Template:Did you know nominations/National Peasants' Party

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 Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

National Peasants' Party

(

)

1933 logo of the National Peasants' Party

... that members of the National Peasants' Party (logo pictured) were the second-largest political group of Romania's anti-communist resistance, behind independents? Roland Clark, Sfîntă tinerețe legionară. Activismul fascist în România interbelică, pp. 250–251. Iași: Polirom, 2015; Eusebiu Narai, Situația politică în județele Caraș și Severin: (1944–1948), p. 61. Timișoara: Editura Mirton, 2008. ISBN 978-973-52-0457-0
- ALT1:... that despite a ban on the National Peasants' Party (logo pictured) being effective on this day in 1947, it still organized in the Romanian underground, attempting to field one candidate in the 1985 election? Adela Șerban, "Controversial Issues Regarding Resistance and Dissidence in Romania (1945–1989)", in Romanian Journal of Sociology, Issues 1–2, 2009, p. 120

Reviewed: Samuel Adalberg
Comment: Please consider keeping this for July 29, the day of the party's banning.

5x expanded by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 13:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC).

I have a couple questions, but this is not a complete review. I will leave that to someone else. Firstly, I am unsure in what context the word "behind" is being used in ALT0. Could the nominator please explain? Secondly, I am concerned that the logo is not properly licensed. The logo is licensed as being created by the uploader, in other words User:Dahn created it in 1933? It seems that Template:Logo fur is a more appropriate license. Flibirigit (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Substantial article on plenty of sources, Romanian and offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. Hooks: I guess we could do without "behind independents" (after independents?). I prefer ALT1 anyway, as more related to the date, and painting a broader image. - The image, well I trust that it's old, and not really a piece of art, but don't think that it's really necessary. It's hard to detect details in small size. - Please add refs to the two paragraphs that don't have one at the end. Exceptional work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

the question regarding the logo needs to be addressed. As per WP:DYKIMG: "Pictures and videos used in all DYK articles should be suitably licensed: PD, GFDL, CC, etc., including fair use where appropriately applied". Thank you for the complete review for all other DYK policies. Flibirigit (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, and thank you. @Flibirigit: let me start by addressing the image concern: the image was entirely created by me, and it uses as a model a logo that is not in any copyright whatsoever, from a defunct organization; an image of the Nazi Party logo would be credited to the Wikimedia editor, not to Hitler, as it is. "Behind" indeed refers to "second to" or "after" -- I think it's a fairly standard idiom, though feel free to tweak. @Gerda Arendt: You mentioned, on my talk page, that two paragraphs need referencing. I believe you mean paragraphs which do not end with a citation, as in: "In 1921,[5] the PȚ had been joined by Nicolae L. Lupu, formerly of the Labor Party." Please note that this does have a reference (it has several, but it also has one on the ending sentence); it isn't placed at the end, because many sources will mention the referenced fact (in subsequent paragraphs to 1946, Lupu is mentioned ad nauseam as a PNȚ member, then dissident, then member, then dissident, then etc.), but the source cited gives the exact date for the absorption -- please note that citing it implicitly also cites the rest of the sentence, as this is the fact referenced. Also, while the requirement is that all paragraphs should have at least one citation (as they do), there is no requirement that they should end with a citation; in cases such as this one, citing it precisely at the end would be clunky. Dahn (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned to image goes against WP:LOGOS. Is there a different Wikipedia policy which supports the current license? Flibirigit (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:DYKIMG is only concerned with images on the main page. So, the issue is not in play if the image is not going on the main page. If it makes everybody feel more comfortable, then delete the image from this nomination template, so nobody accidentally promotes the image with the hook. The image is not tagged for copyright problems on the article, and since it won't be used on the main page, it is not the concern of DYK. As pointed out by @Mandarax: I erred. He cites third bullet point of WP:DYKIMG: "Pictures and videos used in all DYK articles should be suitably licensed: PD, GFDL, CC, etc., including fair use where appropriately applied.". Sorry. — Maile (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: can you tell me which part of WP:LOGOS applies here, given that the policy you're citing is specifically for currently used and copyrighted logos? Dahn (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:LOGOS applies to all logos past and present, not just current usage. You claimed above when making this logo that "it uses as a model a logo that is not in any copyright whatsoever, from a defunct organization". This concerns me as using a logo from somewhere else and editing it is a derivative work, rather than your own work. There is a way around derivatives if the logo was published before 1923 (see section "Copyright-free logos" point #1), but since the National Peasants' Party was founded in 1926, I have doubts the logo was published before 1923 and would be in the public domain. For images not in the public domain, please see the section "Uploading non-free logos" where it states that "Company logos may appear in articles on those companies, but note that, if challenged, it is the responsibility of those who wish to include the logo to prove that its use meets Wikipedia non-free content criteria." In other words, I am challenging your logo for a fair use reationale. If an adequate WP:NFCC claim with sources for the derivative work is provided, it can be used. Also, if you're aware of some other policy where images published in Romania before date X are free, please cite that. I have also asked for advice here, which led to here. I hope this explains my view on logos. Flibirigit (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

As you yourself note, it actually specifically says that it does not apply to all logos, past and present, but merely to those under copyright -- or else, the comment about 1923 would not make sense. That section cites several instances in which the logo may not be copyrighted, as examples; pre-1923 publishing being one of these. In this case, there is no copyright notice published with the original image, the organization using it is defunct (and has been, legally, since 1947), and there was no formal process for registering political logos as trademarks in a Romanian jurisdiction back in 1933. Moreover, the derivative image, as in the Nazi Party example I cited, is entirely drawn by me. The whole topic of fair use would be relevant if this were shown to be a copyrighted item, which there is no evidence of. And yes, Romanian law has at least one applicable instance of why the original image is in the public domain: "It is an anonymous work or pseudonymous work and 70 years have passed since the date of its publication. (...) It is another kind of work, the author is a legal entity („persoană juridică” - not a person) and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication". Dahn (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Why didn't you label the work as a derivative of X, and claim the Template:PD-Romania license? I don't think anyone would have challenged the photo if you did that, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Flibirigit (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear from the description of the image that it is a derivative (though the derivative is my own work); also, as noted here and by another editor who commented on your post on Commons' Village pump, this is established form -- the uploaders of NSDAP swastikas did not label their derivatives as "Hitler's work". But either way, does that mean the issue is solved now? Dahn (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I was leaning towards saying it is cleared up, but the image in question was since contested by an administrator on the commons. Flibirigit (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

So that leaves us where? What am I supposed to do to clear this absurd issue? Dahn (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

We could wait for the discussions on the commons take their course, we could ask at WT:DYK for a consensus to continue with the logo in the article in the meantime, or we could proceed with the nomination and no logo until after it has appeared in the DYK column. Flibirigit (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

What, pray tell, would possibly endorse this novel theory that copies I made of public-domain images should not be used in the article at all? Even if your claim that is mistagged them is to be endorsed by consensus, how would that affect the issue that the files themselves would be PD? Dahn (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Unrelated to the above discussion: I don’t really understand why Dahn refuses to link in the reference sources that are avaialble online on non-warez websites. ALT1 is not verified, as the source (not the best, at one point talks about the “psychical regime of terror”, whatever thatmay be; probably thats one of the reason it’s not linked) only mentions that a member of the PNT attempted to run in the elections, not that he did it in the name of the party (I might buy myself a subscription to the journal that published the original info just to check it). ALT0 is also problematic, as source 2 (and most likely also source 1) refer to an oft-cited statistic of the secret services from 1949 which only covers under 900 individuals of a movement that is supposed to have included more that 10,000. While I do agree that DYK is probably not the place to go into details, I think that ALT0 in its current form doesn not conform with our standards regarding undue weight.Anonimu (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't "refuse" something I was never asked to do, I simply don't do it, first of all because to do it properly I would have to archive each and every source, which is frankly something I don't intend on wasting time on. The fact that you were able to find it and read it shows that my supposedly elaborate concealment was foiled, in any case -- here's the link, now that you've uncovered my sinister ploy. Now, I think we should disregard your persistent claims that sources are unreliable because they do not agree with your bias ("physical regime of terror" is pretty much a standard description of what the communists did, one you'll find in countless published works), and go straight to the semblance of a point you're making: the source and the title say exactly the same thing, namely that a member tried to present himself in elections. ALT0 refers to the one metric that is available, which you yourself call an "oft-cited statistic". Time to bring up WP:TRUTH for this type of arguments. And how can something that is, per your own claim, "oft-cited", also be WP:UNDUE? It is "oft(en) cited", then we citing it here would be anything but undue. Dahn (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Per common practice, sources not linked are considered to be offline and therefore not usually verified. I’m not aware of any requirement to archive online sources, but if that’s really a new rule at DYKs, I don’t think doing it would be such an effort. My bias is irrelevant here, as the issue is failure to verify sources (one of whom talks about a “psychical”, not “physical” regime; this is just at random browsing, the source appears to have used an early beta version of Google translate). One member running in one election (as an independent, according to a third source that it’s not much more reliable than yours) is far from the phrasing in ALT1, which suggest something that was more of a collective effort (“memberS”). Cutting that part of the hook would make it OK (not that I have actually read the article to check the other facts are dully cited). Regarding ALT0, I’m not saying that reporting the statistic would be undue, but making a general judgement based on it would trully be. Maybe you can improve it by providing some context that makes it clear it was one report at quite an early phase of a movement that is claimed to have lasted for decades.Anonimu (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Anonimu, if you want to count as a reviewer here, you will really need to get off my case and show some good faith: there is first of all absolutely no requirement to link to online sources, that is for sure, particularly since you were clearly able to find the source even without the link; I archive any such source, because they otherwise tend to rot, and the machine which periodically archives them has an awful format.

Which source claims he ran as an independent, Anonimu? And how do you expect me to know what all sources, real or imaginary, say it was as an independent? (I was now able to locate this source, which, even if it mentions that he petitioned to ran as an independent, clearly refers to the party as still existing, describes his candidacy as proof of this existence, and refers to his as "the Peasant platform". This other source, while it doesn't refer to his candidacy at all, clearly indicates that he was a PNȚ representative and doctrinaire. The snippet in this report has: "Ion Puiu of Bucharest, who had been leader of the National Farm Youth Group 4 decades earlier, declared himself a candidate of the illegal National Farmers' Party for parliament in 1985.") Also, if you take objection with the phrasing, why don't you just suggest another, instead of pontificating that the ALT is not verified?

Let's see here: A 10% sample that both historians cited describe as being representative for the whole movement. For some reason, this is not enough to past your "vigilant" test. Also, please stop casually misquoting wikipedia policies: WP:UNDUE is specifically about the significance of viewpoints presented; there isn't, and there cannot be, a policy that would say we're not supposed to present all facts found in a source because we, the editors, make a judgment about some being less reliable than others. Your objection is preposterous.

(As a side note: the word is "truly", not "trully". Should readers discount your replies because you make spelling errors? Or should this just apply to academic sources?) Dahn (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be one failing to AGF: I've never said the fact you didn't link online sources would disqualify the hooks, just that I believe online sources should be linked as a courtesy to readers and other editors (including reviewers who would assume good faith and count sources not linked as offline). AFAIK, there's no requirement on your part to archive sources (I think archive.org does it automatically for en.WP outgoing links anyway).

Hold your horses, my "imaginary" sources are irrelevant as long as the source you originally proposed failed to support your hook (the source is so badly written that your only excuse would be that you genuinely misread it; one has to wonder about the peer review process of a journal that publishes such horrendously translated pieces - unlike my comments, claims in "peer reviewed" journals are expected to be reproduced as closely as published). Also, you don't want me started on the quality of the sources used in that article, seeing the extensive use of memoirs and hagiographic works (not having had read the article, I don't know what claims they are supporting, but I find it hard to believe you couldn't find a proper academic source for undisputable claims). As you may notice once you read my previous comment again, I have made suggestions that would improve both hooks, thus your accusation of "pontificating" is uncalled for.

Regarding ALT0: Narai doesn't describe the statistic "as being representative for the whole movement", neither does he make any judgement about the importance of the PNT in the movement, he just neutrally reports the contents of a primary source. I have no access to Clark, so I'm unable to say whether he's supporting your hook.Anonimu (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

That assumes I would go back and fish the source from among the hundreds I used in the article and link it here. I can't be expected to do that every time. Also, how AGF is this insinuation from your first comment: "probably thats one of the reason [sic] it’s not linked"? And yes, the source did verify that hook, and it verifies the current hook as well, as do all the sources which I since indicated for your convenience. (Your speculation about peer review assumes that reviewers are proficient in English; and, incidentally, the sources doesn't even need to be peer-reviewed for it to be used as a source. Please hold your essays for another venue.)

