Jump to content

Talk:1917 Łódź City Council election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Kimikel talk 14:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Campaign poster for the 1917 Łódź City Council election
Campaign poster for the 1917 Łódź City Council election
  • ... that whilst socialists got 31% of the votes in the 1917 Łódź City Council election (campaign poster pictured), they only won five seats due to a curiae system implemented by the German authorities?
  • Source: Telma Tadeusz. Pierwsze wybory do Rady Miejskiej m. Łodzi, in Rocznik Łódzki, Vol. 11 (14). Państwowe Wydawnictwu Naukowe, 1966. pp. 134, 138-146, Antoni Goerne. Wybory do Rady Miejskiej w Lodzi w styczniu 1917, in Informator m Lodzi z kalendarzem na rok 1919. pp. 76-83
Moved to mainspace by Soman (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 396 past nominations.

Soman (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • I'm not taking on the review, but just leaving a comment, as I'm puzzled. Without context, this may not be hook-notable I believe. The question left unaddressed is five seats out of how many. If it is five seats out of 15, this would seen rather non-notable. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:F804:C954:1D4C:5D11 (talk) 03:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went back and forth on the wording of the sentence, but with the 200 characters cap it is difficult to get all nuances and factoids included. For me "only five" implies that it is less than proportional, but a rewording could be to replace "five seats" with "8%". --Soman (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General eligibility:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

Image eligibility:

  • Freely licensed: No - The licensing is incorrect, at issue is not the photograph copyright but the poster itself ({{PD-1923}} in the United States, not sure about Poland)—then you can use {{PD-scan}}
  • Used in article: Yes
  • Clear at 100px: No - all you can see is a number 5
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article looks mostly fine, but I'm not sure about the hook. Non-proportional electoral systems are typical outside of continental Europe, where proportional representation based systems are more common. First past the post can cause equal amount of distortion. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the hook states that the reasons for the disproportionality is the curiae system, which is arguably something different from FPTP dynamics. The curia system would be very weird present-day, to explicitly discriminate in favour of the wealthiest. There are some alternate takes on the on the hook, like ALT1 "... that while 55% of the voters in the 1917 Łódź City Council election (poster pictured) were working class, they only got 10 out of 60 seats due to a curiae system implemented by the German authorities?" or ALT2 ... that the curiae-based electoral system used by German occupation authorities in the 1917 Łódź City Council election (poster pictured) disproportionally favoured the non-socialist Jewish parties? Now ALT2 would require a bit of a rewrite in article and need another image though. --Soman (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the clarity of image, I selected precisely because it had symbolism that was readable even at 100px. I don't think we'd expect people to read the fine print, but in 100px the number 5 is clearly visible (5 times) and the largest text is readable ('vote for our list'). The designer of the poster wanted that a reader catch the number 5 clearly even from a distance. --Soman (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that many electoral systems intentionally or not result in disproportionate seats for certain parties at the expense of others, thus it cannot really be a surprising fact that this particular electoral system has that result. (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not comparable to the issues from FPTP or STV electoral systems. Here was a case where an electoral system was explicitly designed to give a absolute majority to the wealthiest sections of society, with the explicit and publicly stated goal of ensuring a stable conservative majority. Now at the time the principle 1 citizen 1 vote was not universal by any means, but for present-day readers this is certainly something that would raise eyebrows. --Soman (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know a bit about how pre-German Revolution electoral systems worked in Germany (and as you've written here, applied to occupied territories), but the average reader doesn't. So I think if you are going to take that angle, it needs to be more clear in the hook. (t · c) buidhe 22:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about ALT3 - "... that the class-based curiae system used by German occupation authorities in the 1917 Łódź City Council election (poster pictured) disproportionately favoured the non-socialist Jewish parties?" --Soman (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)?[reply]
@Buidhe: Please address the above.--Launchballer 11:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: For me, the hook is dependent on knowing what a curiae system is and I don't, so I'd question whether a broad audience would.--Launchballer 21:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4 - "... that the electoral system imposed by the German occupation authorities for the 1917 Łódź City Council election (campaign poster pictured) disproportionately favoured the non-socialist Jewish parties?" --Soman (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, with the caveat that I can't read a word of the source. If you're happy with the very slightly trimmed ALT4a: "... that the electoral system imposed by the German occupation authorities for the 1917 Łódź City Council election (campaign poster pictured) disproportionately favoured some Jewish parties?" I'll go ahead and approve this.--Launchballer 10:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4a ok with me. --Soman (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's roll.--Launchballer 10:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman and Launchballer: would you be okay with a tack like this?

  • ALT5: ... that socialists got 31% of the vote for Łódź City Council in 1917 (campaign poster pictured), but only 8% of the seats?
  • ALT5a: ... that socialists got 31% of the vote for Łódź City Council in 1917 (campaign poster pictured), but the system implemented by the German occupation authorities only gave them 8% of the seats?

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT5 is the better hook and AGF checks out.--Launchballer 03:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly prefer alt 5a over alt 5, because it makes the linkage between the electoral system and the outcome clear. --Soman (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's where I think it is, then it needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 17:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence summarizing this is fleshed out now, "But due to the skewed curiae system imposed y the German occupation authorities, which gave 50 seats to the first five curiae which gathered 43.73% of the cast valid votes against 10 seats for the sixth working-class curia with 56.26% of the cast valid votes, the (non-socialist) Jewish committees obtained 40% of the seats in the Łódź City Council, the Polish passivists 23.33%, the Germans 13.33%, the Polish activists 11.67% and the Radical-Democrats 3.33%, whilst the socialists (who had obtained 31.12% of the votes) received merely 8.33% of the seats.[3][6]" --Soman (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoter's choice.--Launchballer 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:1917_Łódź_City_Council_election&oldid=1257857672"