Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/1917 Minsk City Duma election

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 21:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

1917 Minsk City Duma election

(
)

Created by Soman (talk). Self-nominated at 12:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC).

  • A full review will follow, but right now I have reservations if the currently-proposed hook is interesting to a broad audience. The connections aren't made clear to those unfamiliar with Belarusian politics and history, particularly what the significance of Vaynshteyn becoming a city council chairman is. Can another hook be proposed here, one that would be interesting or at least clearer to those unfamiliar with the history of Belarus? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I get your concern, but at same time the factoid that a Jewish socialist party won the chairmanship in the city seems to be the most DYK-worthy element in the article? --Soman (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The connection is not clear at all and does not meet the broad interest criterion. Readers will not immediately get the socialist or Jewish connection. Please propose a new hook with a completely different hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmm - I think the Jewish connection is clear (and the socialist connection implied) from just the name General Jewish Labour Bund. Besides, it's wikilinked! I'm not sure a complete rejection of this hook fact is merited here, though I agree the hook needs some workshopping. How about these:
Pings for Soman and Narutolovehinata5. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Admittedly the direction still feels rather niche, but I think ALT1 is the best option among the hooks proposed so far. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
ALT1 looks good for me also. --Soman (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I no longer have time to review this nomination so I would request that a new reviewer take over. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • new enough at time of nomination (65 days ago?) and long enough; I'll have to AGF on source quality, neutrality is okay (being mostly a factsheet), no plagiarism detected (AGF on foreign-language sources). I'm... hesitant to approve ALT1, though. Is it all that unusual that two not-too-distant political parties would elect a chairman from one of the parties? I am interested in the fact that the leader was elected from the smaller party in the coalition, though... QPQ has been done, but we still need a viable hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Pinging Soman for feedback... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Hows about:
ALT4: ... that a Jewish socialist became chairman of the Minsk city council in July 1917? Dahn (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book and Dahn: I appreciate the suggestions :) i'm hesitant, though. Is there something more notable about the election other than its winners? Were they the first socialists elected in the city? Anyways, my idea was: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
ALT5: ... that the chairman elected following the 1917 Minsk City Duma election came from the smallest party in the ruling coalition?
@Theleekycauldron:. Since you asked ... As far as I can understand, the various socialist groups which predated the 1917 Revolutions were secret and/or operated outside the countries which became the Soviet bloc, and argued and split all over the place. Regular elections of socialist local government began either legally or without wholesale persecution after the 1917 February and October revolutions. So - broadly speaking - yes it was not only probably the first legal, above-board and safe election of a socialist local government in Minsk, but also that type of event would have been very newsworthy and striking to people in both the Western and Eastern blocs. But because it was all such a mess between the late 1890s and 1917, we can't say that it was the first socialist election in Minsk - not worth the hassle, eh. On the other hand, saying that socialists won the elections in July 1917, almost directly after the February (1917) Revolution, is important. 1917 changed quite a large area of the world, and the 1917 Minsk election was a symptom of that change - a matter far more significant than the identity of the little guy that they chose to be leader of the coalition. Storye book (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book: I understand, and that's definitely noteworthy; but without that context somehow worked into the hook, our readers won't put that together. As a general rule of thumb, I don't think a hook should be run if the context is both vital to the hook's quality and unverifiable. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Your question was about it being the first election of socialists in Minsk. We don't yet have a hook that says it was the first. That was your idea. So I was responding that we couldn't support a hook with that idea of yours. However, we can support a hook that says that a socialist local govt was elected, because we have facts and citations for that in the article. Thus my hooks ALT 2 and 3 are permissible. If the consensus doesn't want those hooks, then fine - but they are verifiable. Storye book (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
What about ALT5 - ... that the General Jewish Labour Bund leader Arn Vaynshteyn became the Minsk city council chairman following the first municipal elections the 1917 February Revolution? --Soman (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
As per hook interest, I'd say it is relevant that a leader of a Jewish socialist party led the governance of what is today the capital of Belarus. It's not like Bund (or the other Jewish left-wing groups at the time) led a lot of local governments in mayor cities. And we need to factor in a lot of later developments (civil war, establishment of the USSR, WWII, Holocaust) that has drastically impacted the social and political life since then. --Soman (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
That's definitely true, Soman, but unless that context can be verifiably placed within the article, I don't see a way to restructure the hook to make that context apparent. The hook needs to stem from verifiably relevant context- outside knowledge tends to be hard to work in and make clear. We only have seconds of reader attention for DYK, to try and get them to click; it sucks, but expecting readers to put something like that together is usually not a recipe for a well-performing hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that hook solves the earlier concerns about needing too much inside context to appreciate it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Just how stupid are our US general readers, my friend? What do you suppose they do not understand by garrison, Socialist Revolutionary and election? Those words are all linked anyway. So (in my humble perception of US terminology) it says that lots of soldiers voted for sort of Che Guevara types, and lots and lots of sort of Che Guevara types were elected. Or to put it another way, they might see it as loads of lefty liberals voted for loads of lefty liberals and they ended up with a lefty liberal local government. Simples. As for our Rest of the World readership, well we are better educated, and understand long words. Storye book (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:. Storye book (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
To put it politely: Underestimating the attention span of our readership is a not insignificant task, and that's true across the world. I generally have two criteria in assessing hook interestingness: it should be easy for the reader to work out the information being presented and its significance, and that information should lure the reader into clicking on the article in order to learn more. I know we have different philosophies on that, which is what makes this discussion a little difficult (although I very much appreciate your perception of americaspeak :D). But from my point of view, it's not that readers can't work out why this might be significant – it's just that a significant proportion won't want to expend the thinking to do so, and then we lose them and they click on something less informative.
Plus, take your statement on it: they might see it as loads of lefty liberals voted for loads of lefty liberals and they ended up with a lefty liberal local government. Simples. That makes the hook seem rather self-contained – which is good, if your goal is to inform everyone who might read and understand the hook without clicking, but it's not as good at actually getting people to click. And I know you know this because you're quite good at writing hooky hooks – just look at your work on Giant puppet, or Joseph Luker. You definitely know how to rope people into reading the full stories for all the interesting work you do, and I think that's really what DYK should be about. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, theleekycauldron for coming in to help, and for lightening the atmos. Since there have been calls above for political context of the election to be added to the article, I have created a section for that. Anyone is welcome to extend or adjust it, though I tried to limit it to the events of July, to prevent the section from overwhelming the article.
ALT7: ... that the 1917 Minsk City election was carried out peacefully in spite of the concurrent mass rebellion and near-martial law in Petrograd? Storye book (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
ALT7 is a much better hook than all the previous proposals, and if the nominator agrees to it, I'd suggest striking out all the remaining options and going with just that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree, it's quite good :) Storye book, is marxists.org a reliable source? Also, does the source demonstrate its relevance to the topic at hand? (yes, yes, i know, i'm being nitpicky, but i do wanna avoid WP:SYNTH issues). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they)!
@Theleekycauldron: Yes, it's reliable. Brian Baggins is a Marxist author, interpreter and transcriber from French and German of Marxist literature. He usually appends his sources online, as he has done in the cited article, and I have included those sources in the WP citation. That timeline page is pretty neutral in tone, compared with a lot of films on the subject that we have all seen Those films tend to concentrate on the violence and drama, whereas the timeline is just the bare bones of what happened.
As for fears of synthesis - well, if the article were about e.g. one small skirmish during the Battle of the Somme, it would be relevant for purposes of historical context to include a brief background paragraph about what was going on in the Somme area in general at the time, to put the skirmish in context, and we wouldn't need the source for the general horrors of the greater battlefield to mention the skirmish. Storye book (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Pinging Soman for their thoughts on ALT7. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    • ALT7 all good with me. --Soman (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT7 is ready for a review. Per the discussion, none of the previously-proposed hooks are under consideration. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    • @Theleekycauldron: Storye book (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Storye book's assessment of the reliability of the source checks out- I'm still a little shaky on the synthesis, since the source doesn't draw a direct line from itself to the event at hand. That said, I won't stand in the way of someone else offering their tick. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