Please stop the insinuations and attempts to weasel in a doubt about the article. To begin with, there absolutely no memoir used as a source in the article: even Țepelea (who is not in away cited "extensive", just adequately), though a primary source on some events, is not a memoir; I presume that "hagiographies" mean Zarojanu and Rațiu, i. e. a respected author and a Rațiu family member published by a specialized journal, both of them cited for detailed events that other sources don't describe, but an article on the party would be expected to. For instance, Țepelea discusses the emergence of a Christian Democratic tendency in 1945 or recalls Maniu's disenchantment about the Labour victory in Britain, and Zarojanu has most details on the party in the 1980s (which include Securitate reports, reproduced verbatim). Neither work is objectionable under any definition, and together they are a minuscule portion of the references -- the rest are academic historians and newspaper reports. I'm pretty sure you are quite familiar that WP:PRIMARY would not specifically bar either primary sources or what you term "hagiographies", what with you having extensively used Titel Petrescu for instance as a source in countless articles -- his history/memoir is of exactly the same level as Țepelea: respectable work by a participant, rich in inside details, and with some apologetic claims that can be rendered verbatim and challenged with other sources. Likewise, the one opinion I quoted from Țepelea is in there to illustrate that the party viewed itself as mainly anti-communist in the late 1940s; it is qualified with another quote from the more left-wing Cioculescu, who makes a wider point about himself in relation to communism.

Yes, Narai actually describes the report as such, in naming it a synthesis of resistance activities. He also goes on to describe the resistance as "few in numbers", meaning that the sample is all the more representative. The other source is Clark, who simply mentions: "At least 50% of those who engaged in resistance movements after 1945 had no political past, and most of those who did had been PNȚ members." So clearly the report (or any other, as Clark does not specify which one he used -- he cites Ilarion Țiu as his source) is used as a representative sample by at least one historian, and your caveats are absolutely bogus. Dahn (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I will not comment anymore on the issue of online sources, as it is not a requirement for DYK. Do whatever you like.

Țepelea's account is based on his own subjective recollections, so it's a primary source whatever you may call it and while it is OK to cite it, it should be attributed at all times (maybe you did exactly that, I didn't check). Zarojanu is a an IT specialist by education and has worked as an editor for several, mostly cultural venues. Except for this hagiographic book, the only works he is respected for are novels and short fiction. Therefore, he is a reliable source only regarding the legacy of Coposu in literary works, not on an article dealing with a historical topic. Ratiu's article explicitly starts with the phrase "The article is a eulogy", so no, not a reliable source that could be cited unattributed (however he is barely cited, and only together with other sources, so the article would not suffer if his eulogy was removed). But again, neither is relevant to this DYK nomination.

Your original take on ALT1 was not supported by the source, whatever its quality. Since you revised the phrasing, I am going to drop this issue.

Narai never calls is "a synthesis of resistance activities", he plainly reports it: "By the beginning of May 1949, D.G.S.P. managed to arrest, throughout the country, 801 members of partisan groups, support organizations, or enablers. We present the distribution in terms of age, social category and political affiliation of these 804 people:". Clark does support the claim, so we take it at its face value, whatever source he may have used for it.Anonimu (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There is actually no requirement to attribute every mention based on a primary source (beyond the citation itself, that is); WP:PRIMARY says that we should not analyze and interpret it, but as long as a primary source relays an event, we report it as an event unless challenged. We do generally attribute most such instances, but we are not actually required to. We should attribute all opinions, and I generally do, when it comes to primary sources; I sometimes use direct quotes from secondary sources without explicit attribution, but not primary ones. And again, nuance: Țepelea is not just a participant in the events, he is also a researcher; he would be the equivalent of Silviu Brucan or Belu Zilber or G. Brătescu cited on the Romanian Communist Party, which is something I would actually encourage we do, as I do for Petrescu and the Social Democrats. Does this answer your concerns?

Zarojanu's research has been published by top-level publishers in Romania, and he has been hosted by institutions such as Sighet Memorial. In addition, he has worked as a journalist since 1990. While he is not an academic in the field, he surely is respected as a researcher. Rațiu's article is used alone, twice, regarding his uncle's activities in London; it being a eulogy is borderline irrelevant, just like it is borderline irrelevant that Traian Săvulescu's piece on Barbu Lăzăreanu is an eulogy -- after all, what policy are you citing that prevents the use of eulogies as sources for biographical facts? I would be very interested to know. I mean, eulogies, however opinionated, are secondary sources, and, as long as they are published by respectable venues, we use them in countless articles. Even WP:NPOV would not proscribe them, though it would impose on us to balance them if we cite them as opinions (patently not the case here); its corollary WP:BIASED specifically instructs that bias alone is not a reason for removing sources, that one would have to come up with additional reasons why a source is unreliable or unquotable. So what are you on about?

