A news item involving Shatzi Weisberger was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 December 2022.
Wikipedia
A fact from Shatzi Weisberger appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 May 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that when asked about the secret to her longevity, 91-year-old Shatzi Weisberger said she smokes marijuana every night?
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project in 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2022.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles
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.
Full review to follow, but while I think the funeral hooks are cute, they're misleading since the "funeral" described in the article wasn't an actual funeral since she's still alive. If I had to pick a hook, I think ALT1 is the best option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article meets DYK requirements and a QPQ has been provided. No close paraphrasing was detected. As I mentioned earlier, the funeral hooks were actually the best options, but unfortunately they are misleading. I would however be fine with those hooks if living funeral could be improved to DYK standards (making the hooks double hooks). If ALT0/ALT0a doesn't work out, ALT1 is the next-best option: it's cited inline, and while the hook source uses the term "dope" I'm accepting the re-wording to marijuana since that seems to be the intended meaning. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ALT1 is approved (as much as I really wanted to go with ALT0/ALT0a). Just in case there are any BLP concerns about the statement, note that it came from Weisberger herself and I'm pretty sure she said it with humor in mind (i.e. she doesn't see it as something bad). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we really be using a drawing as the lead image here? I understand that this individual lacks a Commons picture, but usually in that case we just wouldn't include one. Here's a different image of Dilma Roussef by that same artist; even if we didn't have any copyright-free pictures of her, I wouldn't think to use it on her article. I suggest removing it or, alternatively, since this individual is diseased, a free use image hosted on Wikipedia could be used. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Krisgabwoosh! I'm not well-versed in this area, but when I go to upload a non-free (fair use) image of Weisberger and note that it's an image of a deceased person, the upload wizard asks me whether I've made a reasonable effort to get someone to release a photo under a free license. Because of that, and because I'd rather we have a free image than a pixelated little fair use one, I'll poke around and see if I can't find someone who is willing to upload a photo to Commons. — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, it was just something that stood out to me as we don't normally use drawings of figures to depict them outside of, like, historical figures and the like. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ezlev, been a while :) I'm happy to pick this up. I can see your activity has been sporadic lately (which, hell, I'm one to talk), so I'm not holding you to any particular deadlines. I've read through the article and, at the moment, mostly want to comment on its earlier/sparser sections (I expect to say more about the later ones as we work through).
The first-para sentence describing her activism seems overdetailed. opposition to police brutality in the United States including through Black Lives Matter can easily drop the whole bit about BLM, and similarly anti-Zionism as a member of Jewish Voice for Peace doesn't require a mention of the specific organization. Her association with JVP is clarified elsewhere in the lead. The very earliest introduction doesn't seem like the right place to namedrop specific organizations (on the same note, I'd rephrase ACT UP to a more general "HIV/AIDS advocacy").
Why are "lesbian" and "homophobic" linked?
She additionally gained an interest in death education -- drop 'additionally'
I'm concerned about some of the statements around her family in the lead, but those comments fit more clearly in the next section.
In the infobox: I don't see a good reason to name a non-notable spouse here (I'm not sold on naming him at all, but the infobox moreso). I think the 'children' parameter can also take grandchildren, but I'm not sure.
Later addendum: I've looked into this further, and it doesn't seem she did. Rather, she went by Joyce throughout her life formally (including some relatively recent e.g. internet comments), and "Shatzi" is a nickname. For clarity, the opening should be more like Joyce "Shatzi" Weisberger (néeSchatzberg, June 17, 1930 – December 1, 2022). Vaticidalprophet05:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The citation patterns here are weird (this is true throughout the article). I'll pull the first sentence as an example: Shatzi Weisberger was born Joyce Schatzberg[1][2] in Brooklyn[2] on June 17, 1930.[1][3] This whole short sentence doesn't need three separate cited sections, though in this case I get the issue with it sometimes looking ugly to have three consecutive cites at the end of a sentence.
I'm a little concerned about the discussion of the foster care stuff. It's sourced to an obit from a close friend (a lot of the article is sourced to this, and it concerns me because of the source's obvious biases and dependence). Categorically blaming it on homophobia when this is represented only by that obit isn't something I'm fully comfortable with. It's also unclear how big a role this played in her childhood -- the article describes her as having "spent time" in the system, the obit more strongly says she "grew up" in it.
Similarly, it's not actually clear how much she knew about her mother's sexuality. The interview being used to support that she "didn't know" strongly implies she did. The obit says her mother was openly lesbian (though the interview disagrees).
Is there any particular reason to think Glorious Broads is reliable?