        • To next reviewer: Please note that the source for the political background in Petrograd does not need to refer to the July 1917 Minsk election, that's the whole point. The point is that the dramatic and violent political background of the country was continuing separately, while Minsk was able to hold a peaceful election. You can assess the extent of that separation, by the fact that Bolsheviks were being arrested just for being Bolsheviks on the orders of Stalin in Petrograd, while in relatively peaceful Minsk, they were able to happily elect Bolsheviks to their duma (local government body), and form a governing coalition which included Bolsheviks. All that info is in the article and cited. Storye book (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I conducted a copyedit of the article, particularly of the "Contemporary political context" section because I was concerned about wikivoice. I conducted this review under the pretext that ALT7 is the agreed upon hook. I'm not so much concerned about the turmoil in Russia (the "Contemporary political context" section covers that). However, there isn't mention in the article that the election was peaceful. Is there a source that specifies that this election was peaceful, without military conflict, or something similar? This information can be added in a "Legacy" or "Analysis" section at the end that tells the reader how sources have analysed this election. Without a source specifying the peaceful nature of this election, I believe that it would be original research to use ALT7. Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
It is clear from the sources that we have, and the article, that the Minsk election was conducted in at least comparative peace, since Stalin was arresting Bolsheviks in Petrograd, for just being Bolsheviks (and we may guess what being arrested by Stalin implied), but in Minsk they were electing Bolsheviks and putting them in coalition government of Minsk without challenge. Therefore although there was a counter-revolutionary skirmish going on in Petrograd (then the acting capital), Minsk was at that point untouched by it. If you want to rephrase the article and hook to cover that situation, then please do. Meanwhile I should have thought that pretty well anything counted as peaceful in proto-Soviet Russia if there was no revolutionary stuff going on. Yes, you can see from the article that there was much jostling for position among the factions hoping for leadership, but that's just politics. The fact that Bolsheviks could be elected along with others of widely differing views tells us that people in Minsk were able in June 1917 to conduct political business without killing or jailing each other. I have done no OR in writing that section. The source is clear to see for all readers: in Petrograd Stalin was arresting all Bolsheviks; in Minsk they were electing them. Storye book (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
If we are having a context passage, perhaps good to mention the proximity of Minsk to frontline... unfortunately, I'm way to busy with non-wikipedia stuff these days to find a good ref on this. --Soman (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
summer 1917 frontline}}
@Soman: I have found the ref you are looking for, and have added it with a statement about Minsk not being directly in the theatre of war or revolution during July 1917. You are welcome to improve the statement as you see fit. However we could still just omit the word "peacefully" from the hook if you wish, and it would still work. Storye book (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book: Per WP:V, Wikipedia does not publish things based on the conclusions of editors. Rather, it publishes what reliable sources say. I do not see where in the article a reliable source cites that the 1917 Minsk City Duma election was peaceful, as the city being peaceful does not mean that the election was peaceful. I'm suggesting an ALT below:
ALT8: ...that Bolsheviks were elected in the 1917 Minsk City election while Stalin was arresting their supporters in Petrograd?
Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: Thank you. I'm happy with ALT8. Storye book (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Can you approve ALT8 so we can move this nomination along? Z1720 (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't approve ALT8... the Bolsheviks didn't win the Minsk vote and there isn't any established third-party source that makes a connection between the Stalin's role in Petrograd events and Minsk municipal election. --Soman (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Soman: can you propose an ALT that would be acceptable? Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm puzzled: the section List "5 - Social Democrats" says that Bolsheviks were elected as part of the social democrats group: "Vasily Vashkevich [ru], Kārlis Landers, I. F. Skuratowicz, V. Golubeva and Nevsky were among the Bolshevik members of the city duma". Sorry - did I misunderstand something? Storye book (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
In an effort to get this nomination rolling, let's try another ALT. I think this new alt makes clear that the Bolsheviks did not win the election. The article mentions the arrest of Bolsheviks at the same time, so the connection is in the article. If this information shouldn't be in the article, then perhaps a discussion can happen on the article's talk page about its inclusion.
ALT8a: ...that some Bolsheviks were elected in the 1917 Minsk City election while Stalin was arresting their supporters in Petrograd?
@Storye book and Soman: Thoughts? If this hook doesn't work, can you propose an ALT? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with ALT8a. Storye book (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm ok with ALT10 :) --Soman (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Soman: Thank you. @Z1720: Any chance of a tick? Or at least some kind of where-are-we-at-now review? Pretty please? Storye book (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Readding the tick. Hook is cited, but it's a foreign language source so I'm AFG. I checked for the other DYK criteria in a previous review, which can be found further up. Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Woohoo! thank you, everybody, for hanging on in there. We made it, after three months and twelve days! Storye book (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/1917_Minsk_City_Duma_election&oldid=1095354756"