Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.

Prep area 7[edit]

On 3 May AirshipJungleman29 promoted 9 hooks to Prep 7. Ravenpuff has reverted all of these promotions to a previous set. Checking these - it appears this set did not appear on the main page so this seems to be the correct action? I am not sure what is going on here - but it looks to be all the newer promoted hooks are now sitting in limbo with status as "promoted" but none having made it into a set. See the prep history [1], and for example Template:Did you know nominations/287 Broadway and Template:Did you know nominations/Agnes Kimball. Pinging @Ravenpuff and @AirshipJungleman29. To fix this - do the 9 DYK templates promoted on 3 May need to be pushed back to the approved list? ResonantDistortion 21:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies – I'm not sure what exactly happened, but it was entirely accidental and might have been an inadvertent use of the "unsaved changes" function. I have restored the correct version of the prep area, which should I hope fix the issue, although I'm not sure if something else has broken in the interim. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on User:Bilorv/Challenges#Calendar. I could use a hook on the 13th. In Prep 4 there is this hook:
... that the memorial Ivančena was created to honor members of the Silesian Scout Resistance who were executed for their part in the resistance to Nazi occupation during World War II?
Would you please swap it to Prep 7? It would be appreciated. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable, so I swapped it with that set's Polish hook. There are now two World War II hooks in prep 7, which is technically allowed, but I may kick William F. Fiedler back when prep 3 is promoted.--Launchballer 07:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity request

When prep 7 clears, I would appreciate Template:Did you know nominations/Nozawana going into that set. I need the 23rd to complete User:Bilorv/Challenges#Calendar. Many thanks. --evrik (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving it to the special occasion holding area, so that a prepbuilder will see it when they promote Template:Did you know nominations/David Raymond.--Launchballer 20:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. --evrik (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest adding a source for the phrase "Nozawana is not Asian like daikon, but has strong European characteristics, and closely related species have been found in Fukushima Prefecture.".--Launchballer 20:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. --evrik (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it will not be able to run with the picture evrik—the multi-article hook will take priority. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 queues left.[edit]

@DYK admins: Currently, we have 2 remaining queue sets promoted. As usual, I recommend promoting more prep sets so that we can clear the approved hook backlog. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a backlog, or that there is any real urgency. Let's save the emergency pings for admins for when the deadline is under 24 hours, rather than over 50? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting queue sets ahead of time instead of at the last hours is more ideal, could allow for a smoother process of ironing out errors. That said, instead of at 2 queues, I can notify admins when we’re at one or no queue sets left. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in fact, further to our conversation last week, it's actually better to notify earlier rather than later, because if admins have to do a rush job to get a set ready in under 24 hours, and not do full checks, then errors can creep in.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know about "corrected", I'm only offering an opinion ...  — Amakuru (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to say the near-constant DYK pings are annoying to the point I'm tempted to remove myself from the list. PLEASE use them sparingly. WaggersTALK 07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: , well hopefully the 36-hour point, which we have now reached, is a compromise between Amakuru's and Waggers's positions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 36-hour point does sound good, and if for some reason no action is taken, we can ping again at the 12-hour mark though hopefully this won’t have to happen. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Waggers. I find these pings annoying. I'm a volunteer, I don't like being nagged because I'm not working hard enough. Pinging the DYK admins should be reserved for real emergencies. RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3[edit]

Richard Louhenapessy[edit]

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Louhenapessy)

This doesn't seem entirely accurate to me. I can understand that the second mayor came into office due to Louhenapessy's arrest, but the third and fourth seem to have taken office for unrelated reasons, because their predecessors as acting mayor couldn't be in that position any more or were replaced. I suspect a small tweak would be fine, to remove the causality and just highlight that there were four mayors overall. Pinging @Juxlos, Narutolovehinata5, and Bruxton:  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe replace "due to" with "after", then? Juxlos (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that also works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, late reply - yes, it almost works, although given that Louhenapessy himself is also one of the four, that might need a slight re-tweak. WIll think about this shortly.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe:'
Juxlos (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvio Porcel de Peralta[edit]

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Elvio Porcel de Peralta)

  • ... that after receiving his record 97th ejection, footballer Elvio Porcel de Peralta went to the referee and punched him?

Small point, but I have never heard the term ejection being used in a football (soccer) match before. Sending off is the usual nomenclature, at least where I come from. I could understand if it were an Americanism or something, but it looks like the article is written in British English, given that it says Honours (rather than Honors) and uses dmy dates... @BeanieFan11, Launchballer, and PrimalMustelid:  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Amakuru: I'm admittedly not an association football expert (I understand the sport enough that I was able to write the article - but I usually follow a different type of football (which is where ejection is used)) – happy to have it changed to "sent off" or another term if that's what's generally used. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should use whatever term the source uses, preferably translated by a native speaker of Spanish. RoySmith (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sent off" is correct. Source: "fue expulsado en 97 partidos"; per WordReference, expulsado = sent off. Our (unreferenced) Ejection (sports)#Association football notes "The act of ejection is referred to in the sport as "sending off"." Note that "receiving a red card" or "being shown a red card" are synonyms. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I think this would be: ... that after being sent off for the record 97th time, footballer Elvio Porcel de Peralta went to the referee and punched him? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would trim it to ... that after being sent off for a record 97th time, footballer Elvio Porcel de Peralta punched the referee? I doubt he needed to "go to" the referee, who was likely right next to him. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above suggestion. --evrik (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks, that works. Just on a small point of order, I would have to take issue with the suggestion that "We should use whatever term the source uses, preferably translated by a native speaker of Spanish". That is almost the opposite of what we should be doing - per WP:PARAPHRASE and other guidelines, "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words". If there are various terms for "ejection" that are clearly synonyms, then we should choose the one that matches our MOS and other prose factors, not just blindly use the same terminology as the source - more particularly when that source isn't even in English in the first place. Anyway, doesn't really affect anything here, just thought I'd reply to that!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne McCarthy (basketball) Pulled hook[edit]

The discussion at [2] was quite unusual regarding pulling "... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers?". I was based on "The girls also have tackled bowling and gymnastics, Linda McCarthy said." this source.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems like there were objections to
  1. the use of the word all in the hook (which could have been removed).
  2. the fact that the hook was not mentioned in an unbolded article (which seems a bit irrelevant)
  3. noting a contextually peculiar hobby on the main page from User:Fram, which User:AirshipJungleman29 deemed a serious offense to the main page. Then User:TenPoundHammer confessed to reviewer error. So User:Schwede66 pulled the hook.
Hooks of the flavor that Person X who is now famous for Alpha once used to do a contextually peculular thing Beta, is an extremely common hook form on DYK. I don't see what the rub was.
  • Also, I have no understanding what User:Cremastra's comment "A DYK about a link is pointless—it doesn't highlight a specific article. Besides, the sourcing was suspect regardless of the article"
  1. Is the Chicago Tribune no longer a WP:RS?
  2. What is the meaning of specific article not being highlighted?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, by comment was confused, but the original concerns are still valid. Cremastra (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Cremastra, If so couldn't you have removed the word All and delinked Jenny. Don't understand the third.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, specifically the one about the hook not being supported by the RS it cited, a reason I note is absent from the above three objections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:AirshipJungleman29, Not understanding how "... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers?" is not cited by "The girls also have tackled bowling and gymnastics, Linda McCarthy said.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tackled football and cricket as a child; that didn't make me a footballer or a cricketer. These words mean that you are proficient at the sport—the definition of "gymnast" is "a person who is skilled in gymnastics, often someone who competes in gymnastic competitions". I could also say "I and my friends all tackled rugby as children", where they played for county level and I did nothing more than catching the ball once and subsequently being bulldozed. That is something I could mention in an interview but which is out of scope for an encyclopedic article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:AirshipJungleman29, This is all a matter of tweaking a hook. I am hearing you say that having been a gymnast and or a bowler is different than having done gymnastics and bowling, which is a tweak issue for a hook. I.e., I think you are saying that the source supports ALT1"... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy did gymnastics and ten-pin bowling?", but not "were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers". In terms of an article about a subject who is WP:NSPORT as athlete, youth athletic activity is well within scope as it presents the evolution of her reason for notability. In fact, there is no athlete bio where I could present any youth athletic activities where I did not consider it within scope to do so. What is wrong with this logic.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changed hook is them simply not interesting. The DYK definition of interesting is "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". Children having hobbies is not interesting in the slightest. The original hook falsely claimed that they were all proficient in gymnastics and bowling, which is interesting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you assuming their youth activities were hobbies? Competitive gymnastics starts at a very young age. The source is silent on whether they were hobbyists or competitors. There is some reduced intrigue with the downgrade of the hook from "... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers?" to ALT1"... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy did gymnastics and ten-pin bowling?" but this hook has embedded intrigue in the fact that Oh My!!! I did not know Jenny McCarthy had a notable sister. So there is that element of the hook the retains intrigue. For those that know who Joanne is, there is intrigue in that wow we actually know something about her athletic background, what else does the article tell us. Removal was a bit inappropriate in the sense that it removes all record of this appearing in the archive. I assure you if you put the downgraded hook back on the main page for the 5 hours it got shorted yesterday it would have enough intrigue to get viewers. It would also rightly appear in the archive for being in the closing version of a DYK run. Since this got over 7000 views even though it was slighted 5 hours, it deserves to at least be in the archive. It may not be the most intriguing hook ever, but it does deserve to be in the archvive, which only happens by being in the closing version of the DYK run. Can we just put the the properly revised version back on for the last 5 hours of todays set so it can make the archive.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In fact doing gymnastics might give one a penchant for performing on a stage in front of an audience of fans and judges might make one inclined to want to perform on other types of stages for fans and critics like Jenny did. This topic could even be added to Jenny's article and be within scope.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have in fact, just added this to Jenny's article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As alternative suggestions for phrasing this in an interesting way, perhaps:
    • ALT2A"... that basketball player Joanne McCarthy also did gymnastics and bowling?"
    • ALT2B"... that basketball player Joanne McCarthy and her actress sister Jenny did gymnastics and bowling in their youth?"
    I think while there is a way that mentioning all four sisters could be interesting it's harder to find that phrasing than just honing in on "person notable for A used to do B", which the earlier versions of the hook don't sufficiently directly highlight. I do think this hook fact can be and is interesting. I admit to finding that saying calling someone a "gymnast" necessarily implies a minimum level of proficiency seems an overwrought reading; a gymnast can be a mediocre hobbyist at gymnastics, and a a filmmaker can be lousy at the making films. Lacking major skill doesn't require one to say the person just 'does filmmaking' or 'does gymnastics'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Hydrangeans, I agree that a bit much was made of this quibble. Although notability is not WP:INHERITED, and we don't necessarily want to port Inherited intrigue, there is intrigue in noting that Jenny McCarthy has a notable sister and having both links in the hook increases likelihood of a clickthrough. I prefer to have all the sisters listed, but including just Jenny is prefered to not including her, IMO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you really need a completely different hook,

  1. ALT3"... that when Joanne McCarthy retired from basketball, she moved to Los Angeles to be a makeup artist?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Cremastra (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: This hook got pulled from the main page over a questionable quibble, which means it got short changed 4+ hours and did not make the WP:DYKA. Can you decide on one of these ALT hooks and restore this to be in DYK at the close of a run so it can be in DYKA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's consensus for this to be given another 4 hours of airtime, I'd be most happy to arrange that at 20:00 UTC. Schwede66 03:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy for this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm supportive of this, with thanks and kudos to Shwede66 being up for arranging it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've restored it as ALT2B. Schwede66 20:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed at Template:Did you know nominations/Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Hi all. This is a weird case. Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season was an existing article created in main space in 2008. It remained for several years until it was merged/redirected (without a discussion that I can find) to 1993 Atlantic hurricane season in 2011. The old article's history is still extant in the Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season article. The article was recreated in a much improved version recently. Is this new? A 5x expansion? My understanding is we go off existing article history, so I would guess it would be a 5x expansion given that the old article is still there in the history and there are overlaps in content between the new and old versions. Also, do we ignore the bulleted text for a timeline page, or do we count it when looking at prose count? All opinions welcome in helping to clarify how we should handle this nomination.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@evrik It isn't 5x longer. If we discount bulleted text, the original prose count is 1,816 characters of prose making the required 5x expansion 9080 characters. The article currently has 4,085 characters not including bulleted text. If we include the timeline itself and its bulleted text (the majority of the article's content is presented this way), the gap widens even further by a significant amount. I'd be ok with overlooking the bulleted text because that seems in keeping with policy. I am less inclined towards considering this new because it is clearly an article on the same topic with overlapping points in the timelines, and most importantly both versions of the article share a single article history. I think we need to consider that this wasn't created as a new page but is a restoration of an old one with a single article history. That clearly shows it isn't a new page. Calling it new would set a bad precedent.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever. I'd say it's new. --evrik (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@evrik I can understand why some editors might view it that way, which is why I brought it here. I'm sticking with the need for a 5x expansion, but could respect the decision to consider it new if that is the majority view. Let's get some more opinions to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After over 12 years of absence, I'd say that the article should be considered new, but that any reused material from the 2011 incarnation does not count toward the minimum 1500 prose character requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset That seems reasonable. Are we counting bulleted text in the new prose count?4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, bulleted text never counts as prose. DYK check gives the current total as 4086 prose characters, all of them in the intro paragraphs. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm supportive of considering this a new creation rather than an expansion of a prior version of the article, after more than a dozen years of the namespace being a redirect and there being effectively no live version of the article displayed to readers. Especially on comparing the current version to the 2011 version and seeing how improved the current version is compared to the 2011 version, I think considering the nominated article a new creation falls within the spirit of DYK highlighting a wide range of fresh content on Wikipedia. I support allowing this nomination to proceed. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like a clear consensus to treat this as a new article. So, that's what I will do in my review. Thanks all for the input. 4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list of older nominations was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 33 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 29. We have a total of 196 nominations, of which 91 have been approved, a gap of 105 nominations that has increased by 15 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6[edit]

"Coming out of my cage / and i've been doing just fine!" theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! --evrik (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Zhaoxing (nom)[edit]

  • ... that Li Zhaoxing (pictured), a former Chinese minister of foreign affairs, has published more than 200 poems and was known as a "poet minister"?

@Toadboy123, Makeandtoss, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm not sure I trust this seemingly government-connected source for the claim it's making about a government official in the hook. Is it independent/reliable? Also, citation 4 to Deseret News is incorrect; it's to a history.com source, which would be unreliable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed citation 4. If there are concerns on the reliability of the source of the hook, we can replace it with another sources such as these [3], [4], [5]. Toadboy123 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadboy123: do any of these verify "poet minister"? Having trouble with access... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 4 which is by South China Morning Post confirms that Li is a prolific poet and has published over 200 poems but does not mention that he is called 'poet minister'. However a source in the article by People's Daily mentions that Li is called 'poet minister'. Toadboy123 (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says he is called a "poet diplomat", which the hook might need to be adjusted to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Decade Team selections (nom)[edit]

@Gonzo fan2007: I'm struggling with the notability factor here, particularly on WP:LISTN. Are there any independent sources that give notability to the Packers' prevalence on the All-Decade Team? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron I'll note that WP:LISTN specifically states that it is not an all-inclusive guideline (One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable...) (my emphasis). I think this list clearly satisfies WP:LISTPURP, specifically because it is grouped by theme and provides navigation between articles with related qualities (being selected for the same type of recognition). From a WP:LISTN perspective, the topic of "Green Bay Packers players All-Decade Teams" is discussed. Here is a Packers.com piece that provides the full list of the specific topic. Other news organizations also develop their own "All-Decade Team" for specific teams, like the Packers. 247 did it here, Forbes notes that five Packers were selected for the PFF All-Decade team, USA Today did it for the Packers and all of the news articles reporting on the selection of Aaron Rodgers include his Packers teammates, like here. Obviously the HOF lists each All-Decade Team member by team and is the most notable, which is why it is used for the basis of this article. Hope this helps. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 opening of regular sessions of the National Congress of Argentina (nom)[edit]

@Cambalachero and SounderBruce: Hmm, I'm not sure that this is notable under the relevant guideline of WP:NEVENT. I'm glad to see non-U.S. politics getting the U.S. politics treatment, but unfortunately, we do have pretty high barriers in this area because of U.S. politics cruft. Also, I trust that Infobae is a reliable source? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those speeches are the Argentine equivalent of the State of the Union address in the United States. And it seems in {{State of the Union}} that Wikipedia has articles for all and each one of those. Cambalachero (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but notability isn't transferred that way – SOTUs are so notable they're widely assumed to pass NEVENT without a hitch. The sources currently in the article don't demonstrate the same thing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of those links are not Wikipedia articles, but Wikisource entries. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infobae is a fairly reliable source. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some international sources to the article. As for lasting effects, the "Pact of May" proposed in the speech is an ongoing topic of political negotiation still today, see here. Cambalachero (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Round (nom)[edit]

@Sammi Brie: ooh, an interesting foray for you! Can I suggest this alternate hook?

  • ... that at the restaraunt chain Ground Round, customers were allowed to drop their peanut shells on the floor?

Thought it might be cute :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, my childhood! The peanut shells on the floor are one of the first things I remember about that chain. That and the cartoons on the projector. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some other chains that did that (I remember once eating at Logan's Roadhouse, which did similar). This is fine; I don't know if it's completely unique. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true Sammie, many places still feature the peanuts shells on the floor. Texas Roadhouse for instance. Bruxton (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chances R in Chicago had peanut shells on the floor by the mid-1960s, years before Ground Round was founded. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A little copyediting:
  • ... that Ground Round customers dropped peanut shells on the floor?
RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le Touquet (nomination)[edit]

Just spotted a report at Errors literally 5 minutes before the hook went live:

"that even though about 100,000 bombs fell on Le Touquet during World War II, making it "the most mined city in France ...". My reading of the article is that the 100,000 refers to mines (i.e. explosive devices planted carefully by hand designed to explode when the enemy encounters them), not to bombs dropped from aeroplanes. In this case it was the Allies who were dropping bombs and the Germans who were planting mines. So the hook needs a rewrite or to be cut. Jmchutchinson

Upon a very quick reading of the article, it seems the concern is justified. I've thus pulled the hook. Heads up to @Szmenderowiecki, Elli, and PrimalMustelid: as nominator, reviewer and prep promoter. I'd say we find a new hook and then promote again, as it's a very solid article. Schwede66 00:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah man, sorry about that. Didn't catch the discrepancy. I'd change it to "even though about 100,000 mines were left in" maybe? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody got hurt; no trouble. I've reopened the nomination page. Schwede66 02:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh[edit]

The hook appeared on the Main Page today but I have received no message on my talk page as such despite being the hook nominator. Please do take up the issue for consideration. Looking forward to the issue being resolved. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKUpdateBot was just a bit slow off the mark today. It arrived at 12:24 UTC. Schwede66 01:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Random text at top of DYK noms[edit]

I noticed at one of my recent DYK noms it created with the random text "{{DYKsubpage |monthyear=May 2024 |passed= |2=" at the top. I don't think that's supposed to be there? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone took out "Post-promotion hook changes [[User:GalliumBot#darn|will be logged]] on the talk page; consider [[Help:Watchlist|watching]] the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.}} from somewhere, which causes a }} to be missing. --Launchballer 01:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's this edit by @Theleekycauldron: that did it. I've reverted it, but I don't speak Lua, so someone who does should make the edit again leaving the }} in.--Launchballer 02:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been done.--Launchballer 02:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know Lua but I'm fairly sure that's the answer, so I've gone ahead and done it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hook needed Mohammad Saifullah Ozaki[edit]

I got involved in this nomination and I think we need help with hook ideas to proceed. Bruxton (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added Alt2. --evrik (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the hook ideas. Now we wait. Bruxton (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cummings: bring your questions here. --evrik (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxton, evrik thanks, I guess what I'm struggling with is the vast majority of his article is about his radicalisation and being the emir of the Islamic State in Bangladesh. Where as the hooks are about him wearing a face mask and knowing about finance. This feels extremely strange. John Cummings (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton and Evrik: Pings don't work without signatures. I can tell you that I deliberately sidestepped his militancy stuff out of an abundance of BLP caution.--Launchballer 08:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no proposed two alternative hooks. Not much else I can do. --evrik (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination and Article in Prep 5[edit]

I think this hook does not flow well and it is not approved in the nomination. ... that Ronald Reagan only acknowledged AIDS in 1985, despite it having killed thousands in the U.S. since 1981? The part I am not fond of is "despite it having killed thousands". The hook in the nomination flows better in my opinion .. that despite AIDS being identified and causing thousands of deaths since 1981, President Ronald Reagan did not publicly acknowledge AIDS until 1985?. Despite is used in both hooks and it appears in WP:WTW so we need to decide if it should be used.

After reading the hook I looked at Earwig. It looks like quotes caused a 77% Earwig score. Courtesy pings to promotor @AirshipJungleman29: Nominator @Wasianpower: reviewer @Buidhe:

If we need some hook tweaking we can do it here; alternatively if nobody sees this hook the way I did, we can leave it. Bruxton (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that the modified hook reads better, while the original is perhaps too long and a bit clunky, while burying the article topic in the second half of the hook.
"Despite" is ok in this case, because it's the sources making the connection not the wikipedia editor. Otherwise it would be OR. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it is generally inaccurate to say AIDS killed people as people die from AIDS complications (diseases caught with a compromised immune system), not AIDS itself. I’m not sure there’s a way around using a “although/despite” type word here, and it’s worth noting that the contrast drawn here is very common in literature on the subject. Possible compromise hook:

that Ronald Reagan only acknowledged AIDS in 1985, despite AIDS causing thousands of deaths in the U.S. since 1981.

🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also just realized, it's important that the word "public" is used here, as he had private meetings on the subject in 1983.

... that Ronald Reagan only publicly acknowledged AIDS in 1985, despite AIDS causing thousands of deaths in the U.S. since 1981.

🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton and Wasianpower: I have no opinions on the killed/caused deaths dispute (seems much of a muchness to me, and reminds me of this) so this hook is fine, but I do feel that my rearrangement, as buidhe noted, improves the flow of the hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Not fond of that hook from a neutrality perspective, it reads as taking a very deliberate stance on something the lead says is a "source of controversy". The hook implies a continuous period of deliberate ignorance for that period, and while that is probably true for some of it, the disease didn't even have its name in 1981. The "Reagan administration response" section starts only in October 1982. The hook also doesn't read that clearly without background knowledge about the history of the disease (coming to the US some time in the 1970s but only being clearly defined beginning in 1981) and of American political history (inauguration in 1981). CMD (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):Despite appears to be editorializing because it sets up an accusation that Reagan willfully ignored the crisis. With that said, I think the wasianpower hook idea is better. Bruxton (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't WP:OR editorializing when this contrast/despite is something reliable sources have pointed out. The controversy the article mentions is not about whether Reagan was as president publicly silent on the matter of AIDS until 1985, as that's uncontroversial fact part of the public record and in reliable sources. The controversy is over the appropriateness of that silence and whether as president he should've taken a public stance on addressing the public health crisis or whether his administration's action/inaction was normal/fine. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously biased because it is my hook, but I disagree that it is implying deliberate ignorance on Reagan's part. The hook is about his public silence in the early years of the AIDS epidemic, which is an uncontroversial fact. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the distinction between public silence and deliberate ignorance here? The article suggests he didn't understand the severity of disease until 1985 (deliberately or not). CMD (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction IMO is that public silence is concrete, and we can and do have factual historical record of it. Whereas deliberate ignorance would require us to see inside Reagan's head to know what he knew and what his motivations were. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link between the two that creates the implication is the framing. "...only...despite...killed thousands...", not a bald statement of uncontroversial fact. CMD (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the framing controversial?
Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the framing is controversial is an entirely separate question to what the framing is/does. Your hyperlinks show a mixture of different wordings, some more obviously pointed than others, but they include some good examples of being bit more contextualized/specific. For example, the Vanity fair framing of just year looking at 1985 and deaths at that point is a lot clearer and sets up a simpler point than suggesting the same situation existed across five years. CMD (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see how the Vanity Fair example here is any different than the others. The AIDS epidemic in the United States is considered to have began in 1981, which is also when tracking of infection and death numbers begin. All that Vanity Fair is doing is making that implicit rather than explicit, which only exacerbates your point about required background knowledge on the history of the disease. As shown in the examples Hydrangeans kindly provided, this kind of wording and framing is very common across reliable and neutral (AP, NPR, Washington Post) literature on the subject, so I guess I don't understand what the issue here still is. I can see how you may personally view this fact as reflecting negatively on Reagan, but even those who defend Reagan's AIDS record do not dispute this fact. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can dispassionately state the facts and the hook is still interesting. Despite is a word that injects blame when the word is not needed - a reader can draw their own conclusions. I also see the word "only" which also leads the reader. As an example, here are two hooks about Nero, ...that the Roman emperor Nero Fiddled as Rome Burned? or ...that despite the fact that Rome was burning, Roman emperor Nero only played his fiddle? Do both say the same thing? Yes, but one tells the reader what to believe and one allows the reader to draw a conclusion.Our article on Nero states that it may not be true so this is just an example. Bruxton (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm fine with using that format. How about:

... that Ronald Reagan did not publicly mention AIDS until 1985, four years after it was identified and after more than 5,000 people in the United States had died from it?

🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I think this is an excess of caution, it is a clean hook and would have my support. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton@AirshipJungleman29 Does this hook look good to you? 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would trim the "four years after it was identified" bit—diseases are identified all the time, and no-one expects politicians to comment until they cause suffering on a mass scale. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with AirshipJungleman29. I struck the part which was mentioned above. I am satisfied that the hook idea suggested is more neutral. Also wasianpower. I hope you will continue to participate in this section of the project. Bruxton (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I plan to, appreciate your help and guidance in this discussion. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's entire books and scholarly papers that discuss the "deliberate ignorance" of the "gay disease" by Reagan and the members of his fundamentalist Christian administration, who went on record saying that gay people deserved to suffer. ACT UP was formed in 1987 after years of Reagan's extreme cruelty and harsh policies. None of this is the last bit disputed or controversial. However, it needs to be said, and I've brought this up many times before, sometime in the 1990s, a well funded effort was made by billionaire-funded conservative foundations to scrub the historical record of these facts, and for decades, we've seen conservatives write articles and books whitewashing Reagan's true, disastrous record. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A specific quote about that would probably make a better hook. CMD (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hook seems too tendentious in that it implies that Reagan was actively downplaying the topic. But consider this example from the article "In the 1984 Presidential Election... Neither Democratic candidate Walter Mondale nor Reagan made any public statement on the AIDS during the campaign, and no reporter raised the issue with the candidates." So, if the press corps and the Democratic candidate didn't take an interest in the topic, why would Reagan? The article is written from a single-issue biased perspective but, as President, he had many other issues to concern him. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposed hook advances a false balance that can leave a reader with the impression that reporters didn't bring up AIDS in presidential contexts even though there were like reporters like Larry Kinsolving who did (see When AIDS Was Funny). Berhman's The Invisible People (published by Free Press, a reputed imprint of Simon & Schuster makes it clear that Reagan and his administration were aware of the epidemic and chose have Reagan avoid acknowledging it as political strategy, not as a matter of him being busy and concerned with other things (pages 25–28, portions excerpted above). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 10:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are single-issue sources with a corresponding bias. I just looked at our article HIV/AIDS and it doesn't even mention Reagan once. Instead I notice that it says "The World Health Organization first proposed a definition for AIDS in 1986." Now President Reagan was not especially responsible for medical issues but the World Health Organization is. Trying to make out that Reagan was a villain for not addressing an issue that the WHO hadn't defined yet seems like a ridiculous conspiracy theory. It's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HIV/AIDS also doesn't mention any heads of state, or surgeon general C. Everett Koop, a physician relevant to the disease's history in the United States but not necessarily globally. Content that wouldn't be due in a very broad level article like HIV/AIDS can be due in a subtopical article like Ronald Reagan and AIDS.
    Reducing the reputable publishers cited in the article like Penguin Books, University of Chicago Press, University of North Carolina Press, Vox, and more to biased single-issue sources is a characterization that I think can't hold up. In any case, neither the article or hook use non-neutral language like calling Reagan a villain or evil. If anything, the Wikipedia article's depiction turns out rather soft compared to some sources, emphasizing as it does the effect of personal acquaintance Rock Hudson's death on Reagan's trajectory. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not seen anything which would pass WP:MEDRS. And the article makes medical claims such as "AIDS disproportionately affected, and continues to affect, members of the LGBT community, with gay men and transgender women being the most at risk." But this is sourced to an activist organisation and, as I understand it, it is wrong. When considered as a global pandemic, the people most at risk seem to be those living in Africa. See, for example, the WHO fact sheet which says nothing about the LGBT community in its coverage of risk factors. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson, WP:MEDRS standards are not required for content which does not fall under the category of "Biomedical information"—WP:NOTBMI indicates that aspects such as history, society, and culture don't require MEDRS sourcing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:BMI which explains that biomedical information includes "Population data and epidemiology" such as the "Number of people who have a condition". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I agree with you on that, was just pointing out that WP:MEDRS is only tangentially relevant to the article under discussion, which mainly focuses on socio-historical topics. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and updated that claim with sources from the CDC. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should probably look through this article to see that prose and sources comply with our policy of NPOV. Andrew Davidson - can you help edit this article? Bruxton (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have trouble getting past the first four words: the title of Ronald Reagan and AIDS. This seems to personalise the topic in an improper way because Reagan himself wasn't especially active in driving policy. The main complaint seems to be that his administration was too slow in acting but that's just being wise after the event. Initially the disease was not well understood and it took some time to figure it all out and even now it still kills about 500,000 annually. That's about 100 times greater than the numbers of deaths complained about in those early years and it's obviously not all Reagan's doing or fault. A better approach is to consider the overall campaign of successive administrations. See Fighting an Epidemic in Political Context: Thirty-Five Years of HIV/AIDS Policy Making in the United States for a more systematic and scholarly view. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. It may be that the article began with a thesis about Regan's inaction, and then sources were found to support it. Bruxton (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I had also thought that the title was not well-chosen. "Response of the Ronald Reagan administration to HIV/AIDS" seems more encyclopedic, if a trifle long-winded. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I almost went with that name, I decided against it because, as you said, it's long winded, and because I thought the section on Reagan's personal views might be out of place there, but I'm fine with that title if it's generally preferred. I do also think that it may be worthwhile to move this discussion to the article talk page, it seems out of scope for the DYK talk page. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The AIDS response of Ronald Reagan specifically has long been an issue in LGBT history (see AIDS-Holocaust metaphor for an example), as well as a general source of controversy in the discourse of American politics (examples 1 2 3). AIDS is a frequent topic of discussion when it comes to the Reagans' legacies (4 5 plus many more sources from the left which specifically attack Reagan for his AIDS legacy). I think what you're discussing is more within the general scope of HIV/AIDS in the United States which is worthwhile, but I also think it's justified to have a page specifically on Reagan's response. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I'd call reliable sources pointing out the silence of the most powerful man in the United States during the time, who was personally acquainted with victims, and who was (as Berhamn documents) apprised of its seriousness by administration insiders but chose to heed other advisers' sense that silence was more politic, a matter of sources from the left which specifically attack Reagan. I'll grant that Democracy Now is shrill about it, but that's not the tone of the Wikipedia article, and it's not the tone of Invisible People, NPR, KQED, AP. Juxtaposing Reagan's silence and the death toll even appears in an even-handed (one might even say rather glowing), biography like H. W. Brands's Reagan: The Life (Doubleday, 2015): He maintained presidential silence on AIDS throughout his first term, even as the death toll mounted into the many thousands (656). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very fair point, I was referring more to sources like this 1. Not saying those articles from aren't justified either, just pointing out that Reagan's AIDS response specifically is notable by itself. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To wrap this up, are we ok to insert this hook which was discussed above?

... that Ronald Reagan did not publicly mention AIDS until 1985, after more than 5,000 people in the United States had died from it?

@AirshipJungleman29: Thank you for making the change. Without objection we carry on. Bruxton (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need some quirk[edit]

@Evrik: From the source about chasing people... I feel like there is a good hook in the 30 days of different people wearing a fake bull's head which is streaming fireworks while they chase random people through the streets. I had some difficulty translating the text but that seems like a good option. Bruxton (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... Ecuador has crazy cows? RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Catchy hook, what makes the source reliable.--Launchballer 23:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Catchy hook I do for free. Sources you gotta pay extra for. Interestingly enough, I see we've got Crazy Cow which sounds positively gross. RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was pretty good. I remember it as a child. Of course, you had to like strawberry milk, which was very popular at the time due to Nesquik Strawberry powder, which all the stores carried. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it competed with Franken Berry. Personally, I'm more of a Corn Flakes guy. RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were made by the same company. It's all about fiber for me. My go to cereal these days is Nature's Path Smart Bran. I can't get enough of it. I've bought something like 20 boxes in the last year. Great product. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like graham crackers soaked in milk. --evrik (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Alt... that some towns have "crazy cows" that run around scaring people, and some towns have as many as thirty fire bulls with Sparks flying 1.5 meters (4 ft 11 in) from the bulls horns? --evrik (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we saying cow because of the translation "crazy cow" in the lead? Because technically a cow is a female cattle and a bull is a male. The article is about bulls. Bruxton (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some countries in Latin America call the "creatures" cows. In Spain, it's all bull.--evrik (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crazy is an ableist insult. Being needlessly insulting to many of our readers is a very poor idea. Eric the Angry Communicator (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to wikipedia. --evrik (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedia where anybody can be a sock. RoySmith (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad that the bulls aren't described in reliable sources as "great". If they had been, you'd have a chance at "great bulls of fire". Goodness gracious! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a good quirky shakes your nerves and rattles your brain, eh? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Great Bulls of fire! JLL was a rather controversial figure but he could tickle the ivories. Bruxton (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This thread leaves me "breathless." How about:
"... that while the people of San Sebastián use flaming bovine puppets during their great week festival, the puppets are not "great bulls of fire"?"
--evrik (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access the source @Evrik: but the hook will work if the language is in there. I just suggest that our best practice is to minimize other links in the hook. Bruxton (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the information in that hook can be found here:
Goñi, Félix M. "Fuegos artificiales en Euskalherria" [Fireworks in the Basque Country] (PDF). Normativa sobre espectáculos pirotécnicos (in Basque). Gobierno vasco. p. 26. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 May 2024. Retrieved 2020-03-06.
I have no problem stripping the links. Any suggestions for the word puppet? --evrik (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is still an unreviewed nomination so best put your hook in there and wait for a review. Bruxton (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2[edit]

