Article
Talk (118)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Schwanz Großer-Hund

⚠️
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
  • This article is written like a fan essay in places and may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (October 2025)
  • The "Legacy and adaptation" section may give undue weight to a single modern television program and reads, in part, as a coatrack. (October 2025)
  • Parts of the "Recurring characters" section are written from an in-universe perspective. (November 2025)
Schwanz Großer-Hund
Frontispiece, Gesamtausgabe (1927)
The only known likeness, an engraving from the 1927 collected edition. No photograph of Großer-Hund is known to survive.[6]
Bornbapt. 7 May 1827
Leipzig, Kingdom of Saxony
Diedc. 1914 (aged 87)
near Paris, France
(disappeared Nov. 1914; remains identified 1927)
Resting placePère Lachaise Cemetery, Paris (reinterred 2025)
OccupationJurist; magistrate; feuilletonist
LanguageGerman
Alma materSt. Thomas School, Leipzig
University of Leipzig (Dr. iur.)
Period1872–1914
GenreFeuilleton, mystery, crime fiction
Notable workGeheimnisse des Sexmordes
SpouseKatharina Großer-Hund (estranged)
ChildrenAt least two

Schwanz Großer-Hund (German: [ʃvants ˈɡʁoːsɐ hʊnt]; baptised 7 May 1827 – c. 1914) was a German jurist and author, regarded by his admirers as the last major practitioner of the nineteenth-century mystery feuilleton. He is remembered almost entirely for a single work: Geheimnisse des Sexmordes (variously rendered in English as Secrets of the Sex-Murder or Mysteries of the Sex-Murder), a crime serial that ran in the Berlin newspaper Die Kreuzzeitung from 1872 until 1914.[1]

At the height of its popularity in the 1880s and 1890s, Geheimnisse des Sexmordes was among the most widely read works of fiction in the German-speaking world, and it outlasted the better-remembered serials of Eugène Sue and G. W. M. Reynolds that had inspired it.[1] Largely forgotten outside specialist circles for most of the twentieth century, both Großer-Hund and the work have been the subject of renewed scholarly and popular interest, owing in part to the claim — advanced in a 2025 essay by the critic Emmett Rensin — that the American television franchise Law & Order: Special Victims Unit is a close, uncredited adaptation of the serial. The claim is disputed by editors and is not acknowledged by the program's producers.[2]

Contents [hide]
  1. 1 Name
  2. 2 Early life and education
  3. 3 Legal career and the Franco-Prussian War
  4. 4 Geheimnisse des Sexmordes
    1. 4.1 Origins and "Rückzahlung"
    2. 4.2 Recurring characters
    3. 4.3 Themes and reception
    4. 4.4 Decline
  5. 5 Disappearance and death
  6. 6 Authorship controversy
  7. 7 Legacy and adaptation
  8. 8 References

Name

The author published under the name Schwanz Großer-Hund throughout his career, and surviving baptismal and court records give the same name, suggesting it was not a pseudonym.[3] The name has long been a source of amusement among English-speaking readers, and the meaning of its components in colloquial German is discussed by several biographers; the matter is also the subject of recurring discussion among editors.[6] Spelling of the surname varies across editions and databases — the eszett (ß) is frequently rendered "ss," and the name appears in some English-language catalogues as Grosser-Hund — a divergence that has complicated bibliographic work on the serial.[1]

Early life and education

Großer-Hund was baptised in Leipzig on 7 May 1827, the only child of a stern Protestant father of Prussian descent and a Bohemian Catholic mother of more liberal and socially conscious temperament. Biographers have located the strained but affectionate dynamic between his parents at the root of his most enduring fictional pairing, the detectives Ernst Stabblemann and Olga Bergen.[6] He was educated at Leipzig's St. Thomas School, where, according to diaries recovered and published in 2021, he conceived the detective character Johann Munch as early as 1841 — imagining him as the protagonist of a single-volume mystery set in the American city of Baltimore, a project he never completed.[3] Surviving letters indicate that as a teenager he sought work reporting on the courts for a Saxon daily, an ambition his father opposed.[4]

