Template:Did you know nominations/Pankratius Pfeiffer
- 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) 17:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pankratius Pfeiffer
- ... that Salvatorian priest Pankratius Pfeiffer saved hundreds of Jews in Rome during the Second World War?
- Reviewed: 1936 Northeast Flood
Created by Ergo Sum (talk). Self-nominated at 17:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC).
New article that was created on 9 October 2021 is 3,212 characters and nominated on the same day. No copyvios detected and duplication detector of [1][2][3][4][5] reveal no close paraphrasing issues (AGF PDF docs which can't go through Dup detector). Article is well-sourced. Hook is 103 characters long (under 200 character max.) and is interesting. Refs 4 and 5 (verifying the hook) are reliable sources. QPQ done. Looks good to go! —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Too many red flags here. If he really saved hundreds of Jews, you would expect plenty of confirmation of this in scholarly sources and him to be recognized by Yad Vashem. I can't count the number of times that I've seen mainstream newspapers print completely false stories about Jews being rescued during the holocaust, so better sources are definitely needed to confirm these extraordinary claims. Thanks Brigade Piron for letting me know about this. (t · c) buidhe 16:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I have to admit I'm just a bit perplexed by the argument. Except in fairly uncommon cases of multiple RS that contradict each other, we don't generally recognize any "hierarchy" of reliable sources. Sources are either RS or they are not. So I'm not sure what kind of sources you have in mind as "better" sources. The ones currently cited in the article are all RS, so that should be the end of it. I might add that if you seek some manner of official imprimatur in the vein of Yad Vashem, the City of Rome named a street after him.- Your point about why there isn't more extensive coverage of this historical figure is well taken but can easily be attributed to the fact that all manner of historical figures are lost to history, especially those who are notable really for one major event in their life that did not come to light until years later, as is the case here. Indeed, one of the RS in this article describes Pfeiffer as being "lost to history." I'm adding the new review icon here so that we can get at least one more editor's evaluation of this. Ergo Sum 13:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- There are very few people who actually saved hundreds of Jews during the Holocaust and plenty of hoaxes that were reported as truth by various news organizations—for example Necdet Kent. In other cases, actual rescue did occur but the numbers are greatly exaggerated and repeated uncritically by news organizations, such as Raoul Wallenberg. If the story is true you would expect to see it covered in many more credible sources. There are plenty of cases where a source is reliable for some info but not others. For example, someone's CV is often reliable for "they worked at X organization" but not "they are a world expert in Z". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. (t · c) buidhe 21:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- I should say that I share Buidhe's concerns. I think saying that "all manner of historical figures are lost to history" rather side-steps the sheer volume of historical scholarship on all aspects of the Holocaust. On a more banal note, I think part of the problem is that the sources cited are, essentially, all journalistic sources published by explicitly Catholic or Salvatorian outlets. The specific sources cited for the "saved" claim are Romereports (I am not familiar with this outlet, but the typo in the video does not inspire confidence) and a self-published Salvatorian newsletter. Neither are scholarly sources and both are, again, explicitly confessional in nature. I think WP:BIASED may on point in a highly sensitive issue touching on the wider disputes about Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. Do we know what the Samerski book says, for example? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe It is true that the sources cover Catholic issues, but only the Salvatorian one is actually published by a Catholic institution. I need not go into how varied Catholic newspapers are in their adherence/faithfulness to the Catholic hierarchy and beliefs (see e.g. National Catholic Reporter versus National Catholic Register).
- But more direclty, there actually are many scholarly RS that discussion Pfeiffer and his works in Nazi-occupied Rome. You will find them on the other language versions of this article. The problem is that I do not read Italian or German well enough to use them in the article. Coverage is not the issue. It is English language coverage. Ergo Sum 13:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ergo Sum: perhaps add the word "reportedly" before "saved". I'm inclined to accept in good faith the sources used as reliable – none of them have not been deprecated nor deemed generally unreliable. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- DYK should not cover unconfirmed reports or rumors so I strongly disagree with that suggestion. As well as assuming sources are reliable if they've never been discussed at WP:RSN, which disregards important parts of WP:RS such as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is no issue with citing sources in Italian or German, but if it's not confirmed that they support the content then it's incorrect to assume that they do. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Bloom6132: I tend to think that statements are either supported by RS and written in wikivoice or they're not accepted at all. For that reason, I shy away from words like "reportedly." I reiterate though that I think it's quite clear there's nothing wrong with the sources currently used. They're all RS, so that should be the end of it. Hence, why I think your initial review was satisfactory. Ergo Sum 23:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ergo Sum: agreed. I'm still of the view that the hook satisfies criteria 3b. Criteria 4 states that
"Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources".
That is not the case here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)- You're still ignoring the principle in RS that context matters, and some sources are reliable for some but not other info. The two of us who actually write on Holocaust related topics have expressed that the sources cited are not reliable for the exceptional claims being made. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I am of the opinion that the sources used are reliable for the info in the hook. The fact that you and Brigade Piron write on Holocaust-related topics is irrelevant – it does not confer a veto over hooks pertaining to that subject. By that logic, I should be able to veto baseball or heraldry hooks ... —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- You're still ignoring the principle in RS that context matters, and some sources are reliable for some but not other info. The two of us who actually write on Holocaust related topics have expressed that the sources cited are not reliable for the exceptional claims being made. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ergo Sum: agreed. I'm still of the view that the hook satisfies criteria 3b. Criteria 4 states that
- @Buidhe: Three of my DYKs promoted (including Coat of arms of the Falkland Islands from August this year) have included the word "reportedly" in the hook, as well as numerous hooks from other editors. Disagree all you want – this is accepted practice at DYK. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I'm aware that you have experience writing about Holocaust-related articles and I put value in your assessment as a solid editor. However, I'm quite comfortable in my ability to vet RS, as well, and my confidence in these sources means I must disagree with your opinion here. Experienced editors do disagree at times, and it is my opinion that I think you have gotten this one wrong; doubtless, you think the same for me. I haven't seen any evidence that these are not RS. Therefore, I recommend if Bloom6132 is inclined to do so, to renew their approval of the hook. In the meantime, I'm going to request the input of additional experienced editors on the DYK talk page. Ergo Sum 01:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to ping @Bamse, Bermicourt, Jmabel, and Anyfile to see if we can find some reliable sources in other languages. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oops, @AnyFile theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm currently traveling & very busy, so not much help here, I'm afraid. - Jmabel | Talk 01:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- That said, more or less this same case is made in The Pope's Jews: The Vatican's Secret Plan to Save Jews from the Nazis by Gordon Thomas (not currently cited in the article). - Jmabel | Talk 02:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: I'm aware that you have experience writing about Holocaust-related articles and I put value in your assessment as a solid editor. However, I'm quite comfortable in my ability to vet RS, as well, and my confidence in these sources means I must disagree with your opinion here. Experienced editors do disagree at times, and it is my opinion that I think you have gotten this one wrong; doubtless, you think the same for me. I haven't seen any evidence that these are not RS. Therefore, I recommend if Bloom6132 is inclined to do so, to renew their approval of the hook. In the meantime, I'm going to request the input of additional experienced editors on the DYK talk page. Ergo Sum 01:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Bloom6132: I tend to think that statements are either supported by RS and written in wikivoice or they're not accepted at all. For that reason, I shy away from words like "reportedly." I reiterate though that I think it's quite clear there's nothing wrong with the sources currently used. They're all RS, so that should be the end of it. Hence, why I think your initial review was satisfactory. Ergo Sum 23:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- DYK should not cover unconfirmed reports or rumors so I strongly disagree with that suggestion. As well as assuming sources are reliable if they've never been discussed at WP:RSN, which disregards important parts of WP:RS such as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There is no issue with citing sources in Italian or German, but if it's not confirmed that they support the content then it's incorrect to assume that they do. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Ergo Sum: perhaps add the word "reportedly" before "saved". I'm inclined to accept in good faith the sources used as reliable – none of them have not been deprecated nor deemed generally unreliable. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm unclear as to why the cited sources are unreliable: are we assuming that all information emanating from a Roman Catholic source is unreliable? If so what's the logic? In any case there are dozens of book sources in English, German, French and Italian that mention Pfeiffer, the problem is that few are accessible online. One is an entire biography of Pfeiffer "from baker to Vatican diplomat" which would be useful to track down: Willer, Philomena (2005). P. Pankratius Pfeiffer SDS: (1872-1945); vom Bäckergesellen zum Vatikandiplomat. Pub: Josef Fink. Others that mentions Pfeiffer and the Jews in Rome are:
- Liebhart (1996) Schwangau.
