Template:Did you know nominations/Ewa Ligocka
- 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 Crisco 1492 talk 22:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Ewa Ligocka
- ... that Ewa Ligocka cooked another mathematician's goose?
- Source: https://www.mimuw.edu.pl/media/uploads/memories/files/ewa-ligocka-ewa-ligocka-1947-2022-z-e-ma.pdf (in Polish but readable through translate; see PS1, page 2)
Created by David Eppstein (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 187 past nominations.
—David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
A pleasure to read, thank you! Good to go. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein and Innisfree987:
Pulled; see discussion on my talk. Sourcing/attribution issue (hook sourced to university mass email that attributes fact to "an anecdote") needs to be resolved before promotion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC) - Suggestion. As an alternative, I think it's interesting that she had been dismissed from the university over having taken part in a protest. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Too suggestive of current political trends for my taste. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. With regard to the original hook, I've checked the sources using Google Translate, and it does appear that they characterize it as an "anecdote". I've found these two sources about what, exactly that means: [1], [2]. Obviously, neither is an RS, but for our purposes here, they do seem to indicate that anecdotes are generally regarded as having been based on fact, and are not equivalent to rumors. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can I push back on that a bit? The confusion arises in how the word is used. Depending on the context, an anecdote can indeed refer to something based on an assumed fact, but in English, an anecdote has some underlying baggage, as it carries connotations of apocrypha at best and rumor and hearsay at worst. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- You did notice that the source is not in English, yes? And it uses the same phrasing to talk about this detail as it does for the larger story it is part of, giving a goose to another mathematician as a prize, for which there is no doubt of its factuality (we have photographs). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Having read your discussion on leeky's talk page, I am sympathetic to your position, and in general, I agree with you in the abstract. But anegdotę seems fairly straight in terms of translation, and only because of direct experience do I agree with leeky. I can't tell you how many times I've run into anecdotes while writing articles that turned out to be false or misunderstandings. For that reason I would like to suggest we tread carefully. I have no problem with keeping the hook while also noting it is a story, and I think we've run many hooks like that before; this one should be no different given that slight modification, and I think leeky says as much on her talk page. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- When I get to it, I'll try to find better sourcing. I'm sympathetic to David's concerns. (And I feel the need to say that "sexism" should never have been brought into the discussion. After all, what David has done here is to create a new page about a significant female mathematician, whom Wikipedia had overlooked until now. That's a good thing.) Under the pretty bad constraints of Google Translate, I looked quite carefully at the cited sources, and although they are reporting a group email, it was an email within an academic group, from someone who apparently knew the page subject personally. As such, I think it is a primary source, but a reliable primary source. And after careful consideration of the entire passage, in context, I think the writer was using a word that Google translates as "anecdote" to mean something akin to "a pleasant reminiscence", rather than as "a funny story that might or might not be true". As I said, I hope to find better sourcing, but I lean towards thinking that this particular source is saying that this happened as a matter of fact, rather than as the kind of "anecdote" that might turn out to bite us. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- That was how I read it too, for whatever it’s worth. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. I've been looking for sources. A Google Books search seems to indicate that there are multiple books that mention both "Ewa Ligocka" and "goose", but I've been unsuccessful at finding any that allow me to "search inside" for the two together. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I tried "Fifty Years of Polish Mathematics" (the source for the photo) but Google tells me her name is not there. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- When I get to it, I'll try to find better sourcing. I'm sympathetic to David's concerns. (And I feel the need to say that "sexism" should never have been brought into the discussion. After all, what David has done here is to create a new page about a significant female mathematician, whom Wikipedia had overlooked until now. That's a good thing.) Under the pretty bad constraints of Google Translate, I looked quite carefully at the cited sources, and although they are reporting a group email, it was an email within an academic group, from someone who apparently knew the page subject personally. As such, I think it is a primary source, but a reliable primary source. And after careful consideration of the entire passage, in context, I think the writer was using a word that Google translates as "anecdote" to mean something akin to "a pleasant reminiscence", rather than as "a funny story that might or might not be true". As I said, I hope to find better sourcing, but I lean towards thinking that this particular source is saying that this happened as a matter of fact, rather than as the kind of "anecdote" that might turn out to bite us. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Having read your discussion on leeky's talk page, I am sympathetic to your position, and in general, I agree with you in the abstract. But anegdotę seems fairly straight in terms of translation, and only because of direct experience do I agree with leeky. I can't tell you how many times I've run into anecdotes while writing articles that turned out to be false or misunderstandings. For that reason I would like to suggest we tread carefully. I have no problem with keeping the hook while also noting it is a story, and I think we've run many hooks like that before; this one should be no different given that slight modification, and I think leeky says as much on her talk page. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- You did notice that the source is not in English, yes? And it uses the same phrasing to talk about this detail as it does for the larger story it is part of, giving a goose to another mathematician as a prize, for which there is no doubt of its factuality (we have photographs). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if this will satisfy everyone or not, but I'll suggest this compromise:
- Can I push back on that a bit? The confusion arises in how the word is used. Depending on the context, an anecdote can indeed refer to something based on an assumed fact, but in English, an anecdote has some underlying baggage, as it carries connotations of apocrypha at best and rumor and hearsay at worst. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- ALT1:
- ... that Ewa Ligocka is remembered as having cooked another mathematician's goose?
- Strictly speaking, I think that's faithful to the language of the source, and I don't think it spoils the joke. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think "remembered" is a little awkward here; it has the tone of an obituary, and it doesn't totally flag the sourcing issues. How about
- ALT2: ... that legend has it that Ewa Ligocka cooked another mathematician's goose?
- Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The cited source is an announcement of her death. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Legend" is not appropriate. That wording suggests that we believe the story to be apocryphal. I think the opposite is the case: the sourcing suggests that the story is true, while recounting it at second hand (the dean who wrote it became active well after the date of the event). As for "is remembered as": it lacks the punchiness of the original hook but I think it is otherwise mostly harmless. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with that, thanks.
- And for what it's worth, here is the best that I can make of the translation of the email in the source:
- "Many people have heard the famous anecdote about the live goose that Per Enflo was given in 1972 from Stanisław Mazur for solving problem no. 153 from the Scottish Book. The goose was left later eaten in mathematical company, which fewer people know about; another anecdote says that it was plucked by Ewa Ligocka before baking."
- For context, the email begins:
- "Ladies and Gentlemen, a few days ago, the Faculty received news that prof. died on October 28, 2022. Eve Ligocka, retired employee of the Faculty. She dealt with complex analysis and had in it world-class achievements; in 1991, together with S. Bell, she was awarded the Bergmana, established in 1988 and awarded by the American Mathematical Society for outstanding achievements in the fields covered by its patron."
- The person writing the message is Paweł Strzelecki, Dean of the Faculty.
- I continue to believe that a good-faith reading of the source, allowing for the fact that the translation is imprecise, is that the "famous anecdote" is best understood as a fond remembrance, rather than as a tall tale. I suppose we could conclude that we have sourcing for her plucking the goose, more so than for cooking it, but I also think that's overthinking it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Again, the "famous" part of the anecdote is something we have photographs and book sources for. It is only the second part about plucking and roasting the goose that readers here seem unwilling to accept as equally factual. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just say it's an anecdote (legend, etc.) in the hook. I mean, if it's as factual as you say, we should have other sources supporting it. We don't, hence the problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- What part of both destroying the wordplay and falsely presenting this as counterfactual do you not understand, having had this stated repeatedly earlier in both threads on this? You obviously are not convinced that it is factual, but that is a very different thing from presenting it as counterfactual. What is your evidence that it is counterfactual? What source do you have saying it didn't happen? If you have no such source then calling it a "legend" is worse than the proposed hooks, because that implies counterfactuality, something we have no evidence of. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for any misunderstanding. From where I stand, I read about anecdotes like this all the time. Some of my favorite have to do with the hijinks by Richard Feynman. IIRC, there's a relatively new book out that confirms some and dispels others, although I haven't had a chance to read it. My point is that this genre of anecdotes is fairly well established but it's slightly more difficult to prove they are true as the bar is higher in terms of sourcing. In case it isn't clear, I fully accept this anecdote as real and assume it happened. That's not the issue. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, it is not your personal belief I am concerned about, so much as the level of belief conveyed by the hook. I do not want to be involved in a hook that even hints at disparaging the subject by suggesting that stories about her were false. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I completely understand, and I see that's where our interpretations differ. I think there are many options available. "Accounts" and "story" are fairly neutral and conveys the information without disparaging the subject, such as "that according to one
popularaccount, Ewa Ligocka cooked another mathematician's goose?" Or, "that Ewa Ligocka cooked another mathematician's goose, according to onepopularstory?" I realize it's not ideal, but DYK generally treats anecdotes that way. Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)- Is "popular" accurate? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I completely understand, and I see that's where our interpretations differ. I think there are many options available. "Accounts" and "story" are fairly neutral and conveys the information without disparaging the subject, such as "that according to one
- To be clear, it is not your personal belief I am concerned about, so much as the level of belief conveyed by the hook. I do not want to be involved in a hook that even hints at disparaging the subject by suggesting that stories about her were false. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for any misunderstanding. From where I stand, I read about anecdotes like this all the time. Some of my favorite have to do with the hijinks by Richard Feynman. IIRC, there's a relatively new book out that confirms some and dispels others, although I haven't had a chance to read it. My point is that this genre of anecdotes is fairly well established but it's slightly more difficult to prove they are true as the bar is higher in terms of sourcing. In case it isn't clear, I fully accept this anecdote as real and assume it happened. That's not the issue. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- What part of both destroying the wordplay and falsely presenting this as counterfactual do you not understand, having had this stated repeatedly earlier in both threads on this? You obviously are not convinced that it is factual, but that is a very different thing from presenting it as counterfactual. What is your evidence that it is counterfactual? What source do you have saying it didn't happen? If you have no such source then calling it a "legend" is worse than the proposed hooks, because that implies counterfactuality, something we have no evidence of. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just say it's an anecdote (legend, etc.) in the hook. I mean, if it's as factual as you say, we should have other sources supporting it. We don't, hence the problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Again, the "famous" part of the anecdote is something we have photographs and book sources for. It is only the second part about plucking and roasting the goose that readers here seem unwilling to accept as equally factual. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Legend" is not appropriate. That wording suggests that we believe the story to be apocryphal. I think the opposite is the case: the sourcing suggests that the story is true, while recounting it at second hand (the dean who wrote it became active well after the date of the event). As for "is remembered as": it lacks the punchiness of the original hook but I think it is otherwise mostly harmless. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- The cited source is an announcement of her death. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that the decision here comes down to whether, as Viriditas says, the word "anecdote" in the Google translation indicates uncertainty about whether we can state it as fact in Wikipedia's voice, or whether, as I have suggested might be the case, the source is actually saying that this happened, as a fact. Instead of us non-Polish speaking editors going back and forth about it any longer, I'm hoping to hear from some editors who can read the source in its original form, and give us advice.
@Piotrus and Volunteer Marek: Could you please be so kind as to look at this source: [3], page 2, and tell us whether the word anegdotę/anegdota should be understood by us as indicating that the story of Ewa Ligocka cooking a goose is something that actually happened, or as something that is a story that might or might not be true? Thanks so much! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The source uses the word “anecdote” twice, in two consequent sentences relating to 1) Enflo getting the goose and 2) Ligocka being the one that prepared it for coooking. The first use of the word is *definitely* in the sense of “a story of something that actually happened”. We also know this because we know that Enflo did indeed get the goose. Based on that I would say that the second use of the word is also in the sense of “a story of something that actually happened”. More broadly, the meaning and truth value of “anegdota” is pretty close to the English word “anecdote”. The issue with anecdotes is not that they’re false but rather that they can be unrepresentative and as such don’t constitute proof of anything other than that something happened (I have not read the extensive discussion above so maybe this was already pointed out). Volunteer Marek 21:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Much appreciated. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, it appears to me that we have confirmed that there is reliable sourcing for the goose-cooking having actually happened. Would anyone object to restoring the original hook (the one at the top), and passing the nomination with that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Hearing no objection, and feeling satisfied that we have discussed this adequately, and established adequately that the sourcing needs have been satisfied: good to go, for the original hook, at the top. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