Enchylium limosum[edit]

How is "Enchylium limosum loves lime" interesting? Lots of plants can't grow in acid soil, which is why garden shops sell lime by the ton. RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental damage in the Gaza Strip caused by the Israel–Hamas war[edit]

This is being discussed at Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war. To avoid fragmenting the conversation, please leave all comments there. RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I'm hard pressed to see how this complies with Hooks must adopt a neutral point of view. Also, regarding The article should not be subject to unresolved edit-warring I see that Bruxton wrote on the nom page, it appears mostly -stable, just the nominator and myself have edited it today. That's probably because it's under WP:ECP. This seems like not what we want to be running on the main page. RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree the hook should be watered down. I think this is good for the DYK page, even if it keeps changing. --evrik (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has edited the page for ten days so it does not keep changing. Because the article is stable, I have no idea what the edit warring comment is about. What am I missing? There is environmental damage in every war (think Agent Orange), but the sources and article call this out as systematic ecocide against greenhouses and farmland. Do you have a suggestion? Meanwhile I will ping promotor @PrimalMustelid: nominator @John Cummings: and participant @Launchballer: Bruxton (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the hook is exactly as viable and less fraught with the omission of the characterization, someone tell me if I'm wrong about that, i.e. ... that Israel has systematically destroyed 38 to 48 percent of trees and farmland in Gaza using bulldozers and tens of thousands of bombs? Remsense诉 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "systematically destroyed 38 to 48 percent of trees and farmland in Gaza using bulldozers and tens of thousands of bombs" is misleading as it implies that Israel has used tens of thousands of bombs to destroy trees and farmland, while tens of thousands seems to be the number of bombs used for all purposes. TSventon (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point, thank you for catching me up. In that case, I'm not sure how to rewrite it. Remsense诉 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove "tens of thousands of". TSventon (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is deeply misleading to say "trees" were systematically destroyed. Nowhere in the article does it say Israel is systematically destroying all the trees of the Gaza strip. As for the broad range of percentages, one sentence in the article even says that the estimate includes trees felled for firewood. CMD (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've unpromoted this; I'll leave it to somebody else to re-fill the prep set. It can get sorted out on the nom page. RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RoySmith and others, some questions:

  1. Can someone explain what the process is now and exactly what has happened? What does it mean to be unpromoted?
  2. What needs to change/agreed for this to be included in DYK?

For clarity this ref describes the destruction of trees and this and this ref both use the word systematic to describe the destruction.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a fair question. When we find a problem (or think there's a problem) with a hook, we need to figure out what to do. In the best case, we talk about it, decide it's not really a problem after all, and life goes on. Or, we might decide that it is indeed a problem, but we're able to come up with a fix (perhaps a change of wording) quickly enough that it can be fixed in place with no time lost. But sometimes (as happened here), it looks like it might take a while to sort out. Once the hook is in a prep set or queue, there's a clock ticking for when it's going to reach the main page, so the best thing to do is pull it out of the prep set or queue and pretend that it was never promoted. Now people get to work on it without the time pressure of the clock ticking away. Presumably at some point (although this isn't guaranteed) a fix will be devised, it'll get promoted again, and all we've lost is some time. Or, it's possible that after more discussion, it's decided that this isn't going to run after all. But best to have that conversation on the nomination page. RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The refs are quite clear on "systematically" being the correct terminology. The refs even explicitly call it ecocide. The only response I can make here is Chipmunkdavis was wrong and you shouldn't have listened to them in the first place, RoySmith. They made an inaccurate claim that was already refuted by the article and its references. (By the way, I agree with the removal of "tens of thousands" from the original hook, merely because it makes the resulting hook more straightforward and concise). SilverserenC 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, best to pick this up on the nomination page. RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure why you're putting "systematically" in quotes and suggested I am somehow disputing that term, as I did not do so. The article uses "systematic" in three places (plus a quote that repeats one of these): "systematic and intentional destruction of agriculture", "systematic and that the Israeli military are intentional targeting of the Gaza's agriculture", and "The effects of this systematic agricultural destruction". Nowhere in the article or in the two sources above are trees in general noted as a target of systematic destruction; the target as per the article and sources is agriculture. The hook is synthing together the systematic destruction of agriculture (source two above) with the overall environmental destruction symbolised by trees (source one above). CMD (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis The Gurdian calls out "tree cover" and "Orchards" which are also trees. A hook has been approved Bruxton (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of this, and note that both The Guardian piece and the en.wiki article do not say the orchards are all tree cover. Orchards are trees, they are not all trees, nor are they all of the agricultural areas. Both The Guardian piece and the en.wiki article do note in the text that there was tree loss due to use for cooking and heating, which is not what the previously proposed hook was covering. (That is in addition as well to the tree cover lost due to non-systematic destruction.) For general record on this page, the new approved hook (nom page) is ALT2: "... that 38% of farms and orchards have been destroyed in Gaza?", which does not conflate the different issues of general environmental damage, specific agricultural damage, and overall bomb numbers. CMD (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article still conflated the different issues, as the lead said "By March 2024, nearly half of tree cover and farmland had been destroyed by Israeli forces by bulldozers and bombs" and the overview section "By March 2024 38–48% of tree cover and farmland had been destroyed by Israeli forces by using bulldozers and bombing" I have removed the last part of each sentence starting at "by Israeli forces" as that seemed to be the easiest solution. TSventon (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I really don't agree with this solution, it makes it passive as if its just sort of happening, I've explained on the DYK template. Many thanks to RoySmith for the explanation of the process. If we could centralise the discussion on the DYK template that would make it much easier to follow. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders oddly showing Joanne McCarthy (basketball) as lowest[edit]

Joanne McCarthy (basketball) ran on at DYK from 00:00 to 19:56, May 7, 2024 (7208 pageviews) and 20:08, May 9, 2024 to 00:00, May 10, 2024 (1777 pageviews). So in 23:48 it had 8985 pageviews. It is listed only for the second run, but as if the second run was 24 hours with some sort of adjustment making her pageviews 1303 with an average pageview of 1303/24=54.3, which is the lowest of the month at both Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly summary statistics and Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders. Can this be fixed somehow?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it on pageview leaders, although I don't really understand summary statistics.--Launchballer 13:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: The bot seems to have undone our edits.--Launchballer 11:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like User:GalliumBot is run by user:theleekycauldron, who frequents this page. Hopefully, she checks in and can offer some advice.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread - "BLP issues with Andrew Tate DYK hook"[edit]

I've changed the thread title to match the current ANI thread title (that title was changed too). The original title was insulting. But if the original title was insulting enough to cause offense and be changed, then we can't really simultaneously quote it verbatim here and say it's OK.--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Here is the permanent link.. I imagine there are a few here we may not be aware that they were discussed here. Lightburst (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I'm not going to comment on the ANI myself, as there often seems to be much more heat than light there. However, I think this could have been avoided with a less-controversial hook, like I mentioned earlier. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been avoided, and going for dramatic and pointed hooks extends beyond just BLP. See also the above discussion on Environmental damage in the Gaza strip. CMD (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am mad at myself for not sticking to my arguments about BLP hooks. Honestly, It felt like a losing battle. Many wanted a negative hook and so we went with the subject's own words. ALt0 in the nom was great but nobody was having it; and so was your suggestion EG. Thanks for being the great editor that you are and for your suggestion. Bruxton (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion here, but the way the Andrew Tate discussion turned out felt like a case of DYK wanting to put politics above anything else, even Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I remember AirshipJungleman29, Lightburst, Epic G and maybe a few others like you who tried to reject neg hooks. It was my fault for relenting and approving the hook - I wanted to reward the editor who brought the article through GA. I think it was hard to reject the actual words of the subject, but as EpicG has said it was not necessary to use it. Anyway it is important that we debrief so that we move forward and grow. Bruxton (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is intended to be a debriefing I wonder if it would be a good idea to ask for their thoughts and opinions here now that the hook has run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be honest here: I felt that any negative-sounding hook about Tate, regardless of personal feelings and politics, was going to be a bad idea. Even as someone who doesn't like him at all, I felt that a more neutral hook would have been a more suitable compromise (my preference was simply not running Tate at all, but that was never going to gain consensus). I felt that the discussion was more like a case of trying to right great wrongs or trying to insert politics into DYK, where personal political opinions were given precedence over our policies and guidelines. Yes, Andy may have been too grumpy and I agree that the tone of his comments were outright personal attacks, but he does have a point here: was the hook a good idea in the first place? It probably wasn't and like Bruxton I have regrets about not pushing against the hook more. However, I felt it was a losing battle since several editors wanted it and there seemed to be no way of that happening so I just stayed silent. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that removing negativity is a way to be "more neutral". It can be a way to be less neutral. Neutrality means reflecting the sources accurately, not eliminating anything charged. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, I think that the way that Narutolovehinata5 conceives of neutrality and the way that wikipedia consensus generally has are incompatible, if Narutolovehinata5 edits in the way that they think is neutral they're going to be doing things which are the opposite of what the community thinks is neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any BLP violation here; the hook was well-sourced. But this does point up a fundamental clash between two DYK principles, that we avoid (unnecessarily) negative hooks on BLPs, and that every eligible and nominated article should eventually be allowed to run on DYK. The latter may not be explicit anywhere but it seems to be very difficult to decline nominations where there is no DYK problem with the article (like being too short or improperly sourced). Here, the coverage of the subject is so relentlessly negative that it would have been a neutrality violation not to run a negative hook, so we eventually decided that the word "unnecessarily" allowed us to run a negative one. Maybe we should instead have decided that, if the only NPOV hooks are negative, then we shouldn't have a hook at all. But I would very much not want to see this lead to anodyne hooks on subjects whose notability is primarily negative in nature; we might want to avoid those subjects, but we should not whitewash them.
Over on the ANI discussion, some have suggested DYK bans on BLPs and on currently-available commercial products. Maybe we should consider that? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the idea that just because a topic is controversial or negative means that any non-negative hook about them would be a neutrality violation. Take for example Russia, which was brought to GA and nominated for DYK but ultimately rejected. That was after the war had started but there were plenty of possible neutral hooks that could have been used; back then the issue people had was if it was in good taste to run a hook on Russia, even if neutral, given the war and all, and I guess we just had a similar case here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is mainly known for negative things we should not become the go-to way for them to rehabilitate their image by publicizing their love for puppies. At the time of that Russia nomination, all news about Russia was about their invasion of Ukraine. Despite their long history, it would very much have been a neutrality violation to portray them in any other light. It would have made us look like shills for the Russian invasion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that having a non-negative hook about something known for negative reasons would be a case of righting great wrongs, and just because we don't run a negative hook does not mean we are endorsing, condoning or supporting them. I know other stuff exists, but it would be like having a positive hook about the United States or China on DYK instead of them being rejected on neutrality grounds, even though both nations are seen in a negative light in much of the world. My point is simply that ideally we should be separating our own personal politics from that of DYK or even the encyclopedia and there was probably a better way of handling this than how it turned out. For the record, I was opposed to Russia running back then, but in hindsight I wonder if it is unfair to deny a country with a long history of being featured on DYK just because of recent events (and thus recency bias), even as someone who supports Ukraine in the war. It isn't rehabilitation: you can describe neutral facts about something while still acknowledging their negative aspects, just as how you can say negative things about things largely seen in a positive light. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we run a non-negative hook on a subject for which the bulk of coverage is negative, then we are in fact going to be seen as endorsing, condoning or supporting the subject. It will be non-neutral promotion and it will be seen that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Just reject the nomination if anything positive would be UNDUE. Valereee (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the bans, I would strongly oppose that. DYK in part is meant to reward contributors or at least incentivize them for improving articles, and not allowing them just because the subject is a BLP or a currently-available product would be deeply unfair, not to mention essentially disqualifying much of Wikipedia. Our normal guidelines and activities already seem to work relatively fine, and cases like this are rare enough that they're more of the exception rather than the rule, but in most cases any issues would already be easily dealt with. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be meant to reward neutral-minded Wikipedia contributors, but what it has turned into for BLPs and products is a way for publicists to push Wikipedia into being an advertising site for their clients. That's a much worse problem than a reduction in the possible scope for rewarding contributors would be. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cases of DYK being used to promote products are so rare that I can only remember one recent case of it happening, and even then it wasn't even a paid promotion. The closest would be fans writing about things they are fans of, but that isn't really the same. Of course a fan of, for example The Simpsons, would be the one most likely to write an article about something Simpsons related, or how a Taylor Swift fan is more likely than a non-fan to write articles about her songs and albums. If it was actually proven that a DYK was nominated to commercially promote a product, that would be dealt with through the usual means. I just don't see it as a regular enough occurrence to warrant such a drastic measure when other measures can already take care of them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the ALTs about commercial products are promotional in nature because that's what RS are talking about and there's nothing else interesting about the subject. Things like "...that as of its release in May of 2024 the RXK7 was the smallest widget ever made?" We don't like to discourage editors who are interested in cell phones or video games or whatever, so we try to work with them. Maybe we should stop. It's not like being unable to go to DYK is going to prevent someone from creating iPhone 87. Someone will still create it.
In the case of Tate, my feeling was that the ALTs being suggested were either mealymouthed or were no less negative that the one we ran with. He ran a Hustler's University -- which was a pyramid scheme -- is either disingenuous (if we don't say what it was) or negative (if we do). I think we just need to stop running hooks about living people. It's too fraught. Valereee (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be a case-to-case basis because many if not most BLPs that are nominated for DYK are uncontroversial. Tate was really just a special case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we decide? Do we really run "...that Andrew Tate is a surfer?" when literally 98% of RS are covering negative things? I don't want to unduly include negative shit, but when that's almost literally all that's out there, do we really want to have to cherrypick something neutral? And honestly does Taylor Swift ever need to be mentioned again on DYK? Valereee (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just remove the "unduly" from WP:DYKBLP? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're proposing, @AirshipJungleman29? That we shouldn't worry about something being unduly negative? Or that we should never run anything negative? I would actually object to either. Maybe you're saying if we can't say something nice, we should reject the nom? Valereee (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latter, yes. I don't think blanket-banning all BLPs is a good idea—for one thing, they're around a quarter of the hooks. Saying "if saying something positive about [person/product/controversial current event] could reasonably be described as POV, just forget about it and move on" is good with me. No DYK hook is worth tens of thousands of bytes of discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bios are a quarter of hooks, I don't think living people are? But I get your point. Agreed that the discussion over Tate here and elsewhere is not worth our time. I'm not actually sure the nominator would disagree. Valereee (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent: just did a count of hooks from this month's sets, and came up with 20% for BLPs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Another reason to just get rid of them. 02:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Valereee (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit drastic to me. Most are perfectly fine. I also suspect (with no evidence other than my experience in promoting) that BLP hooks are less WP:BIASed than the average bio hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Yes. Seems drastic to shoot them just to get around WP:BLP. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I broadly agree. I think one of the main problems with this nomination, and many like it, is the sunk cost fallacy attitude that if a nominated article receives massive amounts of attention and discussion, it has to get onto the main page (as Bruxton admirably admits above, they "wanted to reward the editor who brought the article through GA"), otherwise it is a waste of time and a betrayal of the DYK process. In practice, all this usually leads to is everyone getting worn down and a controversial/substandard hook getting allowed onto the main page. We don't have to do that to ourselves—we can, if we really want, but we don't have to. I think a line to that effect at WP:DYKCRIT wouldn't go amiss. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We err too much on the side of "Someone worked hard on this, we should find something we can use." Valereee (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We had other choices. If you revisit that thread of our discussion many of the editors seemed to hate the person so much that they were unwilling to consider any hook that did not take him down. As Epic Genius says in the thread, you had a choice. So it is not a BLP thing if we follow our own rules. Lightburst (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking more about the DYK culture than about this specific hook or about BLP, Lightburst. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other choices like Uday was relatively neat and Qusay seldom raped the disabled? It's a choice, but it's a bad choice. If we're considering saying something positive about someone whose coverage in RS is 95% about bad things they've done, we're whitewashing. If our choices are
  1. Say something extremely well-sourced that is negative and not undue, and end up with someone losing their shit over it
  2. Say something trivial and unduly positive and end up whitewashing
  3. Reject the nomination
I think #3 is the best of bad choices. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But #1 is better than #2 per WP:NPOV. —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree, which is why I supported it. In retrospect I think Black Kite was correct; 1 may be better than 2, but 3 is better than 1. Valereee (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we block the person losing their shit and move on, how is that even a question? We don't let editors who can't edit civility get a heckler's veto, we block them for disruption which losing their shit over DYK would by definition be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a question at that ANI, though. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? At that ANI they seem to have done a good job of separating someone losing their shit (hence a discussion about a 24 hour block for the disruptive editor) and the underlying issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still catching up here, re: "wanted to reward the editor who brought the article through GA". The irony being is I said I already didn't care about the DYK anymore, given the controversy, prior to the DYK being approved. So while this statement is probably accurate most of the time, in this case, it was because an alternative hook was provided that it was then approved. I specifically chose not to include that hook, to avoid all these inevitable issues (that enough users warned about over use of negative hooks). So it might be worth being more mindful of the nominees opinion, and then this could have all been avoided. The article is already an WP:1M, so no offence, but getting on DYK doesn't make any difference here. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"currently available commercial products" is a massive area: books, movies, music would be reduced to things that are out of print. Various sports events are also highly commercial. If we ban these for advertising, I hope we also ban all hooks relating to religion (proselytising), beaches and other extant geographic features (good for the travel industry), museums, trains and TV stations.
It is natural for DYK hooks to bring attention to their subject. It is always possible that this attention results in additional sales. The only way to make sure it never happens on the Main Page is to remove all content from the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree, it's too massive, and unfortunately I'm not Czar. I do think we should tighten up on the brand-new whizbang that there really isn't anything interesting to build a hook around. I've always been a little torn -- it feels unfair to editors whose main editing interest is each new iteration of the iPhone or whatever -- but we've got nominated right now ... that RuPaul's Drag Race Live! replaced the eleven-year run of Donny and Marie Osmond's concert residency at the Flamingo Las Vegas? To me that seems pretty ho-hum. Show ends at venue, another show begins in that venue. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a boring hook, and I think we should avoid this type of hooks independent of whether this replacement happened yesterday or 100 years ago. The problems is that our mechanisms for rejecting hooks are terrible and cause lots of drama, so I am trying to find new (or old) ways for us to get rid of bad hooks and other problematic nominations without the drama of explicit rejections, for example by allowing them to time out. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does that work? You're right that we don't have a mechanism...things just sort of automatically get moved through the process, and it's often at the prep>queue stage that some admin brings a hook here. Often multiple hooks in a single prep set. By which time so many people have been involved with the nom that there's a sunk cost. Valereee (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Any nomination that hasn't been accepted by a reviewer after three weeks or promoted to a prep set after six weeks is automatically closed as rejected" would both kill the backlog and give us a means to pocket veto any nomination. It is like DYK was in 2006, just with a lot more time before noms are rejected. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how do we encourage reviewers to not review and promoters not to promote? Reviewers just want to get their QPQ, and promoters want to get the sets filled. That's why stuff ends up here at the prep>queue phase, when some admin questions multiple hooks that got that far. We create a list every week or so asking people to review hooks that have been languishing. Valereee (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can’t say I am surprised. I knew something like this would happen which is why I was so adamant against running a negative hook initially (and I never really felt good about it even after being worn down to change my position). I would have been ok with a neutral non-negative/non-positive hook, but clearly that would not get support. We probably should not have run a hook at all on Tate.
I would support a burn clause where we simply say we won’t run a negative hook on any BLP if it’s contested at nomination. Meaning that if there are any objections to a negative hook raised in review it doesn’t run by default. Likewise, if people insist we must run a negative hook when others oppose it’s an automatic reject of the hook nom and we simply won’t run any hook. Best to err on the side of caution and only run negative hooks on BLPs when there is unanimous support. We don’t often have contentious BLPs so I don’t think this clause would impact the vast majority of BLPs at DYK.4meter4 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is only half the problem. If we insist on not running negative hooks, but insist on running hooks on those subjects anyway, we will force ourselves to violate neutrality. We need a way to tell nominators that their article is not suitable for DYK despite being nominally eligible, and we need to enforce this rather than softheartedly giving in every time to boring or negative hooks because we can't find a way around them but we can't get ourselves to refuse a nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like AirshipJungleman29's suggestion of adding something like if saying something positive about [person/product/controversial current event] could reasonably be described as POV, just forget about it and move on to WP:DYKCRIT. I think it's understandable that, once an editor has put in the work to improve an article, reviewers want to find a compliant hook that showcases it. Clarifying in advance that some of these articles aren't suitable for DYK means submitters don't get an unpleasant surprise and reviewers don't have that impossible responsibility on them. hinnk (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think softheartedly giving in every time to boring or negative hooks because we can't find a way around them but we can't get ourselves to refuse a nomination is close to one of our central problems. We do not want to explicitly refuse to run a hook or an article, because people have it in their head that any article satisfying a bunch of more or less arcane rules has a right to appear on the Main Page. My suggestion is to go back to the roots: just remove all nominations that have not been promoted after a certain time, as we did back in 2006. That way, QPQers and prep builders can collectively reject any nomination for any reason without fighting huge arguments about what is and is not boring. —Kusma (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This. It was suggested before and remains even more relevant now. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK has many issues (sensationalism, boredom from dominance by regulars and their topic areas, sloppy reviewing, understaffing) but I think avoiding controversial topics would make DYK worse without solving anything.
Any hook about Tate would have attracted controversy; we should not let fear of controversy censor our range of topics. I am actually surprised this one was attacked for being "negative about a BLP" instead of for allowing Tate to "advertise" his misogyny on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy is worth considering for reasons other than fear, but I do agree that we should probably not be making a sweeping rule change based on the Andrew Tate article hook, that is prime hard cases make bad law. CMD (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @hinnk. AirshipJungleman29, Valereee I would oppose any rule change making it harder to add a positive hook. We shouldn't enshrine the idea that saying something positive is automatically or even potentially a POV violation into DYK policy. That will cause lots of drama in normal reviews, and it could have an unintended consequence of increasing not decreasing negative hooks when it comes to BLPs. Any policy we make needs to focus on negative BLP hooks specifically, and not become an unnecessary barrier to featuring positive hooks on people.
@Narutolovehinata5 I notice your examples did not actually involve BLPs, so they aren't good examples. Making analogies to non-persons like countries isn't useful as these rules are specifically limited to living people. I also note that in my proposal I didn't outright ban negative hooks, it only made it much harder for them to go through in the narrow context of BLPs. @David Eppstein and Kusma As for "boring" hooks, that isn't the issue at hand. Don't make this conversation about something that isn't relevant to BLP policy as it applies to DYK. We aren't getting in trouble outside DYK for being boring. In comparison to the volume of hooks we receive, there are a minuscule amount of negative BLP hooks being proposed, so this issue has almost zero impact on the percentage of interesting hooks we run. Don't create a red herring.
I am saddened that editors are unwilling to do anything meaningful about the problem at hand. It looks like we will do nothing based on consensus at the moment. That in my opinion is a mistake, because frankly we aren't currently compliant with BLP policy as a project, and we are likely to end up being chastised again and may end up being the subject of an RFC or other type of review that could result in punitive consequences against the project in which we will be forced to change our rules, and not necessarily in a way that we will like. We could even see our project disappear from the main page, or be given a blanket BLP topic ban (both would be awful). It's better to do the right thing now, then to do nothing and put the project's longterm health/survival in jeopardy. This issue isn't just going to go away, and this conversation here won't make the project look good when it does come up again outside of DYK. It will only show we knew there was problem and enabled it to continue.4meter4 (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary 4meter4, before your comment it looked like consensus was near-unanimous. Also, please note the details of WP:PINGFIX. Finally, I don't see any connection in the paragraph directed at me to what I actually said, so I won't reply to it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I was specifically referencing your comment "if saying something positive about [person/product/controversial current event] could reasonably be described as POV, just forget about it and move on" is good with me." I think that language is problematic for the reasons I articulated above. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, in that case, I have two points. First, please try to use the correct language so there is no confusion—"policy" should only refer to those pages defined as such, and not to a page that is essentially a WikiProject essay. Following on from this, "the idea that saying something positive is potentially a POV violation" is already enshrined in Wikipedia policy (the actual one, not the WikiProject essay). The idea that we at DYK can somehow overrule this basic standard of Wikipedia is far more likely, in my opinion, to end up in "punitive consequences against the project". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both your comments. Where I have a problem is that I think editors are likely to take the earlier quoted text as a guide that all positive hooks are inherently bad and biased, which is not what I think you were intending to communicate. Many positive hooks are balanced and neutral when examined in light of the sources and the subject. The issue with DYK is we can only feature so much in 200 characters, so providing balance as described in the policy you linked is more often than not impossible on contentious topics. We can’t say pick a positive assessment to feature and balance it with a negative assessment in two hundred characters. We can only feature one side in a hook if there is more than one side by virtue of space.4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We can’t say pick a positive assessment to feature and balance it with a negative assessment in two hundred characters" that is WP:FALSEBALANCE not what our policy is. Balance for us basically just means following the sources including in proportionality, that sometimes means that 100% negative is entirely balanced and the same with 100% positive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A positive hook in the case of Tate would have been undue. ...that a kickboxer ran a Hustler's University? to me feels like both an easter egg and whitewashing a pyramid scheme. Literally there are people who would be nauseated to click on the innocent-sounding 'kickboxer' and end up at Andrew Tate.
