- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Bierut Decree
edit- ... that the Bierut Decree of 1945 nationalized all immovable property in the Polish capital of Warsaw? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=f9vbBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA361
- Reviewed: Leptoconops kerteszi
Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 05:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC).
Date, length and neutrality verified. No copyright violations detected and QPQ has been met. The source supports the hook, also it does not mention the decree as being commonly named the Bierut Decree, however, this source from the article does. The hook is interesting enough but could possibly be improved by somehow stating that Warsaw had almost completely been destroyed by the Nazis and the degree was actually a vital step in rebuilding the city. Not sure how you would get that all in the hook within the allowed 200 characters length. Turismond (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- ALT1:... that the 1945 Bierut Decree, nationalising all immovable property in the Polish capital of Warsaw, was a vital step in rebuilding the city after its destruction by the Nazis?
- @Turismond: I am unsure if all sources would agree on this being 'vital'. Some, yes, but I have scanned a bunch of Polish sources and I am not sure if this would be an uncontroversial claim. So for neutrality reasons, I'd suggest rephrasing into ALT2 below (which also links to the interesting destruction of Warsaw article). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- ALT2:... that the 1945 the Bierut Decree, nationalising all immovable property in the Polish capital of Warsaw, facilitated rebuilding the city after its destruction by the Nazis?
- Yes Piotrus, I wasn't quite sure about the word "vital" either and thought about using "important" instead. In any case, I think your Alt2 is quite good and fine with me, too. Turismond (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Oppose' - "facilitated", "important" etc., are judgement calls from the Communist point of view. E.g., Dresden was rebuild without this shtick. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is what the source says. I am not fond of the Polish communist regime, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient here, do you have sources that explicitly disagree with this POV? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's not what the source cited say. Nor the decree itself. If I missed something, please give a quotation. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is what the source says. I am not fond of the Polish communist regime, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient here, do you have sources that explicitly disagree with this POV? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- ALT1:... that the 1945 Bierut Decree, nationalising all immovable property in the Polish capital of Warsaw, was a vital step in rebuilding the city after its destruction by the Nazis?
oppose the nominationI am surprized how such a venerable wikipedian as Piotrus has written such a sloppy text. It looks like the Piutrus did not read the decree itself. the descree specifically says that the decree nationalized only land, the immovable properties remained in old ownership unless specifically decided otherwise. There are many other blunders and omissions. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I removed the part of the sentence that used 'facilitating' word. This should address this concern I believe? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Reading and interpreting the decree is primary research. I am citing reliable secondary sources. Please show which sources contradict other reliable sources, preferably on talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh puhlease, wikilawyering, from Piotrus?? I am interpreting into the article nothing and not suggesting you do the same. Just quote it. If secondary sources contradict original, find better sources. Sources make errors as well, you know. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- But it is not our job to call them errors. Particularly when it comes to translating old legal documents. Two academic book sources state as follows: "The Decree... nationalozed all immovable property within the limits of the city" and "The Decree... transferred ownership of all property within the prewar boundaries of Warsaw to the [municipality of Warsaw." Yes, the Polish source here [1] does seem to disagree, but TBH pl:Infor PL seems less reliable than academic books published by Oxford University Press. Now, I think the odds are decent that Polish source is more correct than English ones, BUT we need more reliable sources to make that point. And yes, I am sorry, reading the decree is OR because again our (mine...) understanding of it may be imperfect (maybe it was modified shortly and we are reading a wrong copy, etc.). That's why our policy is to use secondary/tetriary sources. Anyway, I invite you to present more reliable sources about this. I will edit the article to note that sources disagree, and I will propose an ALT3 hook that hopefully addresses them below. (@Turismond and Staszek Lem:). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
But it is not our job to call them errors
- so our job is to spread misinformation, then? We are not calling them errors in the article. We just do not cite them. There is plenty of error in historical texts. Our job is to exercise editorial judgement. I may understand where sources come from. They just sloppily summarized what had happened. Although the decree did not nationalize the properties directly, the communists simply did not give permits for previous owners to rebuild. And the question of ownership of destroyed buildings was moot: rubble removed, new property built by the state. I've seen some sources about that. I will try to update the article when I have time ... next year :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- But it is not our job to call them errors. Particularly when it comes to translating old legal documents. Two academic book sources state as follows: "The Decree... nationalozed all immovable property within the limits of the city" and "The Decree... transferred ownership of all property within the prewar boundaries of Warsaw to the [municipality of Warsaw." Yes, the Polish source here [1] does seem to disagree, but TBH pl:Infor PL seems less reliable than academic books published by Oxford University Press. Now, I think the odds are decent that Polish source is more correct than English ones, BUT we need more reliable sources to make that point. And yes, I am sorry, reading the decree is OR because again our (mine...) understanding of it may be imperfect (maybe it was modified shortly and we are reading a wrong copy, etc.). That's why our policy is to use secondary/tetriary sources. Anyway, I invite you to present more reliable sources about this. I will edit the article to note that sources disagree, and I will propose an ALT3 hook that hopefully addresses them below. (@Turismond and Staszek Lem:). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- ALT3: :... that the 1945 the Bierut Decree nationalized all land in the Polish capital of Warsaw after its destruction by the Nazis?
- I understand that the nationalisation of property in Poland by the communists is a contentious issue but this is probably beyond this DYK nomination to discuss. Having absolutely no knowledge on the decree and being unable to understand Polish I can only go by the provided source which states that the decree nationalised all imovable property and that it alllowed for the rebuilding of the city. The comparison with Dresden, in my opinion, fails to account for the fact the Warsaw lost two thirds of its population during the war while Dresden lost only a quarter, something that would have made quite a difference in the rebuilding. I'm happy with the hook based on the provided source but, as an alternative, is it possible to have this looked at by another Polish-speaking editor who can read and understand the decree? Turismond (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK with this. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- ALT3: :... that the 1945 the Bierut Decree nationalized all land in the Polish capital of Warsaw after its destruction by the Nazis?
Looking for a Polish-speaking/reading editor to check the decree per the discussion above and render an opinion on this DYK nomination and the suitability of the hook. Thanks. Staszek Lem, are you still intending to make updates based on those sources you've seen? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am very sorry, I did not expect that December DYK will dangle until February. I will try do do something quickly, but not much. I do have little time for wikipedia now, doing mostly rv and cleanup of whatever pops up in the watchlist. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I did some writeup. Please tell me which parts of the decree you want to see in exact wording. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Turismond, I think Staszek Lem's query above is for you, since I was just posting per your request. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Sorry for the late reply, I havn't been very active here of late. This nomination has been going for a while but I myself was happy with the proposed hook. There was however objections from Staszek Lem which I could not quite follow as it invovled the Polish text of the decree. Staszek Lem has added a translation of Article 1 to the article now which, I believe, supports hook 3, which speaks of only the land being nationalised, not all immovable property. I'm happy to give it a
. Turismond (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Sorry for the late reply, I havn't been very active here of late. This nomination has been going for a while but I myself was happy with the proposed hook. There was however objections from Staszek Lem which I could not quite follow as it invovled the Polish text of the decree. Staszek Lem has added a translation of Article 1 to the article now which, I believe, supports hook 3, which speaks of only the land being nationalised, not all immovable property. I'm happy to give it a
- Turismond, I think Staszek Lem's query above is for you, since I was just posting per your request. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- I did some writeup. Please tell me which parts of the decree you want to see in exact wording. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- I am very sorry, I did not expect that December DYK will dangle until February. I will try do do something quickly, but not much. I do have little time for wikipedia now, doing mostly rv and cleanup of whatever pops up in the watchlist. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
