Template:Did you know nominations/Mendelsohn house

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
NPOV issues not addressed

Mendelsohn house

(

)

... that the Mendelsohn House (interior pictured) was the first house Erich Mendelsohn ever built?

Reviewed: Liebmann Hersch

Created by HerkusMonte (talk). Self nominated at 11:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC).

Date, length, hook all OK. Hook confirmed by online citations in German; AGF. Article neutral, well referenced. I am unable to comment on copyvio. Photograph is in PD, but there is no reference to it in the hook (and IMO the alternative photo of the exterior would be better in this context). I also think that in the title "House" should have an upper case "H", as in the rest of the article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added an (interior pictured) to the hook, sorry for that. I prefer the interior view as more catchy, but it's certainly not essential. I have also moved the article to M. House. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. (Added italics to the hook.) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that the 1913 Mendelsohn House (interior pictured) was the first building designed by expressionist architect Erich Mendelsohn? EEng (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

ALT sounds better and provides more info. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Uses un-neutral language, also lacks important citations. One sentence implies that cemetery was destroyed due to anti-semitism in Poland, but there in source for that.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Molobo's response is actually just a reaction to my latest WP:ANI report dealing with his disruptive editing on a completely different topic.[1] Every single sentence in this article is based on sources and, as Peter I. Vardy already emphasized, written in a perfectly neutral tone. Especially the destruction of the cemetery after the anti-semitic campaign in Poland of 1968 is clearly backed by the source (Michele Stavagna, page 3:" Damals wurde das Gebäude vom Staatsarchiv genutzt, nachdem der Friedhof als Folge der antisemitischen Hetzjagd im März 1968 zerstört worden war." Transl.: At that time the building was used by the state archive after the cemetery had been destroyed as a result of anti-semitic coursing in March 1968) HerkusMonte (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. If there is a source why wasn't it provided and attributed to German publication about Poland that alleges so? And statements that a foundation like Borussia is "unbiased" aren't neutral at all. In fact they point out to serious POV problems, since it implies other research is biased.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources were provided at the end of each paragraph, as usual. You also seem to misunderatnd WP:NPOV. We should present what reliable sources say. Borussia was founded in 1990 because some people in Olsztyn were tired of all that propaganda and lies they were told throughout more than 40 years. I know you disagree with them, but that's completely unimportant. How are the aims of Borussia described by reliable sources? If you know any RS claiming they praised traditional Recovered territories stuff, feel free to add it. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Once somebody starts posting about "lies and propaganda" instead of addressing issues that brings up a very big red light regarding neutrality.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You might discuss that with one of the "Borussia" founders. Our job is to mirror what reliable sources say and "unbiased research" is how reliable sources describe the aim of "Borussia". It's not a matter of neutrality just because you don't like it. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I too share concerns over NPOV in this article. Terms such as "defiled" and "murdered" are more loaded than "destroyed" or "killed". NPOV applies even to the greatest war crimes, so we should be careful how we phrase things. Sentences such as "Borussia is a Polish Foundation founded in 1990 and dedicated to the unbiased research of East Prussian heritage in the area, which had been tabooed for decades in Communist Poland." only serve to promote the organization, rather than impart information about the building; the rest of that paragraph is also decidedly pro-Borussia. The parts about the Nazis and transition of the area to Poland is needed, but needs to be contextualized better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that describing the fate of Jews in the Holocaust as "murder" is a matter of NPOV and should be avoided? Are you seriously claiming that describing the riots of the Kristallnacht as a "defilement" of a cemetery isn't neutral? It wasn't destroyed in 1938, it was just "forcefully abandoned" if you prefer the usage of euphemisms. But using euphemisms is the opposite of neutrality.

The renovation of this building is the sole benefit of "Borussia", that's not a matter of being "pro-Borussia". HerkusMonte (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Crisco for voicing your concerns similar to concerns of other editors here.Unfortunately at this stage the article is loaded with POV phrases such the one about Borussia, and as such fails the nomination. This has now been pointed out by unconnected editors.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Herkus: That I said it is not NPOV does not mean that I think it is the wrong POV. Please understand the difference. Defilement is a highly loaded term, which (although certainly correct in this situation) is still not a neutral point of view. The sentences about Borussia are highly positive towards the organization (buzzwords such as "unbiased" vs. the "taboo" they are fighting, for instance); this is not related to who is using the building. I was pinged to give a third opinion. If you disagree with it, perhaps this can be withdrawn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You claim that it's POVish to call the Holocaust murder and you regard describing the defilement of a cemetery (which is what happened in 1938 as you admit) "not a neutral point of view". The cemetery wasn't destroyed in 1938, it was defiled. If you know a better term, please tell us, but as I already said, using euphemisms is not a matter of NPOV.

The Borussia is not a sports club or an association of pigeon breeders. We need to give an information of what they do and why they do it and this is highly relevant for the renovation and modern using of the building. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC).