Template:Did you know nominations/Lisa von Pott
<
Template:Did you know nominations
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Lisa von Pott
- ...
that sculptor Lisa von Pott was the organiser of the Von Pott Group of pro-Nazi spies in wartime Vienna?- ALT1:... that ...?
- Reviewed: Eva Lee Kuney
Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 23:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC).
Starting review. New enough created 22 Feb, nom 23 Feb; long enough 4394 char; neutral; cited. SusunW (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- No apparent copyvio issues, though AGF off-line sources; no image; QPQ done by Whispyhistory. Hook at 104 char under maximum; hook is interesting; Article claims she was a sculptor, which is verified here, but I can find no secondary sources which even discuss the Von Pott Group or any activity of Lisa other than sculpting. (Tried gruppe von Pott, the German spelling as well). O'Donoghue has no hits for "Pott", though it is possible the indexing is flawed. Since WP guidelines specify reliance on secondary sources whenever possible, the extraordinary claim that she was a spy seems like it would need to be confirmed in more than one source or at least an unimpeachable source. The citation to Susan Dorothea Mary Therese Hilton goes to a 133 page archive. On what page does it discuss the Von Pott Group? SusunW (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's a report titled "Re the "Von Pott" Group" (ref 183a no page number) prepared by the British security services in 1946 after the war and secret until 2001 when it was declassified and published to the National Archives, which explains why it is not in the histories yet. It's a secondary source because it draws on supporting primary sources, some of which are in the same file of over 130 pages, to summarise her espionage activities in Vienna. I don't think the claim is that extraordinary, the source is strong, albeit behind a paywall, and of course Von Pott is obviously long dead. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy I don't have a problem with AGF that you have a document that says that, but I also think that a British security report is a primary source. Sort of like a self-published source—they created it and they're publishing it. It wasn't curated by some neutral 3rd party, but created by people who had a vested interest in its outcome. I'm definitely probably overthinking this and am wrong, but I'm going to ping Yoninah, who has far more experience in DYK than me to weigh in. SusunW (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why a government body can't create a secondary source after the fact by drawing on primary sources. Governments often publish books that are secondary sources. Incidentally, their motive was as background for Susan Sweney. They weren't pursuing Von Pott, she wasn't British and was probably already in Switzerland so I don't think we can assume they were biased in what they said about her. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy I don't have a problem with AGF that you have a document that says that, but I also think that a British security report is a primary source. Sort of like a self-published source—they created it and they're publishing it. It wasn't curated by some neutral 3rd party, but created by people who had a vested interest in its outcome. I'm definitely probably overthinking this and am wrong, but I'm going to ping Yoninah, who has far more experience in DYK than me to weigh in. SusunW (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's a report titled "Re the "Von Pott" Group" (ref 183a no page number) prepared by the British security services in 1946 after the war and secret until 2001 when it was declassified and published to the National Archives, which explains why it is not in the histories yet. It's a secondary source because it draws on supporting primary sources, some of which are in the same file of over 130 pages, to summarise her espionage activities in Vienna. I don't think the claim is that extraordinary, the source is strong, albeit behind a paywall, and of course Von Pott is obviously long dead. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Good thinking. Alt1.. that the British security services described Lisa von Pott as the organiser of a pro-Nazi espionage group in wartime Vienna? Philafrenzy (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. ALT1 has 124 char. Is interesting, is cited in the article with an off-line source. GTG. SusunW (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Philafrenzy: thanks. Can you find a photo of her? Yoninah (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
