeping in limited specific quotations from the historical persons mentioned.

This would be my post: However, some of Queen Charlotte’s contemporaries made apparent reference to mixed-ethnicity features in the following quotations: Baron Christian Stockmar, as quoted in an article by the Independent [here, I will place an in-line citation to said publication], referred to Queen Charlotte as “small and crooked, with a true Mulatto face.” Sir Walter Scott once used a variety of epithets to describe the Queen’s appearance, remarking of the Queen as “ill-coloured” and, in fact, referring to her kin as “a bunch of ill-coloured orangutans.” In Janice Hadlow’s book, “A Royal Experiment: The Private Life of King George III”, upon meeting his wife-to-be, the King was later said by onlookers to have “been shocked by Charlotte’s appearance.”

Here, I believe I have carried through Wikipedia's guidelines. Thanks for your assistance -- I'll now be adding this paragraph to the article; if it is subsequently removed, please leave a note as to reasons why. 2605:A601:A1A8:CD00:749D:8807:EFFB:C8B9 (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Celia, I do note that the coordinator/s [yourself included, perhaps?] have allowed one of the new quotations I contributed to remain in full. This I appreciate.

However, there is one thing that concerns me. The phrase I used: "Sir Walter Scott once used a variety of epithets to describe the Queen’s appearance," which was not under copyright and entirely within bounds, was removed. I am concerned that this may leave the reader with the impression that this is language accepted by Wikipedia, when in fact, it matches the Oxford dictionary's definition of an epithet. This, I feel, can be acknowledged without adding a flavour of bias to the article.

The second thing that is confusing is the fact that the quotation from Hadlow's book, describing King Edward III's reaction, was taken out. Is this oft-quoted historian's book not a valid source?

On the page: "Wikipedia:Reliable sources," Wikipedia states that "articles should be based on reliable, published sources." It seems clear that Hadlow's book meets this criterion. I would still appreciate your help in understanding why it was removed. 2605:A601:A1A8:CD00:749D:8807:EFFB:C8B9 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello Celia, just writing in to notify you that this thread will be the subject of a discussion on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --2605:A601:A1A8:CD00:718A:B28D:9514:7663 (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

Is anyone still watching this page? Where are we at regarding this reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celia Homeford: AIRcorn (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and @DIYeditor: as the only respondent at the NPOV noticeboard. AIRcorn (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Individual GA reassessment is available if You are logged in (unless you are not a registered user, then you may try asking another editor to reassess the article). I don't believe an IP editor is supposed to do it. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will probably just close this soon as kept. Though it prudent to check if there were any glaring reasons to delist it first. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: @DIYeditor: The problematic section on ancestry has now been improved and the tags removed[1] by User:Philvarner. I believe this reassessment page can now be closed. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for a nearly a full year, though it was opened by a drive-by IP who added copyvio to the page and said the page wasn't neutral because there wasn't enough on "a theory by historian Mario de Valdes y Cocom"; Valdes y Cocom is not a qualified historian but a random PBS contributor. I won't say my own opinion on whether one possible north African ancestor 600 years earlier makes someone black, but you can possibly guess what it is. Contrary to the IP's rambling on the page not being neutral, the solution by Philvarner was not to make the section longer but to make it shorter. It says something about Wikipedia that an IP with a pet theory can put a GA up for review and nobody cares for nine months, although what that something is, I don't know. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. I meant to close this months ago, but life got in the way. Closing now. AIRcorn (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]