On graduating in 1847, Großer-Hund yielded to his father's wishes and began legal studies at the Royal Saxon Polytechnic in Dresden. His time there was cut short by the revolutions of 1848–49: arrested during the May Uprising in Dresden in 1849, he spent nearly two weeks in custody before being expelled and returning home in disgrace.[3] A letter from this period records his irritation at the radicalism of his fellow prisoners — among them a Russian agitator he identifies only as "Mikhail B.," generally taken to be Mikhail Bakunin, who is documented to have taken part in the same uprising.[3] Großer-Hund completed his legal studies at the University of Leipzig. It was during these years, living in his childhood home, that he first read Sue's Les Mystères de Paris in French and became fascinated by the use of sensational crime narratives as a vehicle for liberal political ideas.[6]

Legal career and the Franco-Prussian War

After passing his examinations in 1853, Großer-Hund entered the Leipzig Superior Court, rising from clerk to a minor magistracy concerned chiefly with intellectual-property disputes. He married Katharina, had at least two children, and read widely; he later characterised these two decades on the bench as "an apprenticeship ... in both style and subject, the serial and the law."[6]

On the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, Großer-Hund used evidence of his father's Prussian citizenship to obtain a commission in the Royal Prussian Army. Considered too old at forty-three for frontline service, he was assigned to a military court in Berlin overseeing the courts-martial of deserters. His repeated requests for transfer nearer the fighting were granted only on 29 December 1870 — by which point the war was effectively over; Napoleon III had surrendered in September, Paris capitulated on 28 January 1871, and the German Empire had been proclaimed on 18 January.[11]

Leaving military service in the spring of 1871, Großer-Hund discovered that he had never properly secured leave from the Saxon courts, had been declared missing, and had been replaced by the jurist Daniel Paul Schreber.[9] Supported by an army pension and unwilling to face his family, he spent two years travelling through the newly unified Germany. He observed at first hand the frictions of unification — the fusing of legal and administrative systems, the efforts of new police forces to assert legitimacy across differing local customs — and noted how often the most contentious cases turned on conflicting ideas of family, childhood, and sexual conduct. These observations would furnish the raw material of his life's work.[11]

Geheimnisse des Sexmordes

Origins and "Rückzahlung"

In June 1872, while in Alsace-Lorraine, Großer-Hund read Émile Zola's Les Mystères de Marseille — his first feuilleton since boyhood — and became absorbed in a local scandal: a former Prussian soldier who had abused Francophone women during the occupation, and who was stabbed to death by one of his victims after he dismissed her in the street and told her to learn German.[1] Watching the police mishandle the case, he resolved to write. In a Berlin boarding house he produced the serial's first installment, "Rückzahlung" ("Repayment"), a lightly fictionalised account that supplied an invented ending: his detectives Ernst Stabblemann and Olga Bergen, divided over whether the killer deserved sympathy, quarrel long enough for her to seize a knife and take her own life before arrest.[1]

Rejected by the liberal papers as too lurid, "Rückzahlung" was accepted, improbably, by Die Kreuzzeitung, an ageing Berlin monarchist daily seeking to reverse declining sales. Its editor, Ernst Ludwig von Gerlach, imposed the title Geheimnisse des Sexmordes over the author's objection that it was "unsubtle," and proposed the serial's enduring two-part structure: an investigation chapter followed by a courtroom chapter, the latter to feature a prosecutor Gerlach suggested ought to be "a woman ... perhaps a blonde."[14] Großer-Hund agreed, and the serial began its run.

Recurring characters

ℹ️
Parts of this section are written from an in-universe perspective. See § {{in-universe}} on the characters on the talk page.

The serial's two central figures, the Prussian inspector Ernst Stabblemann and the Bohemian inspector Olga Bergen, anchored the work for its entire run. Stabblemann embodied an aggressive, sometimes violent pursuit of justice — he is, on several occasions, suspended after losing his temper during interrogations — while Bergen, who is repeatedly abducted by suspects over the course of the serial, came to personify an idealised compassion. By the 1890s Bergen had been promoted to Kapitänin and had become the serial's undisputed protagonist.[1]

Other figures in the fictional Polizeidezernat für Sexualsachen und Alles mit Kindern ("Department for Sexual Matters and Everything Involving Children") included the conspiracy-minded Johann Munch, who held that Frederick William IV had been the victim of a plot led by Bismarck; the grouchy but beloved Burundian detective Leutnant Mürrischer Eistee; the late-arriving Florentine jurist Domingo Carisi; and the short-lived Anke Münzer, who departed after ten installments by way of a monologue widely understood to have been assembled from hostile reader mail.[1] One notorious installment, "Geräuchert," disposed of a recurring character with no explanation, prompting decades of speculation.

