Talk:Rosa Dubovsky

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rosa Dubovsky/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 18:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 02:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make smallish prose edits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

All right, the article itself is looking wonderful, so I just have the one concern about the image to be addressed! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

Notes

• It might be nice to use a crop that is just of her head and shoulders in the infobox, and then the whole family photo in the body of the article, since it's currently hard to see her well in the infobox. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  Added a cropped photo. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• I'd be curious to know where her husband was while she was in France. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  @LEvalyn: Added the information about this; seems he went straight to Argentina and they reunited there later. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• I did a prose editing pass and made a few small changes; everything looks great. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Thinking about breadth, the article seems short but I can't think of a major topic which is excluded. The core biographical facts are explained, several of her key views are mentioned, she has no publications which would need further explication, and the idea of legacy/influence is addressed. So, I am satisfied on this criteria. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah I only nominated this for GA after I was confident there wasn't anything else out there that I was missing. Ideally I'd be able to have a look at the sources in the further reading, but they're either very obscure or in libraries an ocean away from me. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• For my spot check I looked at cites 8, 9, and 23 as numbered in this diff. Everything verifies without copyvio or close paraphrase. The source check also reinforces my assessment above that there isn't much more information out there being omitted from this article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions / questions

• Unfortunately I must quibble with the licensing of the photo in the infobox -- it is surely not an "own work" from 2023. It's almost certainly public domain, but can you track down the more accurate free use rationale? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  @LEvalyn: I haven't been able to find any evidence of this photograph being published before it was uploaded to commons in 2023, so it's certainly possible that this was its first publication and that the license is correct (if this was in their archives or something). Public domain status for photographs taken in Argentina is 20 years after publication, so if this hasn't been published before, this might actually be the correct license to upload it with. Judging by the ages of the kids, I've estimated that this was taken in the late 1920s (or maybe early 1930s), but I don't know any information about the photographer. On the Wikicommons talk page, I have asked the uploader if they can provide any more information, although they have been inactive for two years, so I don't know if I will receive a prompt response. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, I agree it's quite likely that this is the first publication of the image and the editor in 2023 did take that photo of it, but I'm not sure that the editor would have had the rights to choose to publish it as creative commons? Owning the physical photo doesn't confer copyright, which would still belong to the 1920s photographer (or really, their heirs) if it's not public domain for some other reason. I really am not familiar with Argentine copyright law so I may be entirely misunderstanding something. The info here didn't help as much as I would have liked; it seems to imply that published photos expire after 20 years but unpublished photos never have the clock start ticking?? However, it looks like copyright was not introduced in Argentina until 1933, so that may mean anything before 1933 is public domain and a simple pd-1996 tag will cover it? Since her husband is clearly pictured, it must date from before 1936, and based on the ages I think pre-1933 is most likely. I do think the image needs to have some kind of public domain tag rather than creative commons, probably using this overall license with the various specifics filled in. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  @LEvalyn: Would adding PD-1996 make sense, given all of its criteria are about date of publication (and this was apparently first published in 2023)? Honestly jumping through these absurd hoops established by US copyright law is my least favourite part of GA and especially FA reviews, but we have to do it. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Having slept on it, pd-1996 sounds good to me. Thanks for wrangling with it, I know it’s much less interesting than actually writing something. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  I found the conversation you started over at Commons illuminating, and added what I think is the most accurate / more thorough license. I'm satisfied that due diligence has happened here and a reasonable public domain rationale is now documented for the photo. Since that was my only quibble, I'll now pass the GA! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 talk 16:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Rosa Dubovsky is one of the few Jewish anarchist women known in the history of Argentina?

• Source: Deutsch, Sandra McGee (2010). Crossing Borders, Claiming a Nation: A History of Argentine Jewish Women, 1880–1955. Duke University Press. p. 150. ISBN 9780822392606. Retrieved 11 October 2025.

• • ALT1: ... that Rosa Dubovsky raised her children to be anarchists? Source: Tarcus, Horacio (2025). "DUBOVSKY, Rosa". Diccionario biográfico de las izquierdas latinoamericanas (in Spanish). ISSN 2718-644X. Retrieved 11 October 2025.
  • ALT2: ... that Rosa Dubovsky admonished male anarchists for misusing free love to justify promiscuity? Source: Deutsch, Sandra McGee (2010). Crossing Borders, Claiming a Nation: A History of Argentine Jewish Women, 1880–1955. Duke University Press. pp. 150–151. ISBN 9780822392606. Retrieved 11 October 2025.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/On the Ning Nang Nong and Template:Did you know nominations/Jessie Wright

Improved to Good Article status by Grnrchst (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 71 past nominations.

Grnrchst (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Maximilian775 (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

"Promiscuity"

From an anarchist perspective, why does mere promiscuity require justification to begin with? Does "promiscuity" actually mean "abusive" or "deceptive" (as implied by the wording which links this with her effort to prevent abuse) or was this really a weirdly puritanical criticism of men for having too much sex with too many women even when there was mutual consent and no deception (e.g., a false commitment to monogamy) was involved? ~2025-35851-18 (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Per the source, "To prevent sexual abuse, [Dubovsky] admonished male anarchists that "free love" did not mean indiscriminate sex." Our article on promiscuity says it can be defined either as "engaging in sexual activity frequently with different partners" or "being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners", and it's the latter that Dubovsky seems to see as a vector for abuse. If you think the wording in the article should be changed, then feel free to suggest changes, but note that this is not a forum to debate Dubovsky's ideas. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Why did she believe this was an issue, though? I'm not trying to debate her, but what's her rationale? Abusive behavior is obviously something an anarchist would denounce, but mere hedonism that doesn't involve harm to or disregard for others isn't. I honestly fail to understand what her views even were. ~2025-35892-48 (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)