Talk:The Undivine Comedy

Title
Undivine or Un-divine? Per Nieboska vs Nie-boska. Ping User:Nihil novi, User:Volunteer Marek, User:GizzyCatBella. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I like older translations - "The Un-Divine Comedy" from 1924 by H.E. Kennedy for example.  GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Krasiński's title relates to Dante's Divine Comedy (Divina Commedia). So, although alternative renderings have been proposed as mentioned in our Undivine Comedy article, it would probably be incumbent on us to keep the words "divine" and "comedy".
 * (Of course, what Dante had in mind with his title pertained not to humor but to drama.)
 * So... hyphen or no hyphen? The English language, curiously (given its very rudimentary inflectional structure), tends to avoid the use of punctuation marks unless absolutely necessary to prevent misunderstanding – and, very often, not even then. This tendency, especially in our time, seems to reflect a kind of minimalism – a reluctance to clutter up the page with punctuation marks. I think this approach is, too often, carried to a nonsensical extreme.
 * Nevertheless, there is nothing unclear about the word "undivine", which appears in our Wiktionary, whereas "un-divine" does not.
 * So I would stick with the more elegant (simpler) title, "The Undivine Comedy". Czesław Miłosz agrees with me.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nihil novi (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article was started with content on antisemitism in the work, which was promptly removed by VM and reduced to about four sentences in the current revision. I've added an NPOV tag, and it was also promptly removed. Going through some of the sources, there seems to be enough evidence to justify a more serious treatment of the antisemitic aspects of the work (see Talk:Zygmunt Krasiński). François Robere (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was started by a likely Icewhiz sock (identified as such by User:Volunteer Marek, and I concur per WP:DUCK). So now Icewhiz apparently stalks my edits and tried to hijack a topic in an example of a major WP:UNDUE abuse. Hmmm. Despite this WP:NOTHERE aspect, I have reviewed the content he tried to add, and some of it was salvageable, so there is an entire paragraph here about the antisemitic dimension of the work, reusing most of the references plus additional ones I found. So I don't see a problem with neutrality, although most sources on the topic don't discuss this dimension, I think it is relevant enough to be briefly discussed - or do you mean that we should remove this paragraph entirely per WP:DENY? I think it would be going too far. PS. I wonder if this article should qualify for 500/30... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Take it to the admins. I'm concerned with the content, and there there's plenty of material that was in the first version and is barely mentioned in the current one. Do you contend that the "neophytes" - convert Jews bent on "world domination" - don't play a major role in the story? François Robere (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop enabling abusive sockpuppets. You have been doing it repeatedly, you've been asked to stop, you've been warned, and here you go again.  Volunteer Marek   16:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * VM, how many times now have you been banned for PAs? François Robere (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FR, stop falsely accusing others of "personal attacks". How many times have you been warned about your aggressive behavior? How many times have you been warned about you stalking editors - you've never showed interest in this author and only came here because an Icewhiz sock started causing trouble and you just had to support your banned friend.
 * The above is NOT a personal attack. What the above is, is an ACCUSATION. Of disruptive WP:NOTHERE behavior on your part. And it is an accurate accusation, which can be easily substantiated. You want a list of all the times that you tried to defend or enable Icewhiz socks (or Icewhiz's banned friends' socks - I'm not gonna play the stupid game where I'm suppose to guess whether it's Icewhiz himself or his neo-Nazi buddies)? No problem. Anytime. Just let me know when and I can drop the diffs.
 * Or you could just stop MEATPUPPETING for an indef banned harasser and you could stop trying to turn Poland related articles into a WP:BATTLEGROUND.  Volunteer Marek   17:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Marek, you're welcome to take your concerns to AE if you think you can substantiate them. In the meanwhile, I'd like to discuss the content. Are you up to it or not? François Robere (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Or, you could just stop MEATPUPPETING for Icewhiz. You want to discuss content? Sure, how about you first undo your bad faithed addition of the spurious tag to the article which you added because your indef banned friend's POV edits were removed? That would show that you're here on this page not just to meatpuppet for him, but are genuinely interested in improving encyclopedic content. So please self-revert.  Volunteer Marek   17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm done here. If anyone wants to discuss the content, ping me. I consider the article's NPOV issues unresolved, and may make adjustments accordingly. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Can we focus on discussing the content? I'd suggest that instead of tagging the article based on vague 'this needs more content', one should expand it. Then others can review the additions and see if they are DUE or such. If the article did not mention this aspect at all I'd agree we may have some grounds to call it non-neutral. But it does, so the issue is simply whether the issue is discussed sufficiently. IMHO, as I have reviewed a number of sources, it is, but again, there is nothing wrong with trying to expand the article a bit more. But please don't mix the fact that the article is not fully comprehensive with the issue of neutrality. Not being FA-class due to not being 100% comprehensive is not the same thing as being biased. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism is a defining aspect here. This play is the foundational myth of Polish antisemitism in the modern era. It is compared to work by Nazi racial theorist Carl Schmitt. It is inspiration for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, It is often covered just for its antisemitism. Mellow Boris (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Majority reliable sources and leading expert in the field widely covered in world media do not makes this connection (which is also noted by other sources). Minor change, already stated. Clunky and not needed. Introduction of clunky phrasing such as this is unnecessary. NPOV violation not to mention the overall favourable reception while overstating minor criticism as the only thing of note. Unbalance presentation and promotion of fringe views problematic from an NPOV and PROFRINGE. Clearly identified in the text and extensively sourced. UNDUE - primary opinion of a non-experts. We generally avoid the promotion of fringe/conspiracy theories. Not remotely sources of a calibre we would consider using in this article when much higher quality sourcing is available. GizzyCatBella  🍁  06:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is extremely fringe and seems undue, a single sentence should be enough.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)