Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery

< 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 SL93 (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery

(
)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 07:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC).

  • Article is new enough, long enough, sourced and appears policy compliant. Earwig detects no issues. Hook is short enough and interesting. QPQ satisfied.
One issue holds this back from approval. The hook facts are set forth only in the opening paragraph which lacks in-line citation.Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cbl62: I've added the citation to the lead, note that the claim was already supported in the body (the lead just repeats it). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • My issues are resolved such that this is good to go from my perspective. Not sure what impact Buidhe's comments have on the nomination. Cbl62 (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
As noted in my initial review, I found the hook to be sufficiently interesting -- involving, as it does, a person who intentionally infiltrated one of the most heinous and deadly places in human history. Cbl62 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  • First, the hook fact—the book's publication date in English—is not interesting, secondly, it implies that "volunteer" is an accurate word for what he did, while peer-reviewed, scholarly sources disagree. (t · c) buidhe 16:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
    • What is interesting is subjective, although you are welcome to propose more interesting ALTs. The hook doesn't imply volunteering, this is the title of the book. While indeed one recent peer-reviewed article (by a PhD student) and a review of another book did indeed question this word, it is used commonly in the academic and popular discourse of the subject - and anyway, this is not a place to discuss this. The title is the title and you can hardly argue it shouldn't be used in a nomination because of some fringe criticism of the concept, not even of this particular book. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I find the hook interesting and neutral - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. The existing hook shifts the focus to the fact a book was published in English in 2012, which is very much a Who Cares issue. The hook is shorter and better to just cut to the interesting part- maybe this:
ALT1: ... that The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery is the memoir of Witold Pilecki, a Polish resistance fighter who infiltrated Auschwitz?
Anyway, the bigger issue for me is that the existing article seems to have some POV / puffery issues - it's more fawning than a perusal of the sources suggests. I'd be skeptical of including the line "this is a work of supreme importance" about any topic (including The Bible, the works of Shakespeare, the Bhagavad Gita, etc.), and it's an especially weird takeaway from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23739770.2019.1673981?journalCode=rifa20 , a book review of The Volunteer (book) which explores elements of Pilecki's story that are legendary or myths. Suggest that aspect be cleaned up before going to DYK with any hook. SnowFire (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
SnowFire, It's an attributed quotation, and not used in the hook. As for NPOV, you are more than welcome to add any more critical conclusions from any reviews you can find. Lastly, the review you cite is not of this book but of another (they share a similar title and topic so it can be confusing).
Anyway, having looked into this more, I suggest we use the word report instead of memoir. So based on SnowFire's ALT1 I suggest ALT1b as well as a longer ALT1c (@Cbl62: for a check). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
ALT1b: ... that The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery is a report of Witold Pilecki, a Polish resistance fighter who infiltrated Auschwitz?
ALT1c: ... that the report of Witold Pilecki, a Polish resistance fighter who infiltrated Auschwitz, has been translated into English in 2012 under the title The Auschwitz Volunteer: Beyond Bravery?
  • I'm not confused (re "confusing"); I understood perfectly well the first time as noted that the quote was from a review of the 2019 book, but that just makes the original cite all the more strange; it's a third-hand cite of a review of a different book. Yes, it's attributed, but Reception sections routinely collapse pages and pages of prose into a single sentence, and it's easy to (accidentally) make authors look silly or misrepresent them if you're not careful. Like I already said, I wouldn't include a quote like that on any book; any article that must say its topic is a work of supreme importance is not a work of supreme importance. Re "it's not part of the hook": Article overall quality issues can still derail a DYK nom, even if it's not part of the hook. Besides, don't you want the article in top shape for a main page appearance anyway? Yes, this is DYKN not GAC, but the suggestion is offered in good faith - even if you think that the reception section comes across fine to you, I'm telling you it reads a bit on the hagiographic side to a pair of fresh eyes. If you really think that review-of-a-book-about-this is relevant, at least cover the background with explicitly saying in the article that Davidzon is reviewing the 2019 book The Volunteer and maybe include Fairweather's thoughts on Pilecki's reports as well.
  • Anyway, going back to the hook suggestions, I think ALT1b would be fine. SnowFire (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    • SnowFire, Now I am a bit confused. Davidzon is reviewing this work (2012) not the 2019 one (his review is from 2013). And that he chose to speak of this book in superlatives, well, that's reviewers prerogative. It's the norm, in my experience, to quote the most succinct and summarized opinion of the reviewer, and if they say that something is "great", "the best", whatever, well, that's an attributed quotation. The article doesn't say in wiki voice that this is the best book ever, we just quote and attribute a reviewer. As far as I know, this is simply following best practices, but if you disagree and think this quote should be removed, feel free to start a discussion about this at WT:BOOK or WP:NPOVN or both and we can see what others think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Sorry, looks like I misread where that reference went - you're right, that reference went to a different article. I was utterly puzzled that you seemed to be citing a review of the 2019 book but I see that was just a case of swapped references.
      • That said, as a veteran editor, you surely know that WP:PEACOCK can be violated with attributed statements, too. It'd be easy to fill articles on any book with just "this book is good" or "this book is bad" but that's bad writing (see the reception section of Night (memoir), say, which doesn't have any "according to XYZ, this book is important" in it.) I took a shot at editing the Reception - take a look for an example of what I was getting at. Very rarely is "this work is important / the best ever" etc. what should be included; instead, talk about what precisely the reviewer found important or praiseworthy or well-done, rather than just asserting it was important or praiseworthy. SnowFire (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
        • SnowFire, Thank you for your edits. I think they are fine, but in general, I am also concerned that this type of summary can be abused for inappropriate editorializing. You are probably not aware of how controversial this topic arena is (check out the recent ArbCom clarification request if you want to see...), but one of the reasons I prefer direct quotes is that they are, well, direct quotes. Of course, choosing one quote over another can lead to one being accused of quote cherry-picking. It's like there's no good solution... Anyway, for the case here, I appreciate your edits and I am happy with them, although I don't think removing the direct quotes was really necessary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
          • I'm familiar with the radioactive controversy, yes. My point above doesn't have anything to do with it, it'd apply equally to a book about a non-controversial topic - don't write a sports team is "the greatest ever", write it "won 6 championships" or the like. That kind of boring stuff. SnowFire (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I like ALT1c, and propose to shorten/rephrase it to

per the first review, verified, subscription source accepted AGF. I hope that you'll solve the wording concern in the article. I am with Piotrus on better a quotation than a wrong paraphrase. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable promoting this if there is a wording concern in the article. SL93 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Both agree that it's not wrong, otherwise I would not have approved. I support the version we have, and same. If you don't, don't promote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, Two minor comments. One, and this is because of my initial bad wording, the work is a report, not a memoir (although the difference is slight and one reviewer did call the work a memoir). Second, which wording concern are talking about? The article is stable, there are not tags, and there is no talk page discussion, so I thought all issues have been resolved? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, I changed memoir to report, however, anybody could write a report, it doesn't give a hint at him being the prime topic. I approved. About concerns, you will have to speak to SL93, or wait for someone else promoting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, right, but unless I am confused, User:SL93 was concerned about a "wording concern" that you mentioned? I don't see any remaining 'wording concern' in the article, but if someone does, please kindly tell me here which wording needs, well, rewording. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
SL93, I was perhaps too sloppy in my summary. "wording concern" was my short version for what was discussed between Piotrus and Snowfire, about whether to use the quotation or paraphrase. Either way, it should not be in the way of promotion, do you agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Restore approval. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@Piotrus: @Gerda Arendt: I will promote this when a new prep is available. There is already a hook about a book in the current prep. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Auschwitz_Volunteer:_Beyond_Bravery&oldid=1122951945"