Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Polish Question

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 09:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Polish Question

edit
(
)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 18:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC).

  • The article is long enough, new enough, reliably referenced, and has no close paraphrasing. You might want to take care of the category that doesn't exist. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the category. — Maile (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Nowhere that I can find does the article give a figure of a century and a half or 150 years. The intro talks about two centuries, and the source cited, in its first paragraph after the break on page 11, does use "of the last two centuries". The paragraph after that, however, says that the Question could not be resolved for 150 years, which is probably where the hook's number comes from, but (as noted) the article makes no mention of that time period. Without it being in the article, it can't be in the hook. As a side note, the hook's "about one and a half century" is not great wording, even ignoring that "century" should be "centuries" in this construction; regardless of what other changes are made, there will have to be some sort of hook modification. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I know where the 150 number comes from. It is a synthesis: year 1795 is the starting point here with Warsaw Uprising (1794), Wilno Uprising (1794), and Greater Poland Uprising (1794) against the final Third Partition of Poland (1795) + 150 = 1945; it is the year of Yalta Conference where the status of Poland was discussed for the last time with different borders suggested first by Churchill, than by Roosevelt, and finally by Morgenthau... Stalin of course won that argument by default because the Red Army was already there. — The problem with the 150 number is that once Poland re-established herself in the Interbellum the Polish Question was no more until World War II (for some 20 years). That's why cited historians don't say it like that. Poeticbent talk 04:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wherever it came from, it can't appear in the hook unless it appears (with sourcing) in the article. I've struck the hook due to the issues noted above; we'll need an ALT hook proposal for this nomination to continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • But it IS sourced, in the lead: "The Polish Question was a major topic at all major European peace conferences: in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna, in 1919 at the Versailles Conference, in and at the Yalta Conference and the Potsdam Conference in 1945 [ref]". That's about one and a half centuries, isn't it? I don't see the problem. Let me add a little clarification as ALT11 below.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the Polish Question was a major question for the European diplomacy for about one and a half century, following the late 18th century's partitions of Poland?
  • Piotrus, 130 years (1815 through 1945) is not a century and a half (150 years) or even close; the latter is inaccurate in this case. ALT1 has no clarification that I can see; it appears identical to the original hook, and still problematic, so I've struck it again. If you want to use "well over a century" or "over a century and a quarter", either would fly for that time period, though the three lead data points, the first two a century apart, would be insufficient if the article's body didn't also mention other times as well. I still think that if you're going to put a number or a definition in centuries in the hook, it needs to also be specifically mentioned in the article, since that's the DYK rule: "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." (Underlining from original in WP:DYK.) Aside from that, there are wording issues with the hook you've offered: "Polish Question" and "major question" is redundant, and "European diplomacy" does not need a "the" before it. The article also makes clear that the Question was moribund for significant periods during these years, and this should perhaps be alluded to in the hook as well; perhaps a "much of" qualifier could be added to the century plus, or "major question" could change to something like "major recurring issue" or "major recurring problem in European diplomacy", which would also take care of the intermittent nature of the Polish Question. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that the Polish Question was a major recurring issue in European diplomacy for over a century, following the late-18th-century's partitions of Poland?
  • ALT2 is approved (with added hyphens), though I think a switch of clauses at the end would read better as follows:
If the promoter wants to add "well" before "over" in either version, I wouldn't object. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • ALT2b approved; striking prior approved ALTs in favor of this one. Thanks, Piotrus. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: the article has just been moved from "Polish Question" to "Polish question"; I've adjusted the approved ALT2b hook and the DYKmake and DYKnompage templates on this page to reflect the name change. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Polish_Question&oldid=1020946649"