Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017

< 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: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Closing due to neutrality and stability concerns.

DYK toolbox

Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 edit

(
)

Created by Icewhiz (talk). Self-nominated at 08:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Date and length fine. I am approving ALT1 only as I think it's more recognisable and doesn't use acronyms. QPQ done, no close paraphrasing. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Object, the hook has clear NPOV issues (Polish nationalists), same for the article, which is rather one sided and suffers from neutrality/undue issues. I'll explain more on article's talk, but the hook is also misleading. The "nationalists" were, at the very least, Polish American, not Polish - unless the Polish government flew in a few hundreds demonstrators from Poland...? PS. I do think that the topic is interesting, but we need a different hook, and the article needs an NPOV c/e and source review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:OR aside, multiple WP:RSes describe them as such - "Polish Nationalists staged a demonstration in New York"[5] "A large group of Polish nationalists took over a major square in downtown Manhattan[6], "Polish nationalists protested in New York City against a bill"[7]. Calling them "Polish American" would be borderline OR - though JC does have that in an image caption (using "Polish Nationalists" otherwise) - and possibly imply that these groups represent in some manner Polish Americans at large (which I assume they most definitely do not).Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The article has ton of other problems - at least in your version of it - in addition to that one, like WP:SYNTH, use of crappy sources which make obviously outlandish and false claims ("The Home Army was a driving force behind the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in which Christian and Jewish Poles rose up against Nazi occupiers"), and hyperbolic POV language. It's nowhere near ready for DYK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The article follows the language in mainstream English language WP:RSes. Disliking what a RS says? Write their editor a letter, we follow sources here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It actually doesn't. SYNTH isn't an issue with reliability of sources but how these sources are used, for example. Additionally, some of the sources you are attempting to use are clearly not RS in this case. Are you seriously claimig that "the Home Army was a driving force behind the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in which Christian and Jewish Poles rose up against Nazi occupiers"? Yeah? Then go put that in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising article. Either that, or admit that this is nonsense and the source is obviously junk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
If the sources are clearly wrong, reliability is not relevant. Again, did they fly from Poland to NYC? If not, they are not Polish, but Polish-American. Anyway, singling out a nationality or ethnicity for a hook is not a best practice. While we work out the NPOV/sourcing issues with the article itself, I recommend a non-controversial hook. Here's ALT2 for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Multiple sources - in fact all English sources describing this group, describe them as "Polish Nationalists". They may be Polish nationalists who are US citizens/residents (marching in NYC, carrying Polish flags and antisemitic placards - in Chicago incidentally they had a guy wearing an NSZ armband, flanked by another fellow with a NSZ armband fellow - video of rally - speaking for 20 minutes in Polish. The NSZ - [8] - was "openly anti-Semitic National Armed Forces (NSZ), an extreme right-wing organization that characterized communists, Jews and Soviets as Poland’s principal enemies". In any event - we follow sources - which frame the bill in terms of Polish opposition (other countries having carried out restitution Jewish property stolen by the Nazis) - and which describe the protesters as "Polish nationalists".Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Not all sources use the term (see talk page). Anyway, not everything the sources say, including language/etc., is appropriate for the DYK, per NPOV and DYK guidelines ("Consider whether there might be neutrality problems. If there is a problem, consider suggesting a more neutral ALT hook."). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
ALT2: ...that Justice for Uncompensated Survivors Today (JUST) Act of 2017 requires US State Department to monitor how European countries are compensating Holocaust survivors and their heirs for assets seized by war and post-war governments?
Not hooky. The protest by Polish Nationalists is amply sourced. Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean, hooky, is this a word? This is an interesting fact. We are not a tabloid that draws attention to the most controversial aspect. Per Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Reviewing_guide: "Consider whether there might be neutrality problems. If there is a problem, consider suggesting a more neutral ALT hook.". Sometimes we have to chose a less tabloidy, controversial hook, to address Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
"Not hooky" here means "not POV enough" Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:DYKHOOK - "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article.. WP:IDONTLIKE is not a neutrality problem. We have several English language WP:RSes reporting on the protests in New York - e.g. Newsweek, Forward1, Forward2, TOI, Haaretz, JC, Tablet - we follow sources. Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
DYKHOOK also clearly states "The hook should be neutral." And that the hooks should not "misstate the article content". The description of the protesters as "Polish nationalists", while present in some sources, is not neutral. I've presented other sources at talk that don't use such phrases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The English language sources above all use "Polish nationalists", per WP:NOENG we prefer English language sources.Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Icewhiz for Polish nationalists. You could have written Polish Nazis or Polish anti-Semites but you limit your attacks to nationalism. Really strange - 200 Poles in Manhattan create one of the most important events of the world. Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Not everything that is in sources belongs in articles or particularly in the hooks due to a certain policy known as WP:NPOV. Check it out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The official invitation to this event actually read "Drogi Rodaku," (dear compatriot) calling on those not indifferent to their homeland to protest ("jezeli lost Twojej Ojczyzny nie jest Ci obojetny przyjdz, zaprotestuj przeciwko tej ustawie"). Per WP:NPOV: "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". Do you have any English language source not calling the protesters "Polish nationalists"? Newsweek, Jewish Chronicle, Forward, Haaretz all use "Polish Nationalists". If you want to suggest other language - the route forward is presenting multiple sources, of equal weight, calling them something else. Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Polish-language sources are fine, and call them Polish-Americans. PAC Polish-American source calls them demonstrators. You don't want to acknowledge those sources - but others involved in discussion on article's talk seem to seem them as reliable. Let's continue the discussion there, rather than splitting it in two places, ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Sources of a dubious reliability in Polish are far from fine - any RSN discussion backing up these sources? That more than one editors showed up in parallel in an article with similar arguments not grounded in policy - matters very little. WP:NOENG is policy. The Polish-American Congress is not a reliable source (and is generally ignored by mainstream media), and its warning against the protests backfiring (as they had) was issued prior to them taking place. Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
" WP:NOENG is policy" - yes it is. And it says: "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia". Are. Freakin'. Allowed. What so hard to understand about that? You've been misrepresenting WP:NONENG in your futile attempts to remove Polish sources from Poland related articles (!!! Somehow nobody ever argues that French sources shouldn't be used in France related articles - which just shows how fucked up such a notion is) for months now and NOBODY agrees with your odious demands to exclude sources based on ethnic criteria. Drop it. You want quotes and translations? Fine. No problem. But stop. Judging. Sources. By. Their. Ethnicity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Summarizing - Polish people are racilaly lower, they don't have any rights to present any opinions. Only WASPs and Jews are allowed to judge them.
The subject of the event were money. If you demand money from me it's COI, we both shouldn't participate in this discussion.Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
How do you call supporters of Israel? Israeli nationalists? Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
List of RS: Newsweek, Jewish Chronicle, Forward, Haaretz. Why not the NYT and WP? Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Object,article suffers from serious neutrality issues and is missing some crucial information(ie:most property in Poland was destroyed by Germany, and rebuilt postwar by efforts of new inhabitants and authorities which makes the question of reprivatisation to people who aren't heirs extremely controversial).The extreme hook is based on a very weak source and is contradicted by other reliable sources.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The first two hooks are non-neutral and should be rejected. I prefer ALT2 by Piotrus, which can probably be improved.Tatzref (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This nomination has been open for some time. While I sympathize with the nominator for their fine work, and don't agree at all with the complaints above (as Icewhiz notes, the sources clearly say "Polish nationalist"; if the source said "Martian invaders" then we should report that as well, verifiability not truth and all), this article still doesn't seem to be stable with contentious edits still happening, and it seems unlikely something this controversial can have a consensus hook made on it that won't just start complaints at WP:ERRORS when it goes live. I would recommend this nomination be closed. Not all articles are good DYK material alas. SnowFire (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Justice_for_Uncompensated_Survivors_Today_(JUST)_Act_of_2017&oldid=946900753"