Talk:Going to the People

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1874, thousands of Russian students "[went] to the people" in order to agitate the peasantry towards socialism? Source: Yarmolinsky 2014
  • ALT1: ... that populism was first practiced in Russia, when thousands of students went "to the people" in a mass propaganda campaign? Source: Yarmolinsky 2014
  • ALT2: ... that the first mass movement in modern Russian history was carried out by populist students, who moved to the countryside by the thousands? Source: Yarmolinsky 2014
  • Comment: Submitting as the article has been expanded more than fivefold in the past seven days.

Created by Grnrchst (talk). Self-nominated at 12:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC).

• Confirmed that article has been expanded 5x in the past 7 days, and is well above 1500 characters. The article is neutral, well cited, and--based on what I know about Going to the People from Mike Duncan's podcast--fairly accurate. I think the main hook is OK, but I don't like "moved to the provinces". How about "went to the people" (including the quotes)? That's much closer to the actual name of the article and the movement, in addition to being catchier. I don't like ALT1 as much--"populism" is not as good of a description as "socialism", especially given the modern connotations of the word. I don't like ALT2 either because "mass movement" is hard to define, and because of the aforementioned objection to the word "populism". Lastly, I don't see a QPQ review. Did you do one, or are you exempt because you haven't nominated 5 articles yet? --Bowlhover (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response! I've adjusted the main hook per your recommendations. As for the QPQ review, this is the first article that I've nominated. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I see no major problems remaining. --Bowlhover (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

ALT0 to T:DYK/P6

Page number citations

@Grnrchst: - for the page numbers for the Yarmololinsky citation, my main concern is that citing every page number separately makes it harder to tell at a glance that all of the information in a given section comes from the same source, while after a certain point it doesn't add too much benefit as far as located the material in the source. I think there's probably a happy medium though between every page number being cited individually and the whole chapter being cited as one. Since the material does seem to be in the same order in the source, maybe one page range of citations for each wiki section might make more sense? - car chasm (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Carchasm:, thanks for raising this here. I like your solution of using the page numbers from each section of the chapter to cut down on excessive citations. Just checked now and the page numbers of each section are: 1) pp. 189-192; 2) pp. 192-194; 3) pp. 194-197; 4) pp. 197-201; 5) pp. 201-205; 6) pp. 205-209. (It also cites two sections from the previous chapter: pp. 181-185; pp. 185-188. And one from the following chapter: pp. 210-213) --Grnrchst (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I had in mind - those divisions make sense to me :). - car chasm (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

inaccurate translation

It doesn't mean "going to" the people, it means "walking among". The former implies consultation by an organisation apart from "the people" , the latter oneness with the people therefore the distinction is not merely semantic. 209.93.146.3 (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)