Is there any clarity on why her children were adopted? The obit also gives a little more detail about ages of adoption, and mentions she had grandchildren.
I'm concerned about the estrangement being barely touched on. The NYT article makes it clear her children had a pretty rough relationship with her. The article is very hagiographic/has some tone concerns; I don't like how it's just sitting there unexplored that her children didn't speak to her for fifty years. If there's any more information on this in particular, that could be usefully balancing (I find myself uncomfortable with the disconnect between this and the glowing obituaries from her 'chosen family').
I'm also concerned about what's being used to support the strong claim of an "unhappy marriage". The obit used as a source doesn't. The Glorious Broads interview says more narrowly that she "wasn't happy with [her] life"; I'd make a distinction between not liking the way your life is going, with a relationship as an element of that, and specifically being miserable with a specific person for 18 years. The sources that do support this support the former more clearly than the latter. I really have discomforts with the fact we're saying she was "unhappy" with a specific, named, non-notable individual. If we're fine using GB, then if there's anything that stands out to me as something she was unhappy with, it's more like 'not wanting to move to Delaware' than anything else.
I'm still picking hard on this and the estrangement/family thing (this is absolutely not your fault, and entirely the fault of the less-independent sources, but wow, I get madder every time I think about it -- she treated her children so poorly that neither of them talked to her for fifty years, that her daughter wasn't even willing to talk to her on her deathbed, and all these dependent sources just gloss over it and talk about how nice she was to her 'chosen family' -- as if she didn't choose to have a family, didn't go out of her way to adopt those kids!). I did find her husband's obituary, who is still probably not notable (but might barely scrape it) but seems that he was an interesting guy himself. I still think the clearly-independent sources don't support a hard "unhappy with/at this guy specifically" claim, and that the GB source supports a narrower claim than the one presented in the article. Vaticidalprophet05:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She attended summer camp as a child -- is this relevant?
This section is really sparse, considering it's the dominating element of her life for almost fifty years. The 972 article talks more about it, the GB interview (modulo prior notes) talks more about it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there's more information in archival material/contemporary news/otherwise not-FUTON sources; I have serious concerns about the reliance on FUTON sources in the article of someone who lived almost all of her life before the internet. This is a general but important note.
Those are my notes for now. I do have some real concerns here. I don't think it's impossible for this to pass, but it might take a while, especially given the sourcing concerns/absence of contemporary information for much of her life. From our past work together, I'm optimistic we can make good progress here, regardless of how the review ends up working out. Vaticidalprophet09:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that the review has been open for 22 days without response or any edits to the article, the comments are very long while only dealing with the first third of the article, and the nominator seems to be inactive, I plan to close the nomination as unsuccessful if no progress happens within the next few days. I've been looking at the later sections over the course of the review, and the more I look into the subject the more I feel GAN isn't really the right place for this article at this time -- my comments on the bulk of the article are going to be fairly exhaustive and amount to significant rewrites. I'm happy to work something out if real progress is made in the next few days, but as it stands this GAN is in a holding pattern that isn't well-suited to an article needing this much revision. Vaticidalprophet04:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vaticidalprophet, thanks for all your notes here. I'm all laptopped up again and will pick this up at some point to start working toward GA status – but I agree with your feedback and it'll clearly take some work to get there. Your insight is appreciated as always. — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a little and added an expand tag for the career section, but keeping notes, for myself or anyone else:
Neutralfy long hagiographic sections; don't take subject's description of events that everyone else describes differently at face value (e.g. leaving her family)
Sort out to the best of the source ability what actually went on with her upbringing (article currently seems confused as to who she was raised by, sources don't seem much less confused as to e.g. how long her parents were together, whether her mother's partner raised her, etc)
Massively restructure activism section, which amongst other things massively overrepresents the things that aged well and downplays the things that didn't (nuclear power opposition is barely mentioned even though she consistently mentions it as the single biggest deal in her 20th century activism); much of this section (and of the whole article) is not particularly independent, which is another problem
Restructure death section to not essentially be a repeat of the obits and the NYT article; the NYT article is a good source, but as it currently stands much of this is a repeat of the parts that reflect well on Weisberger, which makes the omission of the details that don't even more prominent
.png){kind=small}
Full review to follow, but while I think the funeral hooks are cute, they're misleading since the "funeral" described in the article wasn't an actual funeral since she's still alive. If I had to pick a hook, I think ALT1 is the best option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. ALT1 is approved (as much as I really wanted to go with ALT0/ALT0a). Just in case there are any BLP concerns about the statement, note that it came from Weisberger herself and I'm pretty sure she said it with humor in mind (i.e. she doesn't see it as something bad). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