Themes and reception

Although sensational by design, Geheimnisse des Sexmordes has been valued by later scholars as a week-by-week record of the anxieties of Imperial Germany — a function critics have argued the feuilleton performed better than formal history, since its commercial survival depended on continuously reflecting the concerns of a mass readership.[1] Readers divided between those who preferred the investigative chapters and those who preferred the trials, and between admirers of Stabblemann's machismo and of Bergen's empathy. Documented readers included Rosa Luxemburg, who wrote the author at least one (unanswered) admiring letter, and Walter Benjamin, a longtime devotee introduced to the serial by Paul Klee.[18][20]

Decline

The serial slowed to roughly twenty-six installments a year and, by the turn of the century, was widely seen as repetitive and old-fashioned. The rise of literary modernism and of small "prestige" magazines drew critical attention away from mass-market serials, and Bergen's increasingly didactic monologues — which made her, in the words of one commentator, "everything a real turn-of-the-century German policeman was not" — strained some readers' patience even as circulation held.[1] The final installment appeared in Die Kreuzzeitung in November 1914, without announcement or conclusion; amid the First World War, its disappearance went largely unremarked.[1]

Disappearance and death

Großer-Hund vanished from public life at the same time as his serial. Contemporary rumour held that he had gone to Russia to join the Bolsheviks or to America to write his long-imagined Baltimore mystery.[1] In 1927 his largely preserved remains were discovered in a field roughly twenty miles east of Paris. According to the biographer Klaus-Dieter Rechtmann, the elderly author — weary of his work and aware that war or illness would soon end it — had travelled under an assumed name and smuggled himself across the Western Front on foot, carrying a battered copy of Les Mystères de Paris, in order to visit the home of his idol Eugène Sue; he collapsed of apparent natural causes about a day's journey short of the city.[24] Buried in an unmarked grave in Seine-Saint-Denis, he was reinterred in the literary quarter of Père Lachaise Cemetery in 2025, at a ceremony attended by a small group of scholars and admirers.[2]

Authorship controversy

A minority of scholars, citing the marked shifts in the serial's tone and politics after the late 1870s, have argued that Großer-Hund delegated much of the writing to a "writers' room" of younger, more radical university-educated ghostwriters, retaining only nominal authorship in his later decades.[22] Proponents include M. G. Heilmann and W. K. Brenner-Scholz. The theory is rejected by most specialists, including Rechtmann and Rensin, as speculative and unsupported by the documentary record; critics note that the supposed stylistic "breaks" coincide with well-documented events in the author's personal life.[22] The dispute is the principal scholarly controversy attached to the work.

Legacy and adaptation

📺
This section's neutrality and weight are disputed. Editors disagree over how much of it concerns Großer-Hund and how much is trivia about a television series. (October 2025)

An English translation, Sexual Homicides, appeared in a single run of 800 copies in 1974; a complete German edition, the Gesamtausgabe, had been issued by Langschaft Verlag in 1927.[1] Beyond academia, the serial retained a dedicated online following.

The work's principal claim on modern attention rests on the assertion, set out at length by Emmett Rensin in the Substack publication Cracks in Postmodernity in September 2025, that Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (created by Dick Wolf, 1999) constitutes a faithful, installment-by-installment adaptation of Geheimnisse des Sexmordes.[2] Rensin points to close correspondences between the serial's recurring detectives and the program's principal cast, and reports a prop appearance of the source novel in a season-26 episode. Rensin further attributes elements of the films The Big Lebowski and Barton Fink to individual installments — claims that have been tagged as fringe by editors.[16] The producers of the program have not commented, and no independent reliable source has confirmed the adaptation.[disputed – discuss]