It was, but never mind.

I suggest you take a second glance at Narai, same page, one paragraph above the one you're reading; you're likely to pick up the word "synthesis", which is in italics. So yes, it's both him and Clark. Dahn (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Policy does not explicitly request attribution, but considering it states "the goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does" (Wikipedia:PRIMARYCARE), it is common sense that the "educated" reader must be made aware he is being presented information from a primary source, no matter how mundane the cited claim may be. Țepelea is not only a participant and a researcher, but also an active politician who sought to gain political power in the period he published this work. Once the reader is made aware of that, I see no issue with being presented with his claims (which doesn't seem to be the case in this article: 3 attributions vs 40 citations). Ditto for the other ones you mentioned. Of course, attribution is not required if a particular info is also supported by a proper secondary source, unless the secondary source also attributes it to the primary source. Regarding Zarojanu: fiction authors are also usually published by top-level publishers, that doesn't make them reliable sources, and I'd find it equally objectionable if you started using other fiction authors-turned-amateur-researchers such as Tatiana Niculescu Bran. A Scholar search shows an excessively low relevance for Zarojanu's work. Any reviews I was able to find are equally hagiographic. Even Tismaneanu takes care to only use it (with clear, in-text attribution) for direct quotes (Tismaneanu being the author of a vitriolic op-ed in Zarojanu's volume). Considering none of this has to do with the DYK nomination, ALT1 has been modified to fit the source and that ALT0 is verified by Clark (I AGF that the quote is legit), I'm not going to continue here the discussion about the article's sources here (as, to mention it again, I have not read the full article).Anonimu (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Not to flog a dead horse, but the quote from the policy is absolutely not about what you construe it to be, but simply states that we should not make inferences based on primary sources; there is absolutely nothing about attribution there, in fact quite the contrary, precisely since primary sources can (in fact should) be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly". I would suggest you ground any objection you have in policy, not in fantasy and free juxtaposition.

Much of the cited text in Țepelea is from conferences he was allowed to give on Romanian Radio during the 1980s, when he was not any kind of politician; moreover, as I believe I have already informed you, none of his statements but one render his political opinion on this and that, they are all made from the position of a Peasantist oral historian, just like Titel Petrescu is for the socialists.

"Of course, attribution is not required if a particular info is also supported by a proper secondary source, unless the secondary source also attributes it to the primary source." No, it is not required at all, unless it is for when we parse opinion. We've covered this.

I will repeat the point: if you go over WP:RS, journalists are clearly indicated as reliable secondary sources. This would incidentally also work for Bran -- as much as I personally dislike her work, she could quite clearly be used as a source, especially since any of her claims can be contradicted by other sources. (Also, please stop focusing on the "fiction author" part of it. By the same token, historians such as Iorga and Pecican are also fiction authors, if we gloss over their other work.) Also, the Scholar citations are additional proof that Zarojanu, a journalist, is considered reliable in scholarship, and with precisely the book cited here. So I'm not sure what you think you demonstrated here.

Okay, so now you claim that reviews, presumably also by qualified authors, are also hagiographic; this is again you attempting to introduce your personal inferences in lieu of grounded policy and objective qualifiers. Even at that, let's highlight the point: neither your description of a text as "hagiographic" or "vitriolic" would count here, you would have to bring up serious criticism from a published source, or some other reason that is objective and grounded in policy for why a source is not qualified.

Anyway, it looks like we're done here. Dahn (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

And no, sources are not automatically archived. Sometimes the machine will run a check to see which links are still active and messes up the format by adding a link to Wayback while keeping the deadlink (I have never understood why it does that and not simply replace the link with the archived version, since the archive link is supposed to preserve the original). When it finds a deadlink, it adds an eyesore of a tag to it, which in any case is pointless for articles that have paper versions. So, to avoid that absurdity, it is always best to either archive the links (which adds tens of thousands of characters in hidden text, btw), or to refrain from linking to sources that have paper versions. Dahn (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Please let's not forget that the hook without image is approved, and we aim for 29 July which is soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I prefer ALT1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've now rephrased ALT1, though the objection was exceptionally contrived: if there ever was a possibility of misreading it, there isn't one now. Dahn (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have placed on message on the talk page of the administrator on the commons who challenged the image. Flibirigit (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be no further questions on the commons as per here. I am satisfied with the updated license with the PD-Romania tag, and have no further questions on the logo. Flibirigit (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)