Talk:Joanne Passet

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Victuallers in topic Did you know nomination

Did you know nomination

edit
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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Victuallers (talk19:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

 
Prof Joanne Passet in 2011
  • ... that US historian Joanne Passet has written two biographies, one about the author of "Sex Variant Women in Literature" and another about the "Indomitable" publisher Barbara Grier? Source: Both of the Quotes are from her book titles and they are reffed in the article

Created by Naushervan (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 23:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC).Reply

  • The article was nominated on the same day it was made, so is new enough. At ~2800 characters, it is long enough and uses in-line citations. The hook is short enough, interesting, and is cited in-line for both parts of the statement and the QPQ is done. Everything looks good to go! SilverserenC 03:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure that the description of American writer Jeanette Howard Foster as a "Sex Variant Woman" is appropriate - the use of that phrase in the biography title is a reference to a book she wrote. It seems a little reductionist to call her that.Naushervan (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC) -Reply
Okay, I've removed my check mark above. And I've added in an Alt hook space up above if you want to make an alternative hook, Naushervan. SilverserenC 04:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Naushervan Sure its reductionist! and it was Joanne Passet's reduction" based on the fact that the biography was for a women who had spent most of her life studying "Sex Variant Women in Literature" and therefore was entirely appropriate, but I can see that you might want to censor her reduction.. so go on...I have stepped back to the book title. Victuallers (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I hardly think that expressing a different opinion on phrasing is "censoring" (it is reductionist, though). - Naushervan (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Naushervan OK thanks please replace "censor" with "change" or "improve" or "ignore", that word is not essential. More importantly, can we start again? Do you have any thoughts about the nomination? Victuallers (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Victuallers The word "censor" has a very specific meaning, and your usage of it in this context suggests to me that any further participation in this conversation by mself would not be considered fairly. I have nothing to add here - please consider yourself "not censored". - Naushervan (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Silver seren I appreciate the work that you and Naushervan have put into this nom. I have obviously offended Naushervan and they are unwilling to accept my recant or contribute further. I suggest that I withdraw this nomination and we apply our effort to other articles. OK? Victuallers (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply