Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Bielik


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Peter Bielik

 * Symbol voting keep.svg... that Peter Bielik was nominated for director of the National Memory Institute, despite having blamed Jewish Holocaust survivors for the 1945 Topoľčany pogrom?
 * Reviewed: Red porgy

Created/expanded by Catrìona (talk). Self-nominated at 13:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC).

Hi Catrìona. Could you insert an, appropriate, source on the end of the sentence "Following the death of Ján Langoš, the director of the National Memory Institute, in 2006, the rightwing Slovak National Party (SNS) proposed Bielik as a candidate for his replacement." Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just double checked the source, and that is covered on Nedelsky 2016, p. 976, which is the next citation later in the paragraph. I didn't add another citation for this sentence because it would be duplicative. Unfortunately, the Nedelsky source is not open access which is why I linked to the other source above. Catrìona (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Catrìona, a nice little article. The DYK requirement I am concerned about is: "The hook fact(s) must be stated in the article, and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source." There are, IMO, two 'facts' in your hook: that he was nominated; and that he blamed the survivors. Each of these needs (obviously) at least one mention in the article, with at least one example of each having an appropriate cite within or immediately at the end of the sentence containing it. That is my interpretation of the rule - happy to discuss where I might be wrong. Equally happy for you to point out where you have already covered this but I have missed it.
 * I am not concerned about the foreign language. I was intending to approve with a note flagging this up and pointing out that I have worked with you before on similar but larger and higher level articles and recommending an assumption of good faith; which I would expect to be forthcoming. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. I can see that although I thought it was generally discouraged to repeat citations in this fashion, it's not actually covered in Citing sources, and seems to conflict with the DYK rule in this case. I've added the relevant citation, and thanks for reviewing. Catrìona (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Your articles are always so solid as to be relatively straight forward to review or assess. I have found this requirement a little irksome myself when I have been on the receiving end, but it seems the obvious interpretation of the rule. Passing now. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)