- Meding (1992), Flucht vor Nürnberg.
- Sinn (1976), Illegal.
- Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- My issue is with the unreliability of journalistic works and popular history, which have in many cases published inaccurate information about rescues of Jews during the Holocaust. If better sources exist, they should be cited instead. An additional question is, do these sources actually support the claim of "hundreds" of Jews rescued by Pfeiffer personally? (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I've now found sources that cover most of the article. Here are more:
- Liebhart (1996) Schwangau.
- Meding (1992), Flucht vor Nürnberg.
- Sinn (1976), Illegal.
- Prince Constantine of Bavaria (1952) Der Papst.
- Layer (1985), Schwäbisches Ehrenbuch - Pfeiffer credited with "saving Rome and other Italian cities including Chieti, Ascoli and Ovieto from destruction and other calamities"
- _ (1999). Publik-Forum - Pfeiffer the only German to have a street named after him in Rome and who fought to save Roman Jews.
- _ (1960). Bayerische Frömmigkeit - Pfeiffer described as the "Saviour of Rome and other cities in Italy"
- Robert Katz has written a number of books - Death in Rome (1967), Black Sabbath (1969), The Battle for Rome (2010) - which all mention Pfeiffer.
- Bottum and Dalin (2004). The Pius War has this interesting piece: "7. Pancrazio [sic] Pfeiffer. According to Carroll-Abbing, one of the men used by Pius XII to protest the Nazi roundup of Rome's Jews and intervene for persecuted victims was Father Pancrazio Pfeiffer, superior general of the Salvatorian Fathers, who also served as Pius XII' personal liaison to the German military command in Rome. Because Pfeiffer died tragically in an automobile accident toward the end of the war and thus never took part in the postwar analysis of Pius XII's conduct, many historians have overlooked him. But those who knew him or have researched his life have chronicled his collaborative efforts with Pius XII to rescue Jews and others during the war. See the article "Pfeiffer's List" by Robert Graham, 30 Days, June 1994, pp. 42-46. Prince Constantine of Bavaria's book on Pius XII, The Pope (London: Allan Wingate, 1954) [listed above] contains an excellent section on Pfeiffer, whom he describes as an agent for the pope on behalf of the victims of persecution and the fugitives in hiding" (p. 213). At Pfeiffer's death in May 1945, Vatican Radio paid tribute: "He came into contact with the Commander of the German occupying forces [in Rome in 1943-44]. From that day onwards, he placed his religious and spiritual qualities at the service of many who had been arrested or already condemned to death. He helped countless people in this way, and saved their lives, among them many Jews and other Italian personages. He championed..."
- In short there seems to be book evidence for virtually everything stated in the article apart from the specific details of the two incidents where 249 or 400 Jews were rescued. Based on my initial searches my expectation is that those incidents are likely to be recorded in the literature - we just need to be able to access more of the sources. Meanwhile there is no harm in pausing to use some of the above sources, plus those I've added to the Further reading section of the article in order to reinforce the existing references and then review where we are. Bermicourt (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the article currently meets DYK requirements. For example, Salvatorians USA Province is not independent of the article subject and therefore is not reliable for self-serving assertions such as "he saved many Jews in Rome from persecution and ultimately death" or "Every day, Pfeiffer visited the Regina Coeli prison and another prison on Via Tasso, where he would often return with freed prisoners who had been sentenced to death." (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: would you still object if the article instead relied on the sources found by Bermicourt? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- Depends, the Samerski source looks reliable to me but the book published by "Österreichische Provinz der Salvatorianer" has the same issue of close connection to the article subject. (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- All right. @Ergo Sum: I'm not going to promote the nomination without consensus to move forward, so if you want to try and rework the article's sourcing to approval, that can work. If you're not, this nomination should probably stop here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Ergo Sum: If the issue isn't addressed in a week, I think the best option is to reject this nomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I have had to push this to the back burner. I will take a look at this tomorrow. Ergo Sum 03:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- Depends, the Samerski source looks reliable to me but the book published by "Österreichische Provinz der Salvatorianer" has the same issue of close connection to the article subject. (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: would you still object if the article instead relied on the sources found by Bermicourt? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the article currently meets DYK requirements. For example, Salvatorians USA Province is not independent of the article subject and therefore is not reliable for self-serving assertions such as "he saved many Jews in Rome from persecution and ultimately death" or "Every day, Pfeiffer visited the Regina Coeli prison and another prison on Via Tasso, where he would often return with freed prisoners who had been sentenced to death." (t · c) buidhe 08:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Buidhe: thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've now found sources that cover most of the article. Here are more:
- @Ergo Sum: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- That is my fault. This slipped my mind completely this weekend. I will deal with this tonight. Ergo Sum 15:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have added several inline citations to the article, which refer to sources that were (very helpfully) added by Bermicourt. These sources support several of the very specific claims in the article, as well as the general thrust of the article which is in dispute here, namely that Pfeiffer was a liaison and in that capacity saved many Jews and others from the Nazis. In light of these reliable sources supporting the general claims, I think any concern about the pre-existing ones describing some of his more specific actions is ameliorated. There is a trove of additional sources in the Further Reading section that additionally describe in much greater detail Pfeiffer's actions but they are either in a foreign language which I do not adequately read to make use of as citations or are offline. All being said, I think there is now ample sourcing to back up the article's claims. Ergo Sum 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ergo Sum—@Buidhe:, if this sourcing is up to your standards, we can move ahead. If not, we're probably going back to WT:DYK and asking for more eyes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I've flagged the specific content in the article that supports the hook as needing a better source. There are other active cleanup tags on the article as well. However, I think there's sufficient sourcing for a modified version of the hook without the words "hundreds of". (t · c) buidhe 06:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- We could cite "countless" using the ref above instead of "hundreds of". Bermicourt (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- According to the source it's what Vatican Radio said about him after his death. DYK is not for eulogies imo. (t · c) buidhe 08:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not following—is the source unreliable because it's after his death? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, it's because it's Catholic presumably... We could always add "according to Vatican Radio..." But better still, we just need to cite the exact text from one of the many non-Catholic book sources and the problem will be solved. Bermicourt (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- And yet another source: O'Reilly (2001) in Forgotten Battles: Italy's War of Liberation 1943-45 states that "the Vatican was able to assist many of Rome's Jews and others sought by the Germans through Father Pancrazio Pfeiffer's intervention with the Germans... His work was recounted by Robert Graham who has written extensively on the Vatican's role in World War II." Bermicourt (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- And another: Bartley (2016) in Catholics Confronting Hitler states that "Father Pancrace [sic] Pfeiffer, a German priest and the superior general of the Salvatorian Order, was the pope's liaison with the German military. Several hundred hostages, including some under sentence of death, owed their release to the efficacious intervention of Father Pfeiffer." I don't know why I'm doing this - you can look up the references yourselves instead of opining and speculating from the sidelines in the classic Wikipedia way. :) Bermicourt (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Bermicourt: Since it seems you have access to several sources that I do not (probably just requires further digging), would you want to add them as inline citations with page numbers, especially to support the proposition regarding hundreds of people saved? Ergo Sum 13:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- And another: Bartley (2016) in Catholics Confronting Hitler states that "Father Pancrace [sic] Pfeiffer, a German priest and the superior general of the Salvatorian Order, was the pope's liaison with the German military. Several hundred hostages, including some under sentence of death, owed their release to the efficacious intervention of Father Pfeiffer." I don't know why I'm doing this - you can look up the references yourselves instead of opining and speculating from the sidelines in the classic Wikipedia way. :) Bermicourt (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- And yet another source: O'Reilly (2001) in Forgotten Battles: Italy's War of Liberation 1943-45 states that "the Vatican was able to assist many of Rome's Jews and others sought by the Germans through Father Pancrazio Pfeiffer's intervention with the Germans... His work was recounted by Robert Graham who has written extensively on the Vatican's role in World War II." Bermicourt (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, it's because it's Catholic presumably... We could always add "according to Vatican Radio..." But better still, we just need to cite the exact text from one of the many non-Catholic book sources and the problem will be solved. Bermicourt (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not following—is the source unreliable because it's after his death? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- According to the source it's what Vatican Radio said about him after his death. DYK is not for eulogies imo. (t · c) buidhe 08:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- We could cite "countless" using the ref above instead of "hundreds of". Bermicourt (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I've flagged the specific content in the article that supports the hook as needing a better source. There are other active cleanup tags on the article as well. However, I think there's sufficient sourcing for a modified version of the hook without the words "hundreds of". (t · c) buidhe 06:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ergo Sum—@Buidhe:, if this sourcing is up to your standards, we can move ahead. If not, we're probably going back to WT:DYK and asking for more eyes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- I have added several inline citations to the article, which refer to sources that were (very helpfully) added by Bermicourt. These sources support several of the very specific claims in the article, as well as the general thrust of the article which is in dispute here, namely that Pfeiffer was a liaison and in that capacity saved many Jews and others from the Nazis. In light of these reliable sources supporting the general claims, I think any concern about the pre-existing ones describing some of his more specific actions is ameliorated. There is a trove of additional sources in the Further Reading section that additionally describe in much greater detail Pfeiffer's actions but they are either in a foreign language which I do not adequately read to make use of as citations or are offline. All being said, I think there is now ample sourcing to back up the article's claims. Ergo Sum 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: I think we're taking that as a 'no'—what's your next step? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- It's not for you to speak for other editors. I'm willing to add one inline citation from those above to support a revised hook, but not to do the nom's job for them. I have other articles to work on. BTW I don't have access to anything more than the internet. Y'all just need to look harder. Bermicourt (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, Bermicourt, I don't mean to give answers on your behalf, but I didn't want the nom to rely on someone else to do the work, like you said, especially if that means stalling the nom for twelve days. also, I appreciate your use of y'all :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- :) That and Po' boy is about the extent of my "southern" vocabulary lol. Bermicourt (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- po' boy twangin' the rhythm out, on his kalamazoo / and willy goes into a dance and doubles on kazoo... in all seriousness, though, back to the nomination—Ergo Sum, ball's in your court at the moment theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what it means to do "nom's job" for them. WP is a collaborative project, so when an editor has something to add to an article, I just encourage them to add it themselves. But that's besides the point. I've done my best to track down these sources and I found several of the major ones relied on by the WP Pfeiffer articles in other languages. At the moment, every proposition in the article is supported by inline citations to reliable sources. For those sources that some have questioned (even though I believe they are solid sources), I have provided citations to multiple sources. Therefore, I think this article is ready. Ergo Sum 04:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- All right, buidhe? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- oops, buidhe? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what it means to do "nom's job" for them. WP is a collaborative project, so when an editor has something to add to an article, I just encourage them to add it themselves. But that's besides the point. I've done my best to track down these sources and I found several of the major ones relied on by the WP Pfeiffer articles in other languages. At the moment, every proposition in the article is supported by inline citations to reliable sources. For those sources that some have questioned (even though I believe they are solid sources), I have provided citations to multiple sources. Therefore, I think this article is ready. Ergo Sum 04:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- po' boy twangin' the rhythm out, on his kalamazoo / and willy goes into a dance and doubles on kazoo... in all seriousness, though, back to the nomination—Ergo Sum, ball's in your court at the moment theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- :) That and Po' boy is about the extent of my "southern" vocabulary lol. Bermicourt (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, Bermicourt, I don't mean to give answers on your behalf, but I didn't want the nom to rely on someone else to do the work, like you said, especially if that means stalling the nom for twelve days. also, I appreciate your use of y'all :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Since Buidhe seems not available, I looked at the article and I think it is GTG. All claims appear cited, although I'd have to AGF foreign sources used. It would be better to verify some claims with academic sources, as some of the ones used seem to be newspapers/magazines, but none has been flagged as unreliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
