Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Jew with a coin

< Template:Did you know nominations
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) 05:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Jew with a coin, Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, "Never Again" Association, Rafał Pankowski

edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)
[[File:|150px|Figurines of Jewish men in Kraków, the one on the left holding a coin and bag ]]
Figurines of Jewish men in Kraków, the one on the left holding a coin and bag
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2019–20 RFU Championship
  • Comment: I have a bunch of articles here, but the really-really hooky and cool one is Jew with a coin. Reviewer - you have an important job - I've listed many possible hooks - please convey your opinions on which hook (or hooks) are the hookiest (or in this case, convey a WTF moment). If we have an additional article in the hook (other than Jew with a coin) that's a bonus - but the main-main thing I want here is hookiness.

Created by Icewhiz (talk), Piotrus (talk), 92.3.3.67 (talk), Drmies (talk), E.M.Gregory (talk), MyMoloboaccount (talk), Kayteigh (talk), Xx236 (talk), Jpbowen (talk), and Slatersteven (talk). Nominated by Icewhiz (talk) at 08:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC).

  • Date, size, copyvio spotcheck, QCQ ok. Concern #1: the article is not stable yet, a few days may be needed for some tug of wars/reverts/etc. do die down; there's also a NPOV template at the top of the article, this needs to be removed and not challenged for the DYK to be stable for main page. (Ping me if you think this has happened and I'll rereview this). Concern #2. Hooks are interesting, but 1) first one - I don't think qualifier "many" is correct, per my comment on nom's talk page. 2) ok, but I'd add 'some', I don't think it's a custom for majority of them 3) ok but just one minor event, a bit boring 4) I like it, through perhaps a bit too technical for a casual reader 4) my favorite 5) interesting, but I'd rather go with 4 that attribute a single scholar opinion that may not be universally shared. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note you are co-named as an author - you should not be reviewing. These are in 18% of around 10 million homes = many. If you have a better word - go ahead and suggest. There is a NPOV tag only on Pankowski, which is only relevant for one hook (ALT2) - the others should be good.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I'll just note that neither Pankowski nor the Association seem to be linked in the hook, they probably should have stand-alone and separate DYK nominations and hooks. For what's it worth, I think the 'jew with the coin' article is neutral right now, but whether it is stable, I am unsure. The next reviewer will check on that anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Object-Joannas Tokarska-Bakirs claims have been widely rejected by others up to the point of her being openly ridiculed by other scholars in this field[1]. Right now her claims are shown as valid and serious.Just one of the issues the article has.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
It is attributed analysis - and I don't quite see where the Polish language journal states that. Please note that BLPTALK applies vs. the chair of the ethnic and national relations study at the Polish Academy of Sciences's Institute of Slavic Studies who is a well respected and widely cited authority in the field.Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually Tokarska herself mentions this and calls Sorbona professor Ludwik Stomma who ridiculed her "ancient lizard"(best translation to her insult "praszczur" I could think of)and mastodont[2]</ref>
All the source you have brought shows is that Stomma, who per plwiki is also a columnist in Hustler magazine, disagreed with Tokarska-Bakir - a chair ethnic and national relations study. Unsurprisingly, Tokarska-Bakir's analysis continues to be quoted and cited - usually without Stomma.Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Stomma is reliable,and actually seems to have both longer and higher scholar status that Tokarska.Worked at University of Warsaw,Krakow Jagiellonian University, Institute of Arts PAN, University of Torun, published over 14 books on ethnology and worked at Sorbonna University.Has dozens of dozens of scholarly articles.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Tread carefully, my friends. EEng 07:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Nomination has been stuck for weeks due to possible fringe topics concerns. Due to this, unless the editors and reviewers can come into an agreement, this nomination is now marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I have reopened this nomination for a new reviewer. Probably do it myself soon. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks. The main hook, ALT1, and ALT4 should be good to go. Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    Icewhiz, I am going to read the article carefully over the next few days. I am sure you are pretty familiar with how DYK works. So, if the other articles are also technically qualifying of a DYK per the usual rules (GA or 5X expansion and more than 1500 char, etc.), I will invite you to nominate them on separate template pages. I will review them all separately and consider 24 May as their inherited nomination date.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    All the others technically meet DYK rules, however I do not intend to nom them (unless they fit into one of the hooks here - which is not a goal - I want the most hooky hook). Jew with a coin is cool and really hooky - real DYK material. The others are OK+ articles but a "meh" for DYK (they were all written as part of the same editing arc, and might get views off of Jew with a coin).Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1 -- they "blame the Jew" -- blame the Jew? Huh? What does that even mean? ALT4 -- "good use charm" -- what's a good use charm? And the article is a jumble of confusing and conflicting statements about these grotesques' history and symbolism. I again urge caution. EEng 23:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    The article is not a jumble - it could be slightly better organized and/or split into more subsections ("Ethnographic analysis" - sourced to multiple journal articles, at present - attributing each one (as we do when sources provide different interpretations - as they often do in anthropology and cultural studies) - could be) - It is 13Kb of prose, well under WP:SIZERULE. It is well sourced - mainly to academic sources, with some NEWSORG coverage. As for the hooks:
    ALT1 - source1, quoting Dr Shimon Samuels: "They are sold in huge numbers outside football matches and people buy them to bring luck to their side," he said. "But if their team loses, then the Jews are blamed.", source2: "Some take them along to football games for luck. If your team doesn't win it's the Jew's fault.". "Blame the Jew" here means either blaming the figurine and/or Jews generally - who failed to provide the "good luck" they were supposed to. I think the hook properly reflects the sources and that "blame the Jew" is obvious in context - it could be reworded if needed.
A football fan from Wrocław (population 650 000) has never seen such figurines. Where do they sell them?Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Source? One football fan? Small sample. I could point you to several brick and mortar stores (but not in Wrocław, off hand), but my simplest pointer would be allegro.pl (the Polish eBay/Amazon) where there are numerous items for sale of this type - allegro.pl search - and they do deliver.Icewhiz (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
And your academic result is ? "Some Poles buy poor quality pictures of Jews." We still don't know geographical distribution. You article describes Warsaw fans, one city. I have watched pictures in a souvenir shop in Wrocław, no such picture. I have asked if they hav eone to not influence the market.Xx236 (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The new ALT6 seems fine to me, the article is stable and can be promoted. However, since the review started, I've been added to the list of authors (and contributed a bit to the article), so perhaps another reviewer is needed? Ping User:BlueMoonset, user:Coffeeandcrumbs, . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • New and independent reviewer and assessment needed; as Piotrus is receiving credit for this nomination, he should absolutely not be reviewing or (especially) approving it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hooks below (copied from above) should be OK AFAICT (from this discussion):
  1. main: ... that in many Polish homes images of Orthodox Jews holding coins hang to the left of the doorway, and are customarily flipped over on the Sabbath so that good fortune may fall unto the home?
  2. ALT1:... that Polish football fans buy figurines of Orthodox Jews holding coins for good luck, but blame the Jew if their team loses?
  3. ALT6:... that while common today as a good luck charm in Poland, figurines of Orthodox Jews holding coins were probably first created in the times following the transition of government in 1989?

