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: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Licurici magazine, May Day 1948 issue
Licurici magazine, May Day 1948 issue

Created by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 07:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Vladimir Cavarnali; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]


Ethnicity

[edit]

WP:OCEGRS, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.

He should not be categorized as Russian descent. It is not mentioned anywhere in the article. WP:EGRS: Inclusion of people in a category related to GREDS must be based on reliable sources. Any person merely from the Russian Empire does not acquire Russian ethnicity nor Russian descent. Moreover, anybody who is Russian nationality is not also of Russian descent.

He should not be categorized as Gagauz descent. This is speculative based upon derivation of surname, per "Gagauzian Onomastics: Mapping Cultural Hallmarks through Names, Surnames and Orthodoxy". WP:COP-HERITAGE: Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors. The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable.

He should not be categorized as Bulgarian descent. WP:COP-HERITAGE: historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage. Again, The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable.

He is Bessarabian Bulgarian.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dahn pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson This is extremely tiresome.
The issue of his Russian descent is base on the practice of adding descent categories to place-of-origin cats, such as when we include people of Ukrainian Jewish descent in the People of Ukrainian descent intersectional categories. I am agnostic on this issue, I just added the article in that cat because it seems to reflect a practice.
The Gagauz ethnicity is not "speculative". Please read and understand the text: Măcriș's monograph, specifically on the Gagauz, lists his bio under "Gagauz figures", and calls him a "Bulgarian-Gagauz" (him, not his grandparents -- though note that the current practice seems to favor mentioning descent of a politician or whatever even when it is third-generation). Măcriș does a level of investigation not found in other sources, which mention but one of his two ethnicities, without excluding the other -- particularly since, at the time, the two identities were seen as complementary and sometimes conflated. Măcriș, and the additional source he cites, are what is being used for identifying Cavarnali as a Gagauz, per the wording used there. Can I make it any clearer?
The issue of his surname is indeed from "Gagauzian Onomastics: Mapping Cultural Hallmarks through Names, Surnames and Orthodoxy"; the source and the citation are not there to make guesses about Cavarnali's ethnicity, but to indicate a biographical fact about him -- as in: the origin of his (very rare) surname. He could indeed be Bulgarian even with a Gagauz surname (we would still indicate the origin of his surname), but we have a source, the one you keep dancing around, explicitly calling him a Gagauz (and a Bulgarian), and that is not something we ignore. Dahn (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read and understand the guidelines. Folks who fail to follow policy and guidelines are indeed tiresome.
  1. All categorization must be WP:CATDEFINING.
  2. WP:CATSPECIFIC: do not add categories to pages as if they are tags for every possible datum.
  3. WP:COP-PLACE place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual.
  4. Again, long established and documented practice is only one generation (WP:COP-HERITAGE cited above). Not grandparents. Great-grandparents is right out.
  5. Again, there is only one heritage category per non-living person. Neither count thou two. Three is right out.
  6. This person has a single category that is directly related to his notable works: Bessarabian Bulgarian.
  7. There could be hundreds of sources saying that the derivation of his surname means there is some Gagauzian heritage in his past, but categorization guidelines require that be ignored.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson Do you understand that the mention of his Gagauz ethnicity is not based on onomastics, not on great-grandparents, not on etc., but on a source (two in fact) explicitly calling him a Gagauz?
Incidentally (and I do mean "incidentally", because I don't intend to waste a lifetime on this issue): "there is only one heritage category per non-living person. Neither count thou (?) two" -- this seems to be your on-the-spot concoction! As an absolutely random example, Harold Macmillan is in two such categories, Gaston, Duke of Orléans is in three, as is Zaida Ben-Yusuf; not to mention people in intersectional categories. If you want to change policies by stealthy adding your POV on what we should(n't) have, please pick some other article for your experiment. Dahn (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited the current explicit WP:COP-HERITAGE guideline. As to my "on-the-spot concoction", you've personally attacked the worst possible person: I'm the original editor of the guideline in 2006. Since then, I'd split this current guideline text from Wikipedia:Category names, where I'd written the Heritage section after months of discussion at CfD and VPP in 2006. It is very long established that (as originally written in 2006) historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single race or ethnicity. Since then, "race or ethnicity" has been renamed "Heritage". (I've also named the WP:EGRS guideline in 2009.) It now so well established, that "grandparent" verbiage is currently mentioned twice for emphasis. I'll visit Macmillan et alia in a moment.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may have written it, but allow me to not credit you as the oracle on how it should be (re)interpreted, nor sit and watch as you dance around the issue at hand. I will repeat the question: do you understand that the mention of Cavarnali's Gagauz ethnicity is based on the source which calls him a Gagauz? Yes or no? Dahn (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You kept implying that the inclusion in the Gagauz category is based on a WP:SYNTH of the onomastics article. It is not. It is based on the definition in Măcriș, and, indirectly, Hotineanu. Did I manage to get this point across, at long last, or will you just keep ignoring it and give me lectures on side topics? Dahn (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don' forget to give me your 2 cents on John Gielgud and Elvis Presley (not to mention the admittedly idiotic heritage categorization in Harriet Tubman) when you do get back to me with more humbling instructions about how I should tailor articles I contribute around your personal preferences. Dahn (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
William Allen Simpson Also, the claim that his being of mixed heritage necessarily refers to his grandparents is a leap of logic: it could (and likely does) refer to one of his parents being Gagauz, or even both being Bulgarian-speaking Gagauzes, and this simply not being recorded in any but the more detailed sources. Can you grasp that notion? And can you understand that as long as there is a source listing him as a Gagauz, and no sources explicitly contradicting it, we do in fact follow the source? Dahn (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories