Template:Did you know nominations/Feeder of lice

Feeder of lice
Created/expanded by Volunteer Marek (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 03:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ... Nazi Germany used human test subjects as feeders of lice?


 * Comment: Please refer clauses D3 and D7 of Did_you_know/Supplementary_guidelines. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed empty sections. PS. And improved referencing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed empty sections. PS. And improved referencing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Article is not completely supported by inline citations. Fact tags have been added to show where.  The citation needed text either 1) needs to be removed while keeping article at length, or 2) needs to be supported with inline citations.
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article reads as neutral enough to me. Not well versed on the subject though so could be reading it that way. The Polish language and book sources support text. I've read and reread the paragraph about this.  The entire section isn't referenced properly and the wording is not entirely clear.  The hook text is not explicitly stated in the article, but the text when read in total for what is cited does appear to support the text.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article is long enough and passes newness test based on date nominated. images have fair use rationale or are public domain.  Not seeing anything here or here that concerns me. --LauraHale (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Needs inline citations to be there or unreferenced text to be removed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Laura,
 * The demand for in-line citations for every fact is good for GAN and FAN, but not required here. What is essential is that the article be generally well referenced and that the hook have an in-line citation.
 * I agree that the article would be improved by citations where you requested them, of course, and thank you for the good suggestions. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 08:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If some one wants to move it to the holding area knowing it is not fully sourced, they can. I'm personally not going to tick off on on it as my understanding is for DYK, the article needs to be completely sourced.  You may tick off on it if you feel comfortable with the sourcing passing the criteria. --LauraHale (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In my experience, we don't require cites for every sentence, but each paragraph is necessary, and currently there are two cites needed in the article. They should be addressed before the article is promoted. I hope this will happen soon, it would be a shame to see this fail. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

ALT1: "... that the Polish mathematician Stefan Banach and the poet Zbigniew Herbert (pictured) survived World War II by being employed as feeders of lice?" Image to go with that:. I think that hook reflects the text of the article more accurately. or more explicitly: ALT1b: "...the Polish mathematician Stefan Banach and the poet Zbigniew Herbert survived World War II by being employed as feeders of lice (pictured), which were used to produce anti-typhus vaccines?" with image:.

I'll try to address the above concerns shortly. Volunteer Marek 02:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article isn't really about the profession, it seems to be about research into lice in Lwow. Only minor sections talk about the profession, if it can be called that. Shouldn't the article's name be changed?Malick78 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the Polish version is very sparse - showing the lack of depth to this subject. The English version is just full of padding.Malick78 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Malick78's comments here constitute stalking and harassment. I've had several arguments with him before, usually about his blase attitude to WP:BLP, sourcing ORish articles via "stuff I just found on the internets" (blogs, random web pages, etc), semi hoax-y edits, and other frequent violations of Wikipedia policy. In the past, whenever I have disagreed with him or pointed out some shortcoming in his edits he has launched into the full on "stalk-and-harass" mode going through my recent edits, trying to point out some imaginary problems with them and generally being disruptive, including leaving harassing messages on my talk page.

In this particular case, it seems he got upset because he recently he added a "citation needed" tag to an article and I had the audacity to... add the requested citation.

The comments above are not constructive - if the Polish wikipedia article sucks how is that proof that the English article must suck too? - and are made in complete bad faith. These kinds of actions are becoming a pattern for Malick78. Volunteer Marek 22:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith, Marek. On your talk page (above the comment I was adding) I noticed the rather fantastic title "Feeder of lice" and, somewhat unsurprisingly, was intrigued. Hence me here. (Oh, and you deleted a "[sic]" because it wasn't "in the source [sic]". It wasn't the ref you added that I was querying :) ) You don't seem to have answered the point though that the article should be about a profession, and it's not. Malick78 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Malick78's comments have been ignored by the community, and I suggest that Marek also give them the attention they deserve. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh, finally someone gets me :) Malick78 (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To be comprehensive, the article should be more about the profession than the research. It may not be very balanced now, but it is still well beyond the stub, and such balance is not required for a DYK. I don't see a problem here... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 06:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it'd be nice to draw the world's attention (via the DYK) to an article that's on point, not waffling. Why not just rename it Polish research into lice?Malick78 (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the first hook suggested seems to present the Nazis as being especially cruel for engaging in feeding humans to lice. They did a multitude of bad things, but here they just continued what was already being done by Polish researchers. Thus the first hook is rather tricking the reader into clicking on the link.Malick78 (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't like the first hook either. Other than that, Malick78, please go away and stop trolling. Volunteer Marek 19:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And JFFK, no the Nazis didn't "just continue" "what was already being done by Polish researchers" - Nazis killed people by infecting them with typhus. Weigl saved people by hiring them in his institute. To compare the work and life of one of the Righteous among the Nations, who saved more than 500 lives, to what the Nazis were doing is either the height of ignorance, or like I said, purposeful trolling. Volunteer Marek 19:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you calm down a bit. I'm not trolling - why would editors like Kiefer ask for clarification in the same way if I hadn't made a valid point? You seem to be making bad faith accusations to avoid answering the main question.
 * As for my "ignorance", surely the first hook could be rewritten: "Did you know... that Nazi Germany Polish researchers used human test subjects as feeders of lice?"? See the comparison? To choose the Nazi option suggests it was their idea. It wasn't. Please read my comments carefully in future, it'll be more productive that way. Malick78 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And now you're going around making racist comments like this (Have we now established that Poles can't be relied upon to differentiate between England and Britain? Hope so. (And in a lovely poetic twist... why should Britain have helped Poland anyway? You still don't know the name of our country. That should be the test for when one country helps another: "Do you actually know our name?"). Nice. Why aren't you banned already exactly? Stalking. Check. Harassment. Check. (real) incivility and racist comments. Check. Abuse of sources and BLP violations. Check. Etc.? Volunteer Marek  20:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. College professors who were internationally leading researchers were with other Poles targeted for extermination, and in fact many were massacred directly, rather than starving slowly as "subhumans". Some were able to survive by working as lice feeders. This is very different from the pre-war research. The notability is about the saving of some of the lights of humanity, not about the lice feeding. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg seems to me this was already approved a couple of times and then a ton of minutia intervened to make that unclear. I am approving it now based on the above 2 reviews that indicated approval, and the fact that I share the opinion of Kiefer.Wolfowitz that there are enough citations, and that the hook citations are adequate if taken in good faith (as one is off line and the other is in a foreign language).
 * I am approving it on the basis of this new ALT:Zbigniew Herbert.jpg
 * ALT1c: "...the Polish mathematician Stefan Banach and the poet Zbigniew Herbert (pictured) survived the Holocaust working as feeders of lice, which was done to produce anti-typhus vaccines?"
 * I changed the wording from "World War II" To the Holocaust, because it was not the war they were trying to avoid, but the Holocaust. I kept the rest of this version because it is the one that hooked me.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ALT1d: "...the Polish mathematician Stefan Banach and the poet Zbigniew Herbert (pictured) survived the Holocaust working as feeders of lice?"
 * might be punchier and maybe draw more curious readers in? (I've also added a space to 1c). I think the louse image would make more impact on the front page than a relatively non-descript non-talking-head, though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)