Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Bettina Birn

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 Kosack (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ruth Bettina Birn

(

)

... that Ruth Bettina Birn, who coauthored a book with a male scholar in 1998, did not have a Wikipedia article until 2018, while the latter has had a page since 2003? Source: Wikipedia page history for Norman Finkelstein

Reviewed: Anton Schmid

Created by K.e.coffman (talk). Self-nominated at 22:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC).

The hook fact is not mentioned in either article and is not cited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit "inside baseball" type of a hook, but when I saw the page A Nation on Trial, I was struck that Norman Finkelstein was linked and had an article, while Birn was not even red-linked: diff. They are equal co-authors of the book. The fact is supported by the article having been created in 2018, while Finkelstein's article history shows that it was created in 2003: [1]. I think it speaks to Wikipedia's "gender gap"; that's why I picked the hook. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment behind the hook, but unfortunately, rules are rules. A new hook may need to be suggested if it can't work out. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

ALT1 ~~...that Canadian Department of Justice has a position of chief historian?~~ Source: Hiio, Toomas. "Toomas Hiio: Saksa salapolitsei Eestis ja eestlased Saksa salapolitseis". Sirvilauad.ee.

@Narutolovehinata5: I provided another option. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I suppose that works, but I'm not sure why the source is an Estonian one. With that said, ALT1 can probably be tweaked further since: 1. the hook implies that it's about the position of chief historian rather than Birn, and because Birn is no longer in the said position. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

ALT2 ~~...that Ruth Bettina Birn served as chief historian at the Canadian Department of Justice?~~ Source: Profile, Macmillan Publishers

The Estonian source was the one which listed the length of Birn's tenure. But if it's not needed, I provided an English-lang source as the second link ("Profile"). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding ping @Narutolovehinata5:. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that works. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this should be good to go now. New enough, long enough, adequately sourced (including the hook). The hook isn't the best, but maybe readers could find it interesting that a historian worked in a Justice department? QPQ provided. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook is rather dull. If you think the hook fact is fascinating, maybe try rewording it in an interesting way. Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

ALT3 ~~...that Ruth Bettina Birn was threatened with legal action by Daniel Goldhagen for her critique of his work Hitler's Willing Executioners?~~ Sources: (1) Hans Mommsen: Einleitung. In: Norman G. Finkelstein, Ruth Bettina Birn: Eine Nation auf dem Prüfstand. Die Goldhagen-These und die historische Wahrheit. Claassen-Verlag, Hildesheim 1998, pp. 9–22, pp. 14 & 17; (2) Willing Executioners? Essays by two scholars dissect the work of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen.

@Yoninah and Narutolovehinata5: what do you guys think of the new option for the hook? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a lot better. But I don't see anything about threatening her with legal action in footnote 3; it just says he assembled a team of lawyers to demand a retraction and apology. Do you see the legal action threat in the offline German source? Reading the article, I also don't see the fact about him threatening to sue her for libel in footnote 3, or even the attribution to Salon (the source is Slate). Yoninah (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: This is covered in the German-lang source, plus here:

"For this assault, Birn and her original British publishers earned Goldhagen's formal threat of a libel action, as well as a richly annotated rebuttal, The Fictions of Ruth Bettina Birn, which has been splayed across the Internet. The relish with which Goldhagen and his critics parse each other's every phrase and footnote guarantees many more rounds of battle."

Source: Willing Executioners? Essays by two scholars dissect the work of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. June 28, 1998

I added this source to the hook. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Could you add the source to the article, and also fix the Salon/Slate attribution? Yoninah (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Changes made: diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: thank you for making those changes. Regarding the "legal action", Slate doesn't mention it and The New York Times mentions "a formal threat of libel action", so the hook should probably be worded:
ALT3a: ... that Daniel Goldhagen threatened to sue Ruth Bettina Birn for libel for her critique of his work Hitler's Willing Executioners? Yoninah (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I'm good with this; thank you for the helpful suggestions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. ALT3a hook ref verified and cited inline. Rest of review per Narutolovehinata5. ALT3a good to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)