I think the main hook is most interesting. I am not opposed to minor language tweaks in any of these. Thanks! Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Repeating for clarity: a full review from scratch is needed, as the only previous reviews covering the general DYK criteria were made by someone receiving credit for work on the article. Thanks to any reviewer willing to take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Issues have not been resolved, fringe views are still presented and the article isn't neutral. MyMoloboaccount
    • The article uses mainstream sources. If are challenging one of them - please be specific, back up with sources.Icewhiz (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Inviting EEng or Coffeeandcrumbs to give this a new review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    It pains me to turn down such a request but I just don't have time in the foreseeable future. But please be careful. EEng 05:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    I don't know if I have the time to do a full review in a reasonable amount of time. However, I have two concerns I would like to voice:
    1. Where does the title "Jew with a coin" come from? Is there a reasonable argument for COMMONNAME in English-language sources? Otherwise, the title of the article in itself is not NPOV and should be renamed "Caricatures of Jews with a coin" or "Polish caricatures of Jews with a coin".--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    2. Whether or not the title is changed, the word caricature needs to appear in the first sentence. Otherwise, we would be accused, fairly, of claiming that these are honest portrayals of Jewish people.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Without these issues first being addressed, I do not feel comfortable getting into this minefield. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: - see source by Joanna Tokarska-Bakir using this in the title in English. (see also this translation from French with a similar name, [3] - Haaretz, [4] - Vice). There is a bit of variance in terminology in English, however all 3 other Wikis (Polish, Hebrew, and Russian) go with "Jew with coin(s)". As for stating outright it is a caricature - it is more complex. When I first encountered these - I had the same thought ("antisemitic caricature") as a knee-jerk reaction. However sources are much more nuanced - it seems that while based on prior caricatures, this has morphed into a good luck charm with some innocent uses. WP:RSes covering this reflect this nuance - this is true both for academic sources, and media - e.g. Tablet (A Jewish-American magazine) - POPULAR IMAGES OF JEWS IN KRAKOW: FOLK ART OR STEREOTYPICAL CARICATURES?. Our lead currently has the whole second paragraph (out of 2) devoted to whether it is antisemitic or a good-luck charm - so I don't think we should state this outright as a caricature. Would you be OK with an insertion of "controversial" to the first sentence of the first paragraph - "...are controversial images or figurines of a Jew holding a coin.... ? Icewhiz (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Some more problematic things that should be rephrased and additions I suggest:

  • Jews were associated with money and financial gain in Poland for many centuries -- associated is ambiguous and opened misinterpretation.
  • Jews have become associated with success in the capitalistic West -- same problem
  • Lehrer is given too much weight. Add more criticism from Umińska-Keff to balance, especially how In Poland, most often anti-Semitism is not recognized as anti-Semitism and how the duplication of myths and stereotypes continues, until it becomes mundane or commonplace. That Education would be the only effective answer, but there is none. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed 1+2 (I think). Added 3. Lehrer is a bit over weighted (though part of it is that she's published in English + publicized in popular English language media alot - so there's lots of Lehrer that can be used). If I were to address POV balance - my number-1 priority would be Tokarska-Bakir, and content related to the Church. However these have been a point of contention (e.g. diff) - and the article at present is at a delicate POV balance between involved editors (which is not perfect - but it isn't horrible either) - and is stable in this form so far. Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I just want repeat that IMHO hook no.6 is the best. The hook described now as main may contain some negative connotations (perhaps just for me, but flipping a symbol connected to religion like that reminds me of Satanic cross...) and alt 1, about the football fans, is very trivial, and I don't think it is sufficiently researched that most football fans in Poland indeed follow that custom. Other than that, I don't think there are any serious issues remaining in the article, as far as I am concerned. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
