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 SL93 (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalía Abreu, 1905
Rosalía Abreu, 1905
  • ... that in 1915 Cuban animal collector Rosalía Abreu (pictured) was the first person to breed a chimpanzee in captivity? Source: "Anuma, the first chimpanzee to be born in captivity, was born at the colony [Abreu's in Cuba] on April 27, 1915." [1]

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 19:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi Lajmmoore, review follows: article moved to mainspace 17 October and exceeds minimum length; article is well written and cited inline to what look to be reliable sources for the subject; I didn't pick up on any overly close paraphrasing from the sources; image is from a 1905 photograph obviously intended for wider distribution so copyright tag used seems reasonable; hooks are interesting, mentioned in the article and check out to source cited; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi theleekycauldron. I can confirm the journal article cited (Wynne 2008) states: "Despite her very different background, Abreu was sympathetic to Ivanov’s request to mate a male chimpanzee with a female human ... Unfortunately, however, the publicity around Ivanov’s plans brought unwelcome attention to Abreu. She apparently received a threatening letter from the Ku Klux Klan for contemplating involvement in an experiment “abominable to the Creator” (Lapin and Fridman 1966, p. 30; Rossiianov 2002). Abreu became fearful of the impact involvement in Ivanov’s scheme might have on her status in respectable Cuban society, and withdrew her consent." All the best - Dumelow (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Dumelow! Lajmmoore (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on including Robert Yerkes in lead paragraph

Should the mention of Robert Yerkes be included in the lead paragraph? Is his name or work recognizable enough to add understanding to Rosalía Abreu? I personally think it only adds questions and mention of Robert Yerkes should be moved to a different point in the article. Sergeant Curious (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No - Per MOS:LEADBIO, the lead should stay focused on Rosalía Abreu's biography. Yerkes could be mentioned later in the article, but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Nemov (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - the lead is a summary of the article, which includes content relating to the fact that Yerkes based significant amounts of his research on Abreu's work and his purchase of animals from her collection was a significant factor is his later career. I have added eugenicist as a descriptor of Yerkes, to clarify somewhat his approach. Lajmmoore (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. He's only mentioned briefly in one paragraph, and only one of four bluelinked researchers that the article describes as being influenced by Abreu. Singling him out for special mention in the lead smacks of attempted guilt by association (because of the modern negative connections with eugenics, which is not described in the article text as being an interest of Abreu herself) and original research by synthesis (attempting to push the idea that she was a eugenicist by improperly synthesizing other claims rather than by finding proper sourcing for a direct connection). (Note: I was brought here by a neutral announcement of this RFC on WT:WIR.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per David Eppstein. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes why not, per Lajmmoore. It's a short lead. And please don't introduce a subject here by launching an Rfc. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No What David Eppstein said, but also much more mundanely, that sentence very much sticks out to me as being irrelevant to the rest of the paragraph. 3mi1y (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Not required in the initial paragraph. Details can be added later in the sections below Mnair69 (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - some commenters are saying that the mention should be removed to later in the article, but I'd like to point out that its already there. Perhaps take a look at the rest of the text before commenting? Lajmmoore (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why is there no discussion of the other researcher who is mentioned in the lead? Why is there just a focus on Yerkes? If the issue is with the lead including people who were significant in Abreu's life then surely this discussion should widen to include Ilya Ivanov also? (Again, some commenters don't appear to have noticed this.) Lajmmoore (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: Despite the arguments put forward by David Eppstein, it seems to me that the lead summarizes the main reasons why she is remembered, reflecting the content in the body of the article. In some cases, WiR's concern with eliminating the names of male colleagues may be inappropriate. Here, both Yerkes and Ivanov seem to have played important roles in her life. It might nevertheless be useful to expand on their involvement.--Ipigott (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosal%C3%ADa_Abreu
No tags for this post.