Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten

< 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten, Jan Wolthuis, Jan Hartman, Paul van Tienen

edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Created/expanded by Drmies (talk). Self nom at 04:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Mandarax, I know it's too long, but I figured I'd get some slack for a quadruple. I'll see if I can tweak it some more, but I want to keep the "affiliations" in there. BTW, this was in the news again yesterday, relatedly if you will, via Klaas Carel Faber, who is still alive and well in Germany. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT1: "... that in 1951 former NSB judge Jan Wolthuis and Waffen-SS volunteer Jan Hartman founded the Dutch organization of convicted WW2 collaborators Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten, which was turned into a political party by SS volunteer Paul van Tienen?" If my count is accurate, according to Wikipedia:DYKAR#C3, this is 213 characters, including "emblem pictured" and the question mark. I wish I could keep the ban in there--it is very, very unusual for the Dutch to ban a political party. Perhaps "emblem pictured", somewhat awkwardly in the middle of an adjective construction, can be replaced by a longer but more eloquently placed "NSB emblem pictured" later on in the sentence. What do you think? Drmies (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There's some leeway for multis, but I just felt that the original stretched it too far, especially when we're squeezing eight hooks into a set (although just today it's been suggested to cut back to seven). As for ALT1.... I'm not sure if it's an "official" rule, but the generally accepted practice (and the one used by DYKcheck) is that we do not count "(pictured)", but do count anything extra. Depending on how various rules are interpreted, the length could be around 206, which I would say is fine for a quadruple (although shorter is better). Can we abbreviate to "WWII"? And the "in 1951" placement seems awkward; it might be better right after the "that". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've made tweaks to ALT1. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that the emblem is omitted, as either it is a copyright infringement, or non-genuine. The point about limiting the length is because there is not much real estate on the front page, so if an extra long one like this goes on it will have to bump another off. For four articles though it would be worth doing. But this would be up to prep builders. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed the image from this page and nominated it for deletion. Anything else? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The articles do need a complete review; they've never had one. Also, I've removed the "NSB emblem pictured" from the ALT1 hook now that the image is gone, and struck the original, overlong hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have done the ALT 2, shorter than ALT 1 and original hook. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