References

  1. ^ Rensin, Emmett (September 25, 2025). "Geheimnisse des Sexmordes". Cracks in Postmodernity. (Primary modern survey of the serial; used here for plot, publication, and reception details.)
  2. ^ Ibid. (account of the 2025 reinterment and the Law & Order: SVU thesis).
  3. ^ LeRoy, J. T., ed. (2021). [Diaries and Correspondence, 1839–1869]. Düsseldorf University Press.
  4. ^ Tasse, Stephan (2023). "Reading Between Lines: Serial Literature as Cultural Mediator in a German Workers' Publication, 1845–1885." Journal of European Popular Culture 26: 298–324.
  5. ^ Wassermelone, Kristof (1961). Die Arbeitsjahre von Schwanz Großer-Hund. University of Colorado Press.
  6. ^ Waltmann-Probst, H. (1978). Daniel Paul Schreber und die Blütezeit der Sächsischen Rechtsprechung, 1861–1893. Munich: Verlag für Rechtsgeschichte.
  7. ^ Blackbourn, David. The Long Nineteenth Century: A History of Germany, 1780–1918. (makes use of Großer-Hund's diaries.)
  8. ^ Zimmermann-Kleist, F. "Unpublished letters reveal internal tensions at the Kreuzzeitung, 1872–1878." Universität Heidelberg, Institut für Deutsche Pressegeschichte.
  9. ^ [better source needed] Asserted in Rensin (2025); the Big Lebowski / Barton Fink derivations are not corroborated elsewhere.
  10. ^ Les Plaisirs bourgeois des ascètes rouges : Une histoire en lettres (1987). Éditions du Moulin Rouge. (reproduces Luxemburg's 1891 fan letter.)
  11. ^ Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. (per Rensin, a late passage; widely cited, less widely reached.)
  12. ^ Heilmann, M. G. (1974), Phantom des Genies; Brenner-Scholz, W. K. (2012), Le Vieil Homme N'a Pas Écrit Tout Cela. (the "writers' room" hypothesis and its rebuttals.)
  13. ^ Rechtmann, Klaus-Dieter. Tage der Weichheit, Tage der Härte: Das vollständige Leben des Schwanz Großer-Hund, 5 vols. (esp. the final volume on his last journey.)
Categories: 1827 births| 1914 deaths| 19th-century German novelists| German male novelists| German crime fiction writers| Writers from Leipzig| University of Leipzig alumni| Burials at Père Lachaise Cemetery| Articles with disputed factual accuracy| Articles needing cleanup from October 2025
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Schwanz Großer-Hund

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Schwanz Großer-Hund article.
C-class article on the quality scale. Low-importance, except per WikiProject Television (High, contested).
WikiProjects: Germany · Literature · Crime fiction · Novels · Television · Women writers (per Olga Bergen, contested)
⚠️ A requested move on this page has been relisted three times. Please read the prior discussion before opening a fourth.
Articles for deletion: Nominated as a suspected hoax. Result: no consensus, defaulting to keep, on the grounds that the subject of the article (a published serial and its reception) is verifiable to the cited essay and that hoax status is a content question, not a deletion criterion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schwanz Großer-Hund. — closing admin Sandstein

Requested move (3rd nomination): diacritics and the ß [edit]

Proposed: Schwanz Großer-Hund → Schwanz Grosser-Hund. Per WP:DIACRITICS and WP:COMMONNAME, English-language reliable sources do not use the eszett. The 1974 translation prints it "Grosser-Hund" on the title page. We should follow English usage. — RM_Robot_Wrangler (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. ß is not a diacritic, it is a letter. WP:GERMAN is clear that we retain it for modern subjects per the original orthography. We don't "de-umlaut" Müller either. — Eszett_Enthusiast (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Support move but oppose the target. If we're following English sources we should also drop the hyphen — the 1974 edition has "Grosser Hund," two words, no hyphen. Propose Schwanz Grosser Hund. — TitleCaseTrevor (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
The 1974 edition printed 800 copies. Eight hundred. That is not a "common" English name, it is a rounding error. There is no English COMMONNAME because there is no English readership. The argument collapses on its own premise. — Eszett_Enthusiast (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Then by your logic we default to the original German orthography, which is... the current title. So this RM is moot? — TitleCaseTrevor (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes. That is what I have been saying since the first nomination. — Eszett_Enthusiast (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose all and a procedural note: we have now had three RMs in five weeks proposing four different titles (Großer-Hund, Grosser-Hund, Grosser Hund, and — I am not making this up — "Big Dog" (novelist)). Per WP:STICK can we please SNOW-close this. — MoveReviewMike (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
For the record I withdrew the "Big Dog" proposal and I think mocking it in every subsequent thread is uncivil. It was a good-faith application of WP:USEENGLISH. — PlainEnglishPaul (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Translating a person's legal surname into a common noun is not WP:USEENGLISH, it is WP:NO. We do not have an article on the composer "Johann Sebastian Brook." — Eszett_Enthusiast (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus (such as it is) to retain the German orthography per WP:GERMAN and the absence of any established English common name. Editors are strongly encouraged not to relitigate the title for at least six months. The redirect from Grosser-Hund is retained; the redirect from "Big Dog" (novelist) has been deleted at RfD. — closing admin Amakuru, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The "Name" section — do we have to [edit]

