Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Zanhe (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Multiple problems remain unresolved and the nominator has been banned.

DYK toolbox

New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference)

(
)
  • ... that French higher education minister Frédérique Vidal criticized the role of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance in the antisemitic disruption of an academic conference in Paris? ...source: Le Figaro. Quote: "Le gouvernement français a demandé aujourd'hui aux autorités polonaises de se distancer publiquement des perturbations "hautement regrettables" et "aux relents antisémites", qui ont eu lieu lors d'un colloque à Paris consacré à l'histoire de la Shoah en Pologne. Dans un courrier adressé à Jaroslaw Gowin, ministre des Sciences et de l'Enseignement supérieur, la ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur Frédérique Vidal indique qu'un colloque .... "Cette série de graves perturbations a pu apparaître comme étant appuyés par des représentants de l'Etat polonais", regrette la ministre. Un représentant de l'Institut pour la mémoire nationale (IPN) était en effet "présent et s'y est exprimé sans condamner les agissements en cours". L'IPN a en revanche "critiqué la conférence sur les réseaux sociaux" et l'Ambassade de Pologne à Paris "a relayé les messages de l'IPN sur son compte Twitter, ce qui ne peut apparaître que (...) comme une immixtion inacceptable dans un débat scientifique", ajoute Mme Vidal dans sa lettre. "Compte tenu de ces incidents inacceptables et du grand émoi qu'ils suscitent dans la communauté universitaire française, une expression claire de votre part visant à distancier le gouvernement polonais de ces perturbations hautement regrettables me semblerait de nature à faire revenir l'apaisement", indique-t-elle encore.

Created by Icewhiz (talk) and François Robere (talk). Nominated by Icewhiz (talk) at 08:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC).

  • Date, size, copyvio, all good. Neutrality, however, sigh. Article is not stable (tags, some edit warring, ongoing talk discussions). Hook is not neutral, either. There is some discussion of the notability of the subject, through I don't think this has been to AfD (yet). And the parties are subject to ongoing ArbCom. At the very least I'd freeze this until after the ArbCom is resolved and dust settles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Piotrus: - please let someone else, who is neutral in this topic area and hasn't been involved with the article, review. There is a tag on the article - yes - that should be resolved (at the present there is a tag, but no clear objection to what is non-neutral). The hook is perfectly neutral - this is a mainstream source (Le Figaro - and the same is all of the mainstream French Press) reporting directly on the statement of Vidal. the statement is clearly attributed in the hook. Icewhiz (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to ask for another reviewer, but I see nor reason to withdrew mine. Unless you can tell me which policies it may violate? It is quite normal for people interested in a topic area to review topics in it. I have never suggested that you should not comment on my DYKs, through you commented on a number in the past. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You are involved (Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide, Wikipedia:Closing discussions) in the article, and have been prior to the review - and as such you clearly shouldn't be reviewing. Your comment on ARBCOM is irrelevant (and mixes conduct with content discussions - see Wikipedia:Casting aspersions) to the topic on hand (content of this article and this hook), your comment on the hook is not policy based nor does it have a rationale (An attributed statement is by definition neutral, and Le Figaro is a reputable sources for such a statement (+around 5 other mainstream sources reporting the same)). Your comment on tags presently in the article is factual, and yes this is a dispute that should be resolved. Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have never edited that article (prior to doing this review, and I only did some minor c/e edits few minutes ago), so do tell me how am I involved? I'd suggest that attacking a reviewer who gives you something besides a positive endorsement is not the best strategy to get your DYKs accepted. How about you try to fix the issues I noted, starting with the hook neutrality? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Beyond your involvement in the topic area (see - " the closing editor may have become inextricably involved through previous experience in the conflict area" in Wikipedia:Closing discussions), you've made this edit - 14:53, 13 August 2019 which clearly makes you invovled on the article level (I'll note - the article moved to a new title following your comment). You should strike your tick above. As for the hook - you didn't actually point out anything wrong with it beyond voicing your personal dislike. If you have a specific issue with the hook - please raise it ("Hook is not neutral" is close to useless without properly identifying what is non-neutral, based on Wikipedia policy, in the hook) - and I'll be happy to address it. Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how a single comment on a talk page disqualifies someone from the review. But I agree, let's focus on the article. And you are right, it may not be obviously apparent to a neutral editor what the problem is here, outside, of course, the issues of notability and lack of stability. So: criticism of IPN is controversial, and possibly undue. It is neither the main issue in the article, nor is it neutral. Please propose a hook that isn't an attempt to discredit IPN smuggled onto the Wikipedia's Main Page in the form of a DYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You are deeply involved - strike your tick please. The disruption of the conference caused an international incident. Vidal's comments, which are inline with academic WP:RS coverage of the IPN (e.g. in this recent academic book chapter), are a major component of this international incident - and is definitely DUE. I will also note that Vidal's comments are backed up by coverage of this event by NEWSORGs in multiple countries (the sole possible exception being far-right and right-wing press in Poland- sources of little weight). And all this being said - this is an attributed statement, by a major government figure (of the country hosting the conference). That some editors may WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT criticism of the IPN does note make such criticism, when properly sourced, "controversial". It actually probably would've been possible to have an unattributed critical hook of the IPN (as basically all RSes are covering this in the same manner) - an attributed hook shouldn't be a problem at all. Are you contesting Vidal's statement? Is the hook misrepresenting Vidal is some manner? Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The French minister has been answered by the Polish one - solve French antisemitism - and lost her colonial zeal.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This nomination and the nominated page are parts of revisionistic project by Icewhiz and FR. They transfer responsibility for the Holocaust from Nazi Germany to Polish people. They use also subjects not related to the Holocaust like Islam. Any subject is good to dehumnaize Polish people. This Wikipedia is misused. It's your problem. Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    I suggest you strike that comment per WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:LIBEL. François Robere (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This nomination is on hold until the merger discussion is closed by an independent editor, preferably an admin, and until the neutrality template on the article is no longer an issue. It might also be wise, given the notability comments, to get a determination at AfD to settle whether the subject is indeed notable while this waits for the other issues. Presumably, by the time the merger discussion has concluded, the article's lack of stability will also have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Minor disambiguation point: Vidal is the Minister of Higher Education (l'enseignement supérieur). She reports to Jean-Michel Blanquier, who is the Education Minister. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @SashiRolls: Thansk! Added higher to hook. I'll note that I've frequently commented at various fora that the length one's job title (particularly in a political context) is inversely related to the relative importance of the position at that level (the shorter a minister/secretary's job-title post is - he's likely to be more senior). Refrained from adding "Higher Education, Research and Innovation" as that is way too many chars and it seems this gets shortened to "higher education". Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/New_Polish_School_of_Holocaust_Scholarship_(conference)&oldid=919152649"