Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Berlin to Kitchener name change/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2021 [1].

Berlin to Kitchener name change

edit
Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 15:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about how a small German-Canadian city in Ontario, Canada went from being named Berlin to Kitchener and the context surrounding that change. Tkbrett (✉) 15:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Why so much further reading? If they are not a unique resource on the article's topic, they should not be there (possibly moved to another article where they are more relevant); if they do give unique info on this article's topic, they should probably be cited. (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit
In general, it looks good. I'm slightly concerned however by some phrasings that look a bit odd to me, which may be ENGVAR.
  • "Sergeant-Major Blood" Do we have a link or a first name? Or is this the same as the Sergeant Blood arrested later on in the article?
  • They are indeed the same person (Sergeant-Major Granville Blood). Unfortunately there's no page and my sources have no information on his life besides the mentions in this article. I've fixed the naming so they are both the same. Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blockquote by Lt Dacey seems to be missing an internal close quotation mark.
  • "In January 1916, members of the local 118th Battalion campaigned in the streets of Berlin, harassing men who had not signed up for service.[45] " Is campaigned the proper term here?
  • Good point. There are really two thoughts being teased in this sentence – the unsuccessful recruiting campaign and the harsh tactics the recruiters pivoted towards. I've split the sentence and expanded each to further explain. It now reads: "In January 1916, members of the local 118th Battalion campaigned for new recruits but – like most battalions in Canada – found little success. Recruiters resorted to harassing men in the streets who had not signed up for service and forcing them into the recruiting office.[59]" Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The result of the vote elicited celebrations in the streets from supporters." Elicited seems a bit of an odd word here.
  • "In early 1916, Canada's Militia Minister Sam Hughes made a speech in the House of Commons" Shouldn't there by commas surrounding "Sam Hughes"?
  • "Tappert was threatened to leave the country by 1 March.[64]" This reads oddly.
  • You have "Ontario's legislature", "the Legislature" and "the Ontario Legislature" within a short passage, and you link later to Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dnllnd

edit

Overall the page is a huge improvement from earlier versions and I appreciate how much you've accomplished - well done. I have a few general comments to offer:

  • Several paragraphs are way too long, impacting how browsable the page is despite the use of subheadings. One aspect of a topic doesn't need to be completely covered in one paragraph. The information the longer paragraphs contain is interesting and useful but they'd benefit from being broken up, where appropriate.
Looks and reads a lot better! I made a few additional splits.--Dnllnd (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I agree. I rejoined one where the information is better served as one paragraph. Tkbrett (✉) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reaction and aftermath section doesn't address more recent media coverage about changing the name as it relates to discussion of anti-racism. There doesn't need to be extensive coverage about this, but acknowledging that aspect of things would add some additional depth to the page with regards to the 'why' the name was changed and what the long-term impact of that decision has been.
  • This was an area I was unsure about including. John Allemang's piece from 2016 is flowery in prose but light on substance regarding any push for renaming the city Berlin. If you look up more recent articles regarding this you find there were several in the immediate aftermath of the killing of George Floyd, mostly popping up in June 2020. The city council shrugged it off and things don't seem to have gone anywhere. The petition had fewer than 400 signatures when mentioned in the Record, so I don't think the movement is especially notable or relevant to this page. I worry that mentioning it would veer into editorializing by placing undue emphasis on it. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't editorializing more of a concern if recent questioniong of the name is omitted? You're right, council did generally dismiss the 2020 calls to revisit the name but in doing so they also said the following: “We acknowledge that the legacy of our namesake, Horatio Herbert Kitchener, a decorated British Earl who established concentration camps during the Boer War, is not one to be celebrated,” [2]. That's relevant to the topic. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appealing to WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, it would be inappropriate to include the 2020 story (or any others, like the 2016 piece) given that no notable movement to change the name back to Berlin has materialized since 1919. Tkbrett (✉) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't notable why did the city respond to it? And why is there more than one news item, across multiple years, about it? This isn't breaking news or an idea I pulled out the air. It's been repeatedly documented in the news and engaged with by city officials. Since you've pointed to specific guideline as reasons not to include relevant info I'll use the same guidelines to explain why it should be included:
  • WP:NOTADVOCACY point #2 sates: "Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." Acknowledging the more recent criticism aligns with this guideline.
  • WP:NOTNEWS point #1 states: "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information." Acknowledging the more recent criticism aligns with this guideline.
  • WP:UNDUE states: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Acknowledging the more recent criticism in a sentence or two doesn't given it undue attention and aligns with this guideline.--Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To move this discussion forward I added in a short paragraph to the bottom of the Reaction and aftermath section. It seems more productive to discuss actual text than debate hypotheticals. The text I've added focuses on the facts and is relevant to the discussion. Feel free to edit the text as needed. Thanks again for your work on the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are fair points. I have added two sentences mentioning the issues raised by Outhit's Record article to the end of the Reaction and aftermath section. (I overrode the edits you made there accidentally b/c we were making edits at the same time) Tkbrett (✉) 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd personally like to see a sentence or two acknowledging how awful Herbert Kitchener was. The quote about him being a war martyr doesn't really cut it. He was a scorched earth-er who relied on concentration camps - that's pretty relevant to the decision to have his name on the change ballot and to the current discussions about racism in the Region.
  • No doubt that when judged by the standards of today Lord Kitchener was awful, but I think this may be a bit outside the scope of this page and going beyond WP:NPOV. All of the sources I've used mention that he was well known but don't go much further than that. Moyer calls him "the famous British General" who "won fame during the Boer War in Africa and in the early years of the Great War." Crerar calls him an "English field marshal" who "was lost in the North Sea just prior to the vote". McLaughlin & Jaeger call him "the recently deceased British secretary of state for war". Wilson calls him, "the popular British Secretary of War". English & McLaughlin don't say much of anything about him. My phrasing is closest to Hayes, who mentions that he was the British Secretary of State for War and that the name became popular among the business community despite the Stratford Herald' complaints. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not up for debating if there was ever a time concentration camps were good based on the standards of any era - I'm an archivist and I'm well versed in the questionable (to me) logic of that discussion. That said, thank you for explaining why you approached mention of Kitchener the way that you did. The unsavory side of his legacy can be reasonably be addressed in the reaction and aftermath section with regards to more recent calls for a reconsideration of the name. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The changing reception of his legacy would be better placed on the Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener page. Including it here would contravene WP:SOAPBOX given that none of the sources discuss it. Tkbrett (✉) 15:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a more robust discussion about Kitchener belongs on his page. The sources you're pointing to as not mentioning criticism about his legacy, however, were written in 1979 (Moyer), 1983 (English), 2006 (McLaughlin), and so on, making the suggestion that adding a sentence about the recent push back about the city's name as soapboxing confusing. You appear to be treating WP guidelines like rules. Each of the WP references you've pointed to, here and in responses to other comments, are intentionally open for interpretation. I left comments in good faith with the goal of making the page as complete and accurate as possible. I pointed to specific examples of how the guidelines can be interpreted as supporting a mention of the criticism about the name as it related to Kitchener's legacy above. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(This point addressed above) Tkbrett (✉) 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a huge fan of info being cited mid-sentence and try to phrase things so that it's not necessary. I recognize this is a personal preference. Not sure if there's a way to minimize instances of it or if anyone other than me is concerned about it.
  • WP:CITEDENSE talks about this a little bit and doesn't say to avoid it. I agree that it can sometimes be unsightly so I merged some into single citations. Others – like the opening sentence of the body – have a lot of information already packed into both citations. I worry about packing too much information into a single one at the end of a sentence lest it becomes difficult to verify what information is coming from where. Tkbrett (✉) 00:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:INTEGRITY is more important than looks :) (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me! Thanks again for all the hard work you've put into the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Passed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN103: if you're going to cite the updated article, then you should credit the update author; also the encyclopedia title should be italicized
  • Where are the Bassler stats from?
  • Lawson, quoting Bassler, doesn't say the origin. I'll get back to you on this one. I have to go get Bassler back from the library and they're not open until Tuesday (they're closed for Easter weekend.) Tkbrett (✉) 23:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't feel like waiting until Tuesday; looking at Avery (2005), he indicates there were 393,320 people of German origin listed in the 1911 census. Lawson says "By 1911, almost half a million people of German ancestry were disperssed across Canada." I've updated it with the more precise figure from Avery. Tkbrett (✉) 00:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Leibbrandt a high-quality reliable source? Moyer? Lefcourt?
  • Here's what English & McLaughlin have to say about Leibbrandt: "A recent and unusual work deserve special mention: Dr. Gottlieb Leibbrandt has written a valuable history of the Germans of Waterloo County. Trained as a scholar, Dr. Leibbrandt reveals a thorough command of his sources and a sensitive appreciation of the experience of his own ethnic group in this area" (p. 229).
  • English & McLaughlin describe Moyer's earlier work as "folksy and interesting popular histories", adding that Kitchener: Yesterday Revisited "follows the style and level of research in Moyer's other publications" (p. 229). They cite him throughout their endnotes.
  • The German Quarterly included Lefcourt in a recommended reading list. Tkbrett (✉) 23:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems to be a bibliography rather than specifically a recommended reading list - anything more on that source? Regarding Moyer, I'm not convinced that being a "folksy and interesting popular histor[y]" recommends a source as being high-quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are fair points. I have removed Moyer and Lefcourt as sources and used others in their place. Nothing much was lost as both were mostly corroborated in other sources. I think the only notable loss of content are the names of the two women who suggested "Kitchener" and "Brock"; Lefcourt got that claim from a March 1963 article in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. It's difficult to get into archives during the pandemic but I've reached out to the Kitchener Public Library to see if I can get a copy of the article. I don't plan on citing it, I'm just curious if it indicates where the claim originates. Tkbrett (✉) 13:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I managed to get a hold of the column Lefcourt cited ("City's Name Story Contradicted," Kitchener-Waterloo Record, March 23, 1963. p. 3). As the title suggests, local stories are somewhat contradictory as to who suggested the name, which is perhaps why none of the other sources I have mention it. Given the silence on the issue from reliable sources, I think I'll just avoid mentioning it in the article. Also, re:Bassler numbers, it was the 1911 census, just as Avery 2005 mentions. I also see the same numbers used in Granatstein 2005 and McKegney 1991. The page has been updated to reflect this. Tkbrett (✉) 14:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

edit

I'm vaguely aware of the name change debate, but here's what I have to add:

  • Have you considered adding the date the name Berlin was adopted to the lead? Not necessary of course, but I think it may be worth including it in the clause about where the name comes from: "Berlin adopted the name in 1833, after the capital of the German Empire..." or something like that.
  • Good idea. (further address on next point below). I've also included the official switch date of 1 September 1916 in a sentence added to the second paragraph since that seems another important date. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the same sentence; it notes the name came from the capital of the German Empire, but if the name was adopted in 1833 then that isn't true, as the Empire wasn't established until 1871. It would be more accurate to either say the capital of Prussia, or even future capital of the Empire. I see this is actually noted later in the article (via a letter to the Berlin News Record and a couple other mentions as well).
  • "In early 1916 business and community leaders began pushing for Berlin to either seek a new name or amalgamate with Waterloo." I think adding a reference to Waterloo being close ("amalgamate with neighbouring Waterloo", for example) would be useful, as people aren't going to know the cities are effectively twinned.
  • "Towns across the English speaking world..." Should be "English-speaking", no?
  • "In the months following the outbreak of the war, Berlin's Board of Education voted to end the use of German in schools." Does this mean German was the language of instruction, or one of the topics taught?
  • Both Sir Wilfred Laurier and Sir Robert Borden are noted without the honorific; is that a deliberate omission?
  • Whoops! Not intentional. I've fixed the instances when they're first mentioned. Do I have to use it when not using their full name? For example, I initially write "On 24 November 1917, Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden visited Kitchener ...". When I next mention him I simply say, " ... a group of disgruntled citizens heckled Borden." Is this sufficient? Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Young German men were harassed in the street if they had not signed up for military service." This was not exclusive to German-Canadians; were they targeted even more so than others?
  • That's certainly true. I suppose it's more that most of the men expected to enlist were German. McKegney clarifies: "Many of the young men who were expected to enlist in the 118th Battalion had studied the German language and literature in Berlin and Waterloo schools, the majority of them were members of German-language churches that were either neutral or opposed to war with Germany, and most of them were Canadian rather than British born." (McKegney p. 169). I've changed it to, "Young men, many of them German, were harassed ..." Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tappert became a controversial figure locally after several of his actions, including his continued use of German in religious services, telling his children to avoid saluting the Union Jack and to not sing "God Save the King", his refusal to contribute to the Patriotic Fund and his public doubting of anti-German propaganda." This needs to be fixed grammatically: the "after several of his actions" implies something is coming after the list there, but it doesn't. Instead go with something like "Tappert became a controversial figure locally for several controversial actions, including..." It has a more definitive result that way.
  • Ironic that one of the two soldiers who assaulted Tappert was named Schaefer, a decidedly German name. Have to wonder if that influenced his actions.
  • I looked through my sources and didn't find anything regarding Schaefer's German heritage, but I did stumble upon a very interesting nugget. "Blood and Schaefer, let off with suspended sentences, were warned by Magistrate Weir that he remembered Schaefer, who had been connected in 1914 with throwing the bust of Kaiser Wilhelm I in the park lake ..." (McKegney p. 160). That's too interesting a factoid to leave out. It's also all I can really find about Schaefer. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did L. J. Breithaupt elaborate on why he opposed the name change? If so it would be good to have that, but I understand if that's not available.
  • Yes! He opposed the resolution because he thought the name change would have no effect on British success in the war and that any change should be voted on by the entire city, not simply the 12 alderman council. I've added this to the article. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Adam Crerar's full name on his first mention in the article (at the start of the "Voting and results" section).

Solid article overall. Once the above are addressed I'll be happy to support

Thank you! I'm especially happy to have someone named Kaiser reviewing this article. Tkbrett (✉) 04:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to review it, and happy to offer my support. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Berlin_to_Kitchener_name_change/archive1&oldid=1020780148"