I am a native German speaker and I would gently ask whether the "Name" section needs to spell out what the name means. Anyone who reads German already knows. Anyone who doesn't can follow the wiktionary links. Spelling it out feels like we're writing for the joke rather than the reader. — de-N_Editor (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Agreed in principle, but the meaning is covered in three of the biographies, and the English-language reception is genuinely shaped by it (the whole "Dick Wolf" coincidence the essay turns on). So it's due. I've trimmed it to one sentence and let the citations carry the rest. — DueWeightDan (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
The "Dick Wolf coincidence" is exactly the problem. Once you notice the protagonist's name translates the way it does, and his idol is "Sue," and the captain is "Bergen," and the grumpy detective is literally named after iced tea, the article starts to feel less like a biography and more like the punchline of something. I'm not saying delete it. I'm saying a reader deserves to be told that competent people have noticed this. — CitogenesisWatch (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
That belongs in a "Authenticity" or "Reception as hoax" subsection, properly sourced, not smuggled into "Name." Don't editorialize in wikivoice. If a reliable source calls it a hoax, attribute it. If not, we don't. — DueWeightDan (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Leaving the meaning to the wiktionary links. I would simply note for posterity that this is the first article I have edited where the central BLP-adjacent concern is that the subject's name is, in the original, extremely rude. — de-N_Editor (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The SVU section is becoming a coatrack [edit]

In the last week the "Legacy and adaptation" section has tripled in size and is now 80% a table mapping individual 1880s installments to SVU episode numbers, sourced to a fan wiki. This is a 19th-century German author. The article on Eugène Sue does not have a forty-row table of NCIS episodes. Reverting to the prose version and moving the cruft to talk for discussion. — Feuilleton_Fran (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
The mapping is the single most notable thing about this subject in the 21st century and you keep gutting it. WikiProject Television rates this High-importance precisely because of the adaptation. — WolfPack_Editor (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
A WikiProject's self-assigned importance rating does not override WP:PROPORTION. And the mapping is sourced to one essay plus original research by fans counting episodes. "Inspektor Eistee = Fin Tutuola because both are grumpy" is not a sourced claim, it's a vibe. — Feuilleton_Fran (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Respectfully, the detective is named Mürrischer Eistee. That translates to "Grumpy Iced Tea." The actor who plays Fin is named Ice-T. At some point the vibe is the source. — WolfPack_Editor (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
You have just written, on the talk page of an encyclopedia, the sentence "at some point the vibe is the source." I am framing it. It is still WP:OR. — Feuilleton_Fran (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Separate issue in the same section: the article currently states that The Big Lebowski and Barton Fink derive from individual installments. That is sourced to a footnote in the same essay and to nothing else. It is the textbook definition of WP:FRINGE. I've tagged it {{fringe}} and attributed it in-text. If no second source turns up in 30 days it comes out. — DueWeightDan (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
The Coens have never mentioned a 19th-century German feuilleton in any interview, ever, and there is a Barton Fink in the essay's account too, which is rather the giveaway. Support removal. — CitogenesisWatch (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Outcome: Section restored to prose. Episode-mapping table moved to the talk archive (not the article) pending a reliable secondary source. Big Lebowski/Barton Fink claim attributed to the essay and tagged; to be revisited Nov. 2025. WikiProject Television importance left as-is but does not control article weight. — Vanamonde (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

{{in-universe}} on the characters [edit]