There is no point in considering any hook before we get a balanced NPOV article. I pointed out issues above which Icewhiz tried to address but was reverted. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: - well - actually one sentence did "stick" (so far). However perhaps you could reconsider? I agree that while the NPOV stance of the article be better - it is still within mainstream scholarship (unlike, for instance, Racism in Poland in various recent incarnations). The positive, half-full, outlook of Erica Lehrer is over-represented in regards to the more negative, half-empty, outlook of Joanna Tokarska-Bakir. I will note that Tokarska-Bakir isn't entirely negative, she concludes with : "As far-fetched as this viewpoint may seem, it enables us to see the grotesque practices of the Poles in a different, less irrational light. The ‘Jew with a coin’, protecting the Polish house from which he has been banished, would in this sense be not only a hunting trophy41 or the ‘return of the repressed’, but also a deformed sign of a moral initiation, which the Polish collective consciousness may be preparing for, if it possibly can[5] - it isn't that she disagrees with this aspect, but she stresses this from a more negative vantage point. We also represent all academic viewpoints in the article presently. Even if we are veering more towards Lehrer (note entirely) - we're still within the zone that is exhibited in major and well-received museum exhibitions. I will try to make some other improvements in presentation. Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I did the following edits - which I think address NPOV. We had criticism of Tokarska-Bakir without stating what this criticism was about (Freud). We also failed to mention that our sources of such criticism (Dobrosielski) actually agrees in his conclusion with Tokarska-Bakir. Icewhiz (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Considering the article does not seem to be stable at this point (as per Coffee's comments), I will give all editors involved here until August 28 to address all concerns. If any issues remain on that date, the nomination will be closed as unsuccessful. This nomination has been ongoing since May with relatively little meaningful progress taking place since then. If editors here can't get their act together, I just can't see this succeeding at DYK. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Narutolovehinata5:: Hi, sorry, but I've been watching this and I don't understand your comment here. What's unstable about the article? I don't see any edit warring in the recent history, and the only edits in the last month appear to be in response to concerns raised here. I also disagree with "relatively little meaningful progress" or "get their act together". Why isn't the progress meaningful? It seems almost all issues that were raised have been addressed here. In what way do editors not have "their act together"? As far as I can tell, the only outstanding problem is that C&C thinks "associated" is too ambiguous, and Staszek Lem doesn't, having reverted a change to that language here. Now, surely, this one word is not enough to fail a DYK? Or if there are other problems beyond "associated", can you list them, please? Thank you. – Levivich 14:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Regarding "'associated' is ambiguous" : this is a close and attributed rephrasing of what source cited says: "She [author] has been researching the history of the linking of Jews with money,", ""The Jew was ascribed a connection to money, no matter whether he actually had any," "The impoverished pre-War Jew was forgotten and Jews became associated with their financial success in the Western world.". Heck, the whole article subject is about association of the Jews with money. I understand the intent of Icewhiz's edit of this piece, but their edit distorted the idea presented in the source: for eons Jews EVERYWHERE, not only in the Poland were stereotypically associated with money; in 20th century this stereotype was less popular (firsts, due to poor shtetl imagery and post-WWII Żydokomuna imagery), and in post-Commie times the stereotype re-emerged. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Naruto themselves has to get their act together and don't act like some kind of czar trowing wild accusations against editors busily working on the improvement of the article on a controversial subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
        • FWIW I think "associated with money" is the right phrasing. In the cited source, the words "linked" and "connected" are used. While all these words are vague, it seems intentionally so, because the stereotypical associations between Jews and money are varied and contradictory. For example, common stereotypes about Jews and money include: Jews are cheap, Jews are frugal, Jews are greedy, Jews love money, Jews are "good with" money (wise in financial matters), Jews are rich, Jews are poor, Jews are responsible for economic failures, Jews are responsible for economic success, Jews control the banks. Words like "associated", "linked", and "connected" are sufficiently ambiguous to encapsulate all of that. I'm not sure how it could be better phrased, and I'm also unclear as to why this ambiguity is a bad thing or how it could be misinterpreted by the reader. So I think that one is fine the way it was, but regardless, there have been editors recently editing the article in response to Coffee's comments above, so let's see what Coffee thinks about the recent changes and whether they satisfy the outstanding concerns.
          While I'm here, one more thing I'd like to say, which is that ALT6 is not IMO the best choice. What's interesting about Jew with a coin isn't that it originated after the 1989 transitional gov't ("What the hell is that?", most readers will think to themselves). What's interesting about Jew with a coin is that it exists. The hook could literally be: "Did you know... that Jew with a coin is a thing?", and readers would click on it. It's all in the title. I would think maybe something like:
          • ALT7: "... that in one out of five Polish homes hangs a figurine of a Jew with a coin as a talisman for financial luck?" – Levivich 20:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Hook is good, struck to cut down on reviewing time.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
            I like ALT0 - ... that in many Polish homes images of Orthodox Jews holding coins hang to the left of the doorway, and are customarily flipped over on the Sabbath so that good fortune may fall unto the home? ....
            for this reason - it makes it clear it is fairly widespread + introduces one (of a few) quirky customs involved - and is good clickbait. OK with ALT7 too. Staszek Lem has just made a few improvements to the article in terms of phrasing that may allay some of the concerns. Icewhiz (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Please strike any hooks I should ignore. I will read the entire article a few more times over the weekend. My issue with the use of associated is that it is not clear who is active subject and inactive object and the meaning of the sentence changes depending on which the reader understands is active. A misintepretation can be that Jews actively associate themselves with financial gain. That is a common antisemitic canard for Jews. (Surely, we are not claiming that Bożena Umińska-Keff believes that.) You need to make clear that it is Polish people (and others) who associate [sic] Jewish people with money; that Jews are an unwilling targets of this stereotype. The first use of the verb associated now makes that clear by adding stereotypically. However, the second time associated appears, it is not the clear. Find a better word. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
re: common antisemitic canard. Yes, exactly. And this was meant in the text. To clarify I add a qualifier "stereotypically associated". I do not think we have to repeat it it the second sentence, since the meaning is clear from context. We are not lawyers or filing a patent. There should be a trade-off between absolute preciseness and readability. There is no better word, and the source cited does not have an issue with this, since the whole subject is about stereotypes. Not to say that the second usage has nothing to do with canards. (If one thinks that association with success is insulting, I would be worried about one's sanity). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Looking at all this nitpicking, it appears that someone got confused DYK discussion with Featured Article nomination. Get real. Articles are never perfect. Al long as there are no glaring violations, let my people go. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
This nomination is asking for the photo spot. No matter what we do, we are going to offend a lot of people. Please allow me some time before I risk my reputation on this hook. Have patience. This is a very sensitive subject. No one else is willing to take the review.
Do you want me to step aside and let this nomination die in obscurity? Otherwise, be constructive or step aside yourself. I am a volunteer. I don't have to do anything I am not comfortable with.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Please note that my earlier comments about "neutrality" were meant to be a reflection of the concerns raised by Coffee, EEng and other editors. As it appears that my comments were misinterpreted and I admit that I am uncomfortable working on controversial topics such as these, I will no longer be commenting on this nomination and will be leaving the rest to Coffee. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I have stricken the hooks rejected hooks as requested. Additionally, I stricken ALT1 and offer up for consideration: ALT1B that some Polish football fans superstitiously purchase figurines of Orthodox Jews holding coins to bring their team good luck, and blame it if they lose?
@Icewhiz: You indicated that you would be okay with a re-wording for ALT1. In reviewing one of the hook's sources, the article makes clear that the folks partaking in this "tradition" view the Jewish people almost as a concept as Polish society begins to come to terms with the loss of much of its Jewish heritage. I don't think it is entirely fair to say that they "blame the Jews" as an American like me might understand that phrase. Instead, I add the word "superstitiously" to ensure the hook still makes clear that this practice is rather "antiquated" nor realistically acceptable by modern standards. Does this new wording work for you? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I am OK with ALT1B - note that "blame the Jew" in ALT1 refers to the figurine. Prefer ALTO (main hook).Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Struck to save time in the review process here. ALT0 is probably best.Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll admit ALT1B is not as preferable as ALT0, though. I agree with you there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Any issue with changing "many" to "some"? I understand 16% or 18% of 10 million is still many people. But it is still a minority. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
ALT0S ... that in some Polish homes an image of an Orthodox Jew holding a coin hangs to the left of the doorway, and is customarily flipped over on the Sabbath so that good fortune may fall unto the home?
Many does not indicate a majority (and a majority,55% 65% IIRC, have seen this at a family home (their own or a relative)). I think "many" is appropriate given scale (millions) and more precise (some can read as an isolated phenomena). However - I am not opposed to "some" in ALT0S above.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I have copy edited the hook to make it singular. I assume they only hang one image per home. Can you link to either Shabbat or Sabbath please? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Linked. Can be multiple, but singular os typical.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The hook looks good to me now. But our article says "hallway" (which seems ambiguous, external or internal hallway?). The English-translated source by Tartakowsky says "to the left of one’s front door".[6] What does the Polish source say?[7]
And can we mention in our article that it is "likely mockery of the Jewish mezuzah"? Perhaps in the text with the other criticism from Tartakowsky. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It is usually near the entrance (see quote) - but it varies - while the image is clear, customs vary (new superstition). Note also that many Poles live in flats - so layout is more obvious. Ewa Tartakowsky is the only one I recall linking this to the mezuzah - need to attribute this. Tokarska-Bakir links to placement of Slavic house demons - see her English 2019 paper "Whatever the interpretation, the ‘Jew with a coin’ becomes one of the numerous benevolent supernatural beings, such as the skrzat, chobold, kłobuk, lataniec, plonek, chowaniec, inkluz and sporysz30, protecting Polish houses cleansed of the Jews. He is placed at the door (‘on the left side in the entrance hall or porch’), and Kazimierz Moszyński has linked this to the Finno-Ugric and ancient Slavic custom of placing the figurines of ancestors, and even to images of the holy corner31".Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Fixed + added mezuzah.Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Usually, I am required to review all hooks proposed. Would you like me to do that so you have alternatives or would you rather strike them? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Do ALT0S and ALT6 so we have a fallback.Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
One more thing about ALT0S, you have three sources: "upside down"[8] or "turned on their heads"[9] which mean the same thing versus "flipped over"[10] which means something completely different (where the image faces the wall). I think you should state both or say "upside down". What do you think? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I just trying to think every ERROR some one can report to pull this. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
ALT0SF ... that in some Polish homes an image of a Jew holding a coin (example pictured) hangs to the left of the doorway, and is customarily turned upside down on Sabbath so that good fortune may fall unto the home?
I meant upside down in flipped over - which can be ambiguous as you state. I think TOI was imprecise in a manner similar to me - this is often coupled with placing a coin behind the frame. I think we are OK with one custom as we preceede with "some". I trimmed a few words as this was close to 200 chars.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I would trim the verbosity a bit: ALT0SF_1 ... that in some Polish homes an figurine of a Jew holding a coin hangs by the door, and is turned upside down on Sabbath to attract good fortune?
Reasons: (1) "hangs to the left of the doorway" this detail of hanging is meaningless unless someone known about mezuzah (2) "customarily" is redundant due to "on Sabbath" (3) "so that good fortune may fall unto the home" - too flowery and pompous. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this change - (1) left could be cut, though I'd wager many readers know about the mezuzah, and while a small detail - it is not lacking importance. (2) "customarily" - again could be cut if we're over character limits, but the custom here has little relation to the Sabbath. (3) - To this I'm very much opposed, as turning it over has everything to do with good fortune falling out of the image. e.g.:
  1. Lehrer - page 77 - "turned upside down at the end of the week so all the money the Jew has attracted will fall out on his day of rest".
  2. TOI - [11] - " the images are turned on their heads on Friday nights, so the money being counted may fall down on the family that owns it.".
  3. Also multiple accounts in Tokarska-Bakir: [12].
We can be more explicit in that turning over the Jew is supposed to cause money from the Jew to fall on the house - but this is an important detail, central to the custom. Icewhiz (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would oppose to DYK for a couple of reasons. First, I think that placing pages about non-notable antisemitic stereotypes on the front page of Wikipedia is a bad taste. Second, I do not think this is something really interesting for a general reader. As a note of order, I never edited this page or commented about it before, precisely because the subject is not really interesting, but only serves as magnet for people engaged in ethnicity-related disputes, as should be clear from comments made during a currently active arbitration case. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, I would not call it nonnotable for three reasons: (1) occurrence: it is countrywide widespread (2)of notice: it caused a flurry of international comment (3)nontrivial: it is sincerely considered not antisemitic by those who have it. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks pretty much as an antisemitic stereotype to me, and the page does tell it came from the "antisemitic canard of the Jewish moneylender". So, if anyone would like to make a point that 19% of Polish population are openly antisemitic, this is the way to go. But yes, that does look notable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
My point is that the 19% genuinely do not think it is antisemitic. And this is not at all unusual or shocking or a revelation: I can bring you an endless list of racist things considered innocent; you may start with The priceless racism of the Duke of Edinburgh. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a highly notable object, and exactly the material for DYK - it is a very interesting custom - of interest both to the lay person (several full piece items in popular media) and to the expert (of whom several wrote, at length, about it). The item has featured in museum exhibits - intended for public consumption. MVBW's conduct assertions of "would like to make a point" should be struck. In terms of mainstream research on antisemitism in Poland - see this journal paper, or the Polish Prejudice Survey which concludes with "The results of the third edition of the Polish Prejudice Survey show that Antisemitism is still a serious social problem in Poland." and notes "around one third of the Poles at least to a certain degree denies the humanity to the Jews", Results on belief on Jewish conspiracy range up to 53.5%. It also cites a prior 2016 study: "Research carried out annually by the Center for Public Opinion Research shows that the Jews are one of the most disliked nations in Poland – in a study conducted in 2016 almost 40% of the respondents expressed their reluctance toward the Jews". So lets put it this way - if one were interested in making a point (which is not what motivated this article - it shouldn't have been controversial to begin with) - numbers are higher for antisemitism at large. The antisemitic nature of this particular item are debatable - most owners in Poland see it as a harmless folk superstition.Icewhiz (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I can only say that the image of Jews with money and the wikilink to page about the "Jew with a coin" are now included to page Antisemitic canard, and rightly so. My very best wishes (talk)

Icewhiz, in ALT6, find a way to remove common today from the blurb. Perhaps something along the lines "figurines..., seen as a good luck charm in Poland". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It also uses more words than necessary. Please use similar language found in the lead section: dates back to. Since this blurb talks about the origins, we need to balance it by including a mention of the antisemitic canard with similar language found in the second paragraph of the lead. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

ALT6U:... that good luck charms of Jews holding coins (example pictured) draw on a traditional antisemitic canard of the Jewish moneylender, but probably only date back to after the 1989 transition of Polish government?
See above - 176 chars per my count. Icewhiz (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Please include page number in cite template for ref # 10. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Page 79.Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Added backup image.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: Please remove the latest illustration. It is unprofessional original research. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it OR - it's pretty much a free-hand drawn copy of an existing image - but given it is unprofessional - removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 08:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I am ready to approve ALT0SF and ALT6U. I am only waiting for c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:02018 0505 Solina-Stausee cropped.jpg. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Backup image below (cropped from a long line of figurines). The deletion on commons has been open for months.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The caption should not imply that the figurines are made by Jewish people. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Fixed. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
[[File:|150px|Figurines of Jewish men in Kraków, the one on the left holding a coin and bag ]]
Figurines of Jewish men in Kraków, the one on the left holding a coin and bag

The article has been tagged. Please address the issues. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, C&C, for your work on this review. I just want to point out that MyMoloboaccount, an editor involved in a pending Arbcom case with Icewhiz, has tagged up the article after C&C posted here "I am ready to approve", even though Molobo has been involved in this article, and this review has been open, for months. I'm going WP:AGF that's just a coincidence. – Levivich 14:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussing on talk page. This may also merit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, as diff "figurines aren't widely used" is blatant WP:OR (very poor OR at that - edit summary: "19% means 81% don't used, so not wide. This within limits of acceptable editing on Wikipedia" - I think this is very much not acceptable editing), and contradicted by a multitude of sources - see Talk:Jew with a coin/Archive 1#"aren't widely spread" (including Dobrosielski himself who is the survey source!). I did provide citations where relevant (though I did self revert this wording improvement (that addresses MyMoloboaccount's concerns - I think) - for purely technical reasons (3RR due to intervening edits by MyMoloboaccount as I was attempting to address his tags). MyMoloboaccount also seems to have made changes to the article since tagging, so it is unclear what POV issues are remaining (per MyMoloboaccount's POV) following said edits. I am continuing to discuss on the talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I have all the faith in the world that this new content dispute will be resolved amicably through discussion, just like the ones before it. I just feel bad that you and others have been working so hard here, only to have one roadblock after another put in your way. Sincerely: hats off to you and C&C, please don't give up. – Levivich 15:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich and Icewhiz: I have removed the {{POV}} tag. I'll note that, having participated in the evidence and workshop portions of Antisemitism in Poland, I'm not as optimistic as Levivich here. However, Icewhiz; it may be worth asking here for another injunction or just for this one to be passed. It's pretty clear that these recent DYKs have caused (likely unintentional) newly flared tensions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
No need for any special injunction here. The article is under WP:ARBEE anyway, and enforcement can be made at WP:AE if needed. Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: ALT0SF (186 char) and ALT6U (190 char), copied below for convenience, are good according to my review. New when nominated. Long enough. No apparent COPYVIO per EarWig's (except for quotes). Both hooks cited inline.

Please be very careful with changes to the blurbs moving through promotion process. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jew_with_a_coin&oldid=1141706864"