Talk:Jean Ross

Notes on Sources

For future editors of this article, I believe a brief overview and evaluation of key sources about Jean Ross' life might prove useful:

• Peter Parker's definitive biography Isherwood: A Life (2004) and Parker's entry about Jean Ross in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography are excellent starting sources.
• Sarah Caudwell's "Reply to Berlin" essay published in the New Statesman (3 October 1986, pp. 28-9) contains a wealth of personal anecdotes and background information.
• Alexander Cockburn's CounterPunch article (22 February 2001) about Ross merely paraphrases and extrapolates upon the "Reply to Berlin" essay by his half-sibling Sarah Caudwell.
• Peter Frost's Morning Star piece (December 2013) concerning Ross mostly rehashes Parker's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ("Ross, Jean Iris 1911–1973").
• Linda Mizejewski's Divine Decadence: Fascism, Female Spectacle, and the Makings of Sally Bowles (1992) is rife with factual inaccuracies and should be avoided as a source.

-- Flask (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Incriminations of Ross 'according to George Orwell'

First, the whole idea of having a long paragraph on the alleged misdeeds of the Espagne News-Agency during Ross's work there was there smacks of Original Research. The purpose is clearly to imply something about Ross - 'since the organisation she worked at did evil things, she must be guilty of them, too' - but Orwell doesn't say anything about Ross specifically and nothing indicates what, if any, role she in particular played in the alleged misdeeds. In other words, the connection between Ross and these things is an original synthesis by the editor. If this were acceptable, the article could have included a list of every misdeed ever committed by (pro-)Soviet Communists in general, too, since Ross was a member of the Communist movement, so all of that can be claimed to reflect on her character, too. Second, Orwell isn't a historian, he was a POUM sympathiser and the article should reflect the current historical consensus and not what the view of one participant in the events, who was essentially a member of one of the sides in the conflict, was at the time. For example, the black-and-white description of the May Days as an extermination of anarchists by communists clearly differs from the way these events are described in the article about them. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback on the article. I will address your comments point-by-point:

• First, according to WP:AGF, users should assume good faith towards each other. In fact, WP:AGF explicitly states that, even if you believe original research has occurred, you nonetheless should assume good faith towards the editor in question. As such, your claim that my "purpose" is to depict Ross as guilty of "evil things" assumes bad faith. Also, this accusation needlessly puts us on acrimonious footing. We are all here to improve Wikipedia together.
• Second, your argument citing WP:NOR contradicts itself for the very reasons you delineated. WP:NOR states: "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." If the article stated that Ross committed these actions, this would be synthesis. Yet—as you emphasized in your comment—the article does not state those things. The article states Ross was a member of the Espagne News-Agency and then quotes Orwell's description of the agency using a reliable, published source (Whaley 1969). More importantly, the text of the Wikipedia article explicitly states this is an "accusation by Orwell". Nevertheless, to address your concerns, I have edited the article and added "according to Orwell" to further emphasize this was his opinion.
• Third, your objection to the inclusion of Orwell's views on the grounds that he was a "POUM sympathiser" and not a historian is odd. If we adhere to this argument's logic, any observation by Orwell about the Spanish Civil War could not be included in any Wikipedia article. I don't believe most Wikipedia editors would agree with this view. This objection is even more mystifying since the May Days article—which you highlighted in your comment as a good example—cites Orwell and even highlights his opinions in block quotes.
• Finally, if you believe the sentences about the May Days lack balance and should be rewritten, please do so. I am not an expert on the Spanish Civil War. I also am not an ideologue, and I am not pushing a particular political viewpoint. My sole objective—my sole purpose—is to have a comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and well-written Wikipedia article about Jean Ross.

— Flask (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)