A fact from Women's World (Ottoman magazine) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 March 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that magazine Women's World was the first to publish photographs of Ottoman Muslim women?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines 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.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism 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.
... that magazine Women's World was the first to publish photographs of Ottoman Muslim women? Source: Çakır, Serpil (2016). Kadınların Özyaşam Öykülerinde Kadınlık ve Öğretmenlik Kimliklerinin Kuruluşu: Emekli Kadın Öğretmenlerle Mikro Düzlemde Bir Sözlü Tarih Çalışması. p. 135.
Comment: I worked on the rejected draft of this translated article, created by Sudekipri, specifically in order to nominate it for DYK for International Women's Day (8th March). There are probably other potential hooks if something else catches the reviewer's eye, or if the reviewer is unhappy taking the hook fact in good faith from a Turkish source. DrThneed (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to DYK requirements, they are met: article was new enough at the time of the nomination, the article is long enough, and no close paraphrasing was detected. The hook is interesting to a broad audience and is cited inline; the sources are offline and in Turkish so I am assuming good faith here. A QPQ has been done. Given that I am not an expert on the topic, I'd like to hear a second opinion from someone more familiar with the topic area, although from my end no issues of note stand out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read Serpil Çakır's book Osmanlı Kadın Hareketi, so I'm fairly familiar with this topic. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of that book with me at the moment, so I wouldn't be able to directly verify the hook, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable proposition so I'd be willing to AGF with it. The only problem here is that this appears to be incorrectly sourced, as Serpil Çakır doesn't have an article with the name "Kadınların Özyaşam..." and indeed this article appears to be by two other authors on a somewhat unrelated topic. This problem is also present in the Turkish version of this article, and looking back at this past Turkish version, it appears that this reference was meant to be one to Osmanlı Kadın Hareketi, but somehow got misinterpreted over the course of time. If this sourcing problem is resolved, this would be good to go. --GGT (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detective work GGT (talk·contribs) I did indeed take the source as given in the translated Turkish article. Bookku (talk·contribs) brought the draft to my attention as something to work on, Bookku do you have access to the source that GGT thinks is the likely proper source for this fact (Osmanlı Kadın Hareketi), or do you maybe know an editor who might? DrThneed (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks @DrThneed: for taking the overlooked draft of otherwise an important topic Women's World being first feminist magazine in Ottoman time Muslim world. Let me ping and request @Lambiam, VenusFeuerFalle, and Gre regiment: to help in the above ongoing discussion, if possible.
@DrThneed:, Serpil Çakır's ref seems to be available in English too. Please see Page 337 – Paragraph 2 (This page is visible in Google book preview to me) This comes in the page number range attributed in Content list 'Ulviye Mevlan Civelek' by Serpil Çakır Page number 336 to 339
in "A Biographical Dictionary of Women's Movements and Feminisms: Central, Eastern, and South Eastern Europe, 19th and 20th Centuries. Hungary, Central European University Press, 2006."Editors: Anna Loutfi, Francisca de Haan, Krassimira Daskalova ISBN: 9789637326394, 9637326391
@Bookku: – Can you be explicit which of the several references attributed to Serpil Çakır is the one that seems to be available in English too, and "Page 337 – Paragraph 2" of which work one should see? The url of the page as visible in Google book preview would be helpful. Reference [2] appears to be the result of some mix-up, as there is a journal article with that precise title by different authors and published in a different year:
Based on the edit history of the article on the Turkish Wikipedia, it is almost certain that Reference [2] is meant to be to the book Osmanlı Kadın Hareketi. Page 135 of that book contains the following sentence:
Kadınlar Dünyası’nın 4 sayfa ve resimsiz olan günlük nüshaları, haftalığa dönüştükten sonra resimli ve 16 sayfa olmuş, dergi kapakları fotoğraflı olarak çıkmıştır. Dergi, Türk kadınının fotoğrafını ilk kez yayımlayan dergi, bu konuda çığır açmıştır.
Translation: "The dailies of Kadınlar Dünyası, having 4 pages without pictures, after having been turned into a weekly, emerged as having 16 pages with pictures and magazine covers with photographs. The magazine, the first magazine to publish a photograph of a Turkish woman, broke new ground in this regard." --Lambiam14:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam: thanks for your response and info–knowledge support.
'Table of Content' pages are numbered with roman numerals there pl. see page no. vii, 15th item/chapter from the top is 'Ulviye Mevlan Civelek' by Serpil Çakır Page number 336
Page no 336 is not open for preview in above link to me, but page no. 337 is open where clear ref seems available which seem to support above DYK.
I can see page 336,[1] but GBS tells me that page 337 is "unavailable for viewing", so I have no clue what this "clear ref" is. For the article to be featured in a DYK, it should be clear what references support the relevant statement. The statement in Osmanlı Kadın Hareketi only refers to a Turkish woman; making her Muslim would seem to be OR. And while Kadınlar Dünyası may have been the first Turkish magazine to publish such a photograph, there may have been other, possibly non-Turkish publications to print a photograph of a Turkish woman. A safer hook is, IMO, "that the Ottoman magazine Women's World broke new ground by being the first magazine in Turkey to publish a photograph of a Turkish woman?" --Lambiam15:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO google books preview provides different links to different accessing viewers. I can see 336 through the link provided by User:Lambiam I suppose link given by me should provide visibility for 337 still I will give relevant part of the sentence here.
"...Kadinlar Duniyasi was only women's magazine to introduce explicit feminist agenda...It was the first magazine to publish a photograph of a Muslim woman and first owned by a woman and whose writers, press workers and readers were all women..."
So then the reference in the article should be replaced by a reference to Serpil Çakır's article on Ulviye Mevlan Civelek in the Biographical Dictionary (or add it while fixing the other). Yet another possible version of the hook:
"that the Ottoman magazine Women's World broke new ground by introducing an explicit feminist agenda, being the first to publish a photograph of a Muslim woman?"
Sad to see that this has stalled. The complete reference to the Biographical Dictionary is available through Project Muse for anyone signed in with a WP Library subscription here. Page 337 says "Of the approximately forty women's magazines that emerged around the end of the nineteenth century, accompanying a proliferation of women's associations, Kadınlar Dünyası was the only women's magazine to introduce an explicitly feminist agenda and rhetoric to the Ottoman press…It was the first magazine to publish a photograph of a Muslim woman and the first owned by a woman, and whose writers, press workers and readers were all women." I've added the reference to the article and looked up/reformatted the "isbn"s that were redlinks. I was hesitant to change the citations suggested above; however, I noted the comment to the hook citation to a journal. Looking that up, there is no article from 2014, 2015, or 2016, written by Serpil Çakır, as per this. In that regard, I have removed that citation for the hook details in the article. I did find an accessible copy of Osmanlı Kadın Hareketi in ZLibrary if anyone has a free subscription to it. I do not speak Turkish, but having translated approximately ten pages I am unable to confirm a citation in it that might discuss the photographs in broader terms as depicting women living their "modern" lives, thus have removed that portion of the paragraph which was previously cited to the journal also. Would it now be possible to approve the hooks? @Bookku, GGT, Lambiam, and DrThneed: I am unsure who to ping here to resolve the issues and I don't want to step on anyone's toes, so I've taken a stab at pinging folks. Apologies if I misidentified anyone who should/shouldn't have been notified. SusunW (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot everyone for the work and I do apologise for the belated response. I am now able to verify the hook using the Biographical Dictionary, so this is good to go. --GGT (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
With regards to DYK requirements, they are met: article was new enough at the time of the nomination, the article is long enough, and no close paraphrasing was detected. The hook is interesting to a broad audience and is cited inline; the sources are offline and in Turkish so I am assuming good faith here. A QPQ has been done. Given that I am not an expert on the topic, I'd like to hear a second opinion from someone more familiar with the topic area, although from my end no issues of note stand out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I've read Serpil Çakır's book Osmanlı Kadın Hareketi, so I'm fairly familiar with this topic. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of that book with me at the moment, so I wouldn't be able to directly verify the hook, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable proposition so I'd be willing to AGF with it. The only problem here is that this appears to be incorrectly sourced, as Serpil Çakır doesn't have an article with the name "Kadınların Özyaşam..." and indeed this article appears to be by two other authors on a somewhat unrelated topic. This problem is also present in the Turkish version of this article, and looking back at this past Turkish version, it appears that this reference was meant to be one to Osmanlı Kadın Hareketi, but somehow got misinterpreted over the course of time. If this sourcing problem is resolved, this would be good to go. --GGT (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot everyone for the work and I do apologise for the belated response. I am now able to verify the hook using the Biographical Dictionary, so this is good to go. --GGT (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)