ALT 2 is missing something to connect the the first two phrase segments with the rest of it. This revision might work better, and it comes in at 186 characters after all bold links but the first article's are subtracted from the total:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMoonset (talk • contribs) 21:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a "judge" in the hook to establish Wolthuis's former status? Should "collaborators" or "criminals" be used? --George Ho (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Changed "a group" into "the organization". --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
As a stylistic matter, I believe that parentheses should be avoided in a DYK hook. If it's unimportant enough to go into a parenthesis, it probably should be removed from the hook altogether. If it's important, put it in the actual text. For "judge", I'll leave that to Drmies, who included it the first time. If you want to use "the" (e.g., "the organization") rather than "an", then the article needs to state (and cite the fact) that this was the only such group. Was it? (Thanks for adding a sig to my last post; sorry I forgot.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have checked the rules, and no rule about parentheses has been found. By the way, I've changed "the" into "an". If parentheses must be avoided, then:
  • I bet it is shorter under C3 and/or main rules. --George Ho (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • George, there isn't a rule about parentheses, but if you want to construct an interesting hook, parentheses are working against you. By their nature, they break the flow instead of helping the narrative. Like I said, it's a stylistic matter, though I didn't mean a MOS matter but effective writing style. I think your version flows better, but "Waffen-SS volunteer" and "NSB judge" add to the negative side of the ledger for Wolthius and Hartman. The question is what's most important for this hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I might not know what's most important for this hook, but I know this: readers might be intrigued by something either bolded or unbolded, so they can click either one. There are other important things for this hook: length, review, sources, and content. I can't tell which is more important, but, if including former statuses is intriguing, and length is the lesser problem, then:
  • Should "volunteer" become "member"? Should "collaborators" become "criminals"? --George Ho (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • After a lot of thought, and to avoid another disaster, may I make separate hooks here? I hope it's not too late. --George Ho (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Why not? This has been stalled for a month so may as well move it forward. by having four hooks for four articles. Then someone might actually evaluate the individual articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Separate hooks (ALT 6)
I have made above separate hooks. How can this nomination be passed with separate hooks? --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Paul van Tienen is new, neutral and long enough, suitably referenced, no plagiarism found. Hook is in article, Hook6D confirmed by reference. Good to Go Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Jan Hartman is acceptable in terms of length and newness and POV. Hook is in article, referenced, and confirmed by content of one of the references. Hook6C Good to Go Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Jan Wolthuis Hook6B in article, cited and citation confirmed in reference. Article big, neutral and new enough. Good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Stichting Oud Politieke Delinquenten Hook6A not confirmed, as outlawed in 1954, article is long and new enough though
  •  Changed "1955" to 1954". --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed "collaborator" to "criminal". --George Ho (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Hook ALT6Aalt b confirms OK with article, citation and references. I will leave consideration of ALT6Aalt b to others. This one now good to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Has anyone done the courtesy of checking with Drmies, whose articles and nomination this is, to see if this split of the one hook into four is okay, as well as any of the multi hooks after ALT1? As we do give deference to the creator/nominator, it seems only right to get an opinion: I'm going to give a ping. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you BlueMoonset. I appreciate everyone's efforts and will look more closely in a moment. BMset, you are correct in what you surmised about NSB judge etc. I want that detail in there to provide context to the names, even if such context is not immediately clear to those who don't know Dutch history (but they can click to it). Give me a moment to look at the hooks. Drmies (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • OK. I am not quite sure what was wrong with the image. Perhaps there's something awry with the license, but the NSB is both defunct and illegal, and there can't be a legal entity claiming to own the copyright, as far as I can see. Also, I though that ALT1 was OK. I wrote this as a quadruple DYK, not as four singles. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Is separating a multi-article hook into four singles really awkward to you? How is a quadruple DYK more intriguing than four singles together? --George Ho (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's behind this drive to separate multi-article hooks—our backlog is quire robust—but in this case the multi-hook seemed ideal: all four are closely related, and nicely included in an interesting single hook. One 200-character hook seems preferable to four 125-character hooks: it sometimes takes a little effort to make it snappier. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • For starters, I wonder how ALT 1 hook attracts mainstream English readers more than single hooks. I wonder if readers end up caring who the founders were by reading ALT 1. --George Ho (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Then perhaps a rewording of ALT1 would do the trick. I've tried to come up with a slight rewrite of Drmies' ALT1 (based on my ALT3) to get it down under 200 characters while retaining all the facts including "Dutch" and "1951"; I think it reads a little better to have the group name first, but others may have other opinions:
  • Sure--fine with me. Thanks! George, please consider the wishes of the article creator/nominator. Of course a quadruple DYK is a much nicer thing to have than four individual ones. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • All right, let's respect yours then. However, let's hear Graham's opinions about this nomination. --George Ho (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't mind a four article hook. However with alt7, I would not consider judge to be the same as justice of the peace. To further clarify the image, copyright law says it is not permitted to copy the work, it does not matter if there is no one claiming ownership or not. In this situation there may be no one to give permission, and it just shows that the law can be stupid. However we are abiding by the law strictly, not just using we will not be sued. I think the image would be suitable to have as a fair use logo for the organisation article, and if no one is objecting I may restore it with a FUR. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • No objections, although not suitable for a hook. --George Ho (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Would "official" be a suitable replacement for "judge"? There isn't room for something much larger: "justice of the peace" takes it over 200 characters, as does "functionary" (201). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


  • "Official" is OK with me, I can say hook confirmed and referenced. But you had better place your alt8 so that the prep builders can use it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed. --George Ho (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but he was not an "official"--he was a judge. "Justice of the peace" is a literal translation of "vrederechter", a judicial office invented by the NSB, as argued here. The term is used in quotation marks in the article I just linked because the office no longer exists and there's a certain hint of irony. Well, you can have it any way you like it, I guess--but he was a judge, as fraudulent as that office may have been. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT 8 is similar to ALT 7 with just one minor difference. If ALT8 is opposed, then ALT7 might be passed by Graeme. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure. I wanted the ban on the party in there, since that never happens in the motherland, which takes pride in its democratic process. But anyway, let's get it on the front page. Dutch TV is airing the first part of a six-part documentary by Gideon Levy (Dutch journalist) on Dutch Nazi collaborators next week, including, apparently, an interview with the wife of Klaas Carel Faber. I'd like to get this on the front page on the day the first installment airs, Monday June 18, at a time slot appropriate for Dutch Wikipedia users. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If hudge is in quotes in hook 7 then that would be OK, as it would indicate not a "real" judge. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 Inserted quotation marks on "judge" in ALT 7. --George Ho (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind that at all. [Swallows insults that come almost seventy years late.] Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT7 it is, then. I'll move it down to the special occasions holding area; it should run on June 18 at 09:00 London time (10:00 for Dutch readers). (I've struck all the other ALTs so they aren't used.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Stichting_Oud_Politieke_Delinquenten&oldid=1189654279"