The "Recurring characters" section describes Bergen being "repeatedly abducted" and Stabblemann being "suspended" as though these were events that happened to people, rather than things an author wrote. Needs out-of-universe framing — "in the serial," "Großer-Hund has the character," etc. Tagged. — WatchlistWendy (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Fair. Though I'd note the whole article has a mild version of this problem, because half the "biography" is also only attested in one essay, so the line between "things the author did" and "things written about a character" is doing a lot of work throughout. — CitogenesisWatch (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Please do not start the hoax debate again in the in-universe thread. There is a whole archive for that. — WatchlistWendy (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I will see myself out. — CitogenesisWatch (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Split proposal: Olga Bergen [edit]

Propose splitting Olga Bergen to her own article. She is arguably the first recurring professional policewoman protagonist in European popular fiction, ran for ~40 years, and is more developed than several actual SVU characters who have articles. WikiProject Women Writers would like to claim the topic. — Redlink_Remover (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. A fictional character from a serial whose own existence is tagged disputed does not clear WP:NFICTION. Everything sourceable about her fits in two paragraphs here. Redirect, don't split. — DueWeightDan (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Weak support. If we have standalone articles for one-season SVU ADAs we can have one for the woman the essay says they're all based on. The irony is not lost on me. — WolfPack_Editor (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
"The character is more notable than the real people who don't exist either" is a genuinely new argument and I hate that it isn't the worst one on this page. — Feuilleton_Fran (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Has anyone actually held the Gesamtausgabe? [edit]

Doing a source review ahead of a possible GA nom and I've hit a wall. I cannot locate the 1927 Gesamtausgabe (Langschaft Verlag) in WorldCat, the DNB, or any union catalogue. Same for several of the cited journals. Before I go further — has any editor here physically verified a single one of these sources, or are we all citing footnotes in the essay? — SourceReview_Sam (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
I tried to verify the citation supporting the circulation figures. The journal it points to is, and I want to be delicate, an article whose title concerns the history of German advertising for a certain category of enhancement pill, in a journal that does not appear to exist, by an author whose name I will not retype in case it pings a filter. — SourceReview_Sam (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes. The footnotes are, on inspection, mostly jokes — bawdy ones — in three or four languages. The "biographies" are credited to people named like anagram puzzles. This is not a sourcing problem you fix with {{cn}} tags. — CitogenesisWatch (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Right, but note carefully what this does and doesn't establish. It does not establish there was no serial; plenty of real, verifiable things have absurd surrounding apparatus. It establishes that the cited scholarship is unreliable, which means we cannot state most of the biography in wikivoice and must attribute essentially everything to Rensin (2025). Which the article, to its credit, now mostly does. — DueWeightDan (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
So our position is: the article is reliably sourced to one essay, and that essay is reliably sourced to a series of dirty jokes. — SourceReview_Sam (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Welcome to the article. There is coffee in the archive. — CitogenesisWatch (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
GA nom withdrawn for obvious reasons. I think the honest status is C-class and stuck there: well-written, internally consistent, attributed throughout, and resting entirely on a single source that is itself a performance. There is no version of this that is a Good Article and also true. — SourceReview_Sam (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

"Elena Marchetti" again? [edit]

Possibly nothing, but: footnote 10 in the source essay credits a biography of the author's wife to one "Elena Marchetti-Rossini." That is essentially the same name as Elena Marchetti, the editor at the centre of the Naomi Ehrlich article — another subject who (a) is known almost entirely from a single rediscovered manuscript, (b) has a wildly improbable biography, and (c) is written about by the same essayist's circle. Are we being systematically had by one person? — CitogenesisWatch (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Even if true, that's WP:SYNTH across two articles and borders on casting aspersions on a living writer. We can note the shared name in a footnote if a source connects them. We cannot run our own investigation into who's behind it. — DueWeightDan (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Understood, withdrawing. For the talk-page record only, and not for the article: a recurring editor-figure who surfaces lost texts about people we can't quite confirm existed is itself a pretty good description of what's happening to us, on this page, right now. — CitogenesisWatch (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Take it to a blog. (Affectionately.) — Feuilleton_Fran (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
This talk page is archived periodically. Archive 1 (AfD & the hoax debate) · Archive 2 (move requests 1–2) · Archive 3 (the episode-mapping table)
  • ABOUT
  • CONTACT
  • COLLECTED WORK
Menu

Emmett Rensin

Emmett Rensin is an essayist.

​You're Custom Text Here

Emmett Rensin

  • ABOUT
  • CONTACT
  • COLLECTED WORK

 

Powered by Squarespace