I'm not unwilling to do anything. The next time such a situation arises -- and maybe it won't -- I'll be arguing to reject the nomination for being something we can't in good conscience create a positive hook for. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee I was referring to tightening written policy as a project, not individual choices. We need to make other editors go the same direction through updated policy language.4meter4 (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Start an RfC. I would support some neutrally-worded version of what you said below: If people think saying something nice or neutral isn't cool we just don't run it at all and reject it. Valereee (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I would disagree about the Easter egg part. People propose this kind of hook at DYK all the time, and I'd argue that the Easter-egginess of the hook would do more to attract readers than saying "that Andrew Tate is a kickboxer who ran a hustler's university".
As for whitewashing, if the only other alternative is an unduly negative hook, I say such a DYK should probably be scrapped altogether. We really should not let this reach a situation where either of the alternatives (a negative hook or one that gives the appearance of whitewashing) will agitate readers. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This ^ Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Easter eggs aren't the issue. It's the fact that this particular easter egg may take the reader somewhere they'd be nauseated by. I agree, we should have just scrapped the nom. Valereee (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, in discussions about possible Andrew Tate hooks, I strongly opposed anything that would mention the crimes he is accused of, but has not been convicted of. I have also pulled hooks over BLP concerns. I am not convinced we have a general BLP problem (as opposed to a general "reviews are too superficial" problem) and the AndyTheGrump issue has not made me change my mind so far. What do you think the problem is? —Kusma (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma I think we are too permissive of negative BLP hooks. The short length of a hook makes it impossible to present negative facts in context, which is required by WP:BLP policy. Given our limits on space, I think an outright universal ban on negative hooks should be implemented on all BLP nominations. That's what I would say if this went to an RFC. I proposed a more middle of the road approach above because I recognize not everyone would agree with this view.4meter4 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support 'no negative BLP hooks'. I wouldn't support 'find something nice to say about all BLPs'. Valereee (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee That is where I am too. Tate should have not run for exactly the reason you just said. If people think saying something nice or neutral isn't cool we just don't run it at all and reject it.4meter4 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to that as it has wide reaching implications. For example, it means Radovan Karadžić can not be featured on DYK until he dies, unless the hook omits the fact that he is a major war criminal. Stuff about BLPs that would be OK to run at ITN (say, a major war criminal is convicted at The Hague) should be OK to run at DYK. —Kusma (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. It's unfortunate for us that ITN seems to have fewer haters. :D Valereee (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The hook is essentially one sentence from the article. It is not necessarily the most important aspect of a BLP's life. There is more to Radovan Karadžić's life than his war criminal activity so there is plenty of hook fodder without dealing with the negative aspects. Nor is a neutral or positive hook about a "bad" person "whitewashing". The article would contain all the reliably sourced bad stuff and the hook isn't meant to be a summary of the article. Rlendog (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia neutral is not in between positive and negative, it is separate from them. Both a positive and a negative hook must be neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that DYK trivializes the subject go a greater extent than ITN. Sure, putting a war criminal being convicted next to the World Darts Championship is less than ideal, but it's a lot less diaparate in subject and tone than putting a hook about the aformentioned war criminal next to before becoming a voice actor, Kikunosuke Toya was the keyboardist of an all-male Princess Princess cover band in high school? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: Do you have any recent examples where we have featured BLP content on DYK that could have harmed the person? (I do not think the Tate example falls in this category). Without more examples of the problem you are trying to solve, I think making additional rules is ill advised. —Kusma (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma, here's a nom from yesterday:
It's a twofer: commercial product + BLP Valereee (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not an example. It is a nomination from yesterday, not something we have featured on the Main Page. If this gets a decent review, the obvious BLP vio should be called out by the reviewer. (Seriously? rumors about people having cosmetic surgery?? the whole Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud sounds super lame, but has more than a million page views in the past four weeks, so obviously I am out of touch). —Kusma (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say nominations count as we are specifically looking at our procedures for reviewing hooks. I think we should compile a list of negative BLP hooks that have run and have been proposed. We should also look for hooks that have cropped up on the DYK talk page and have been contentious. We should probably create a thread on preparing for an RFC and the first step should be evidence gathering. It may be that the community decides that what we are doing is mostly working, and that nothing need change. Or it may be, that an issue will be clearly identified after we gather evidence. Either way, it would be helpful to have community input to guide what we do going forward, if only to affirm what we are doing is correct. After we gather evidence, we could take some language proposals for updating DYK procedures/guidelines. That way when the RFC begins we can have some well articulated issues and proposals.4meter4 (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that work needs to be done before any BLP rule change is proposed. (And perhaps we do not need to change our BLP rules, but just enforce them, i.e. find ways to increase review quality). —Kusma (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the colonists in America took up arms against the British in America they called it a war for independence. The British called it a rebellion. George Washington was a traitor and a terrorist to the British but America named streets after him. It is about perspective and many editors have none when it comes to a person with a different view than their own. Even the person who you call evil, is admired elsewhere. So in the Tate hook experience we had editors making suggestions against policy based on their political leanings or their inner moral compass. If we look at misogyny it offends the sensibilities of many editors here, yet many major religions and societies practice it. You cannot do what the media in America is doing daily: represent editorial views as fact. Saying a hook that is neutral is undue is the height of silliness and is not based on policy. We can see this same silliness playing out every day, especially here on Wikipedia where we punish or promote based on the politics of whatever editors are active when an issue arrises. We can do better without rejecting nominations. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Wikipedia needs no "inner moral compass"? Convicted murders, rapists or paedophiles should all be treated the same as anyone else, as they may be "admired elsewhere", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is exactly my point. Hyperbole personified. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was your answer yes or no? Thanks. I wouldn't want to be accused of "white-Washington". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see only two editors in this discussion who have made political arguments, you and Narutolovehinata5. Your argument in particular appears to be 95% politics and only 5% policy and guideline, its an incredibly weak argument on just its wiki grounds... Its only compelling if you attach a lot of fringe political baggage to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you feel that way. It is difficult for some to consider different views. For instance right now there is an image of a man in a dress on the main page. Do you think some readers may find that offensive? We force our views all the time. We promote and now we want to reject if it does not fit the narrative - whatever it is. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the Tate discussion many editors would not allow any neutral hook. I sympathize with 4meter4 and Airship29 who mentioned how editors can get worn down. Bruxton (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We ran a hook that literally quoted him about himself. How is that not a neutral hook? Valereee (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I accepted it, Like many, I found it hard to reject the person's own words. I preferred the EG hook. I am glad that we are discussing. I now see Any The Grump at ANI saying we may have missed a retraction? Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton, just checking to see if maybe you have a diff or a search term that'll help me find that more easily? I've been reading there, so maybe I just missed it? Valereee (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, see here. TSventon (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TSventon...so in 2021 he said he was "absolutely a misogynist" and in 2022 he complained that people were digging up "old" dirt. Pretty unconvincing, but okay. A retraction's a retraction, I guess? He's no longer calling himself a misogynist. The guy was like 34 when he said he was and 35 when he called it old news. He was raised Christian, became an atheist, in early 2022 identified as Christian again and by the end of the same year had converted to Islam. The guy is, um...not maturing very fast. Sort of confirms that we just should have not accepted the nomination. :D Valereee (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's ITN. Different animal, for me. I think you're making an incorrect assumption that there's something inherently political about not wanting to find something nice to say about someone who calls himself a misogynist and says he moved to Romania because he wanted to live in a country "where corruption is accessible for everybody" and where people don't get charged with rape as often. If you're trying to say conservatives would admire that, I think you're not being fair to conservatives. Valereee (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah lets be clear, the vast majority of conservatives either despise or have never heard of Tate. He is not a mainstream conservative figure and e-pimping etc is incompatible with conservative values as held by most. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While that’s very kind and polite of you to say, please add me to the list of dissenters and so-called miscreants who believe "conservative values" are entirely compatible and consistent with what Andrew Tate supports and promotes. In fact, Tate is widely considered to be a product of the alt-right echo chamber, whose set of values are mostly indistinguishable from Trumpism and the current version of the GOP. Furthermore, conservative values in the US today are highly aligned with pre-enlightenment values that oppose democracy, feminism, and progressivism, and support theocracy, patriarchy, and a return to aristocracy. I realize people may disagree with me, but I wanted to make sure my position is known. Viriditas (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO thats why the distinction alt-right exists at all, if it was just mainstream conservatism we wouldn't need a different name for it. There is also something to be said for hypocrisy, just because someone holds certain values doesn't necessarily mean they live by them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, pollsters and the NYT agree with you.[6] And what you said about hypocrisy is very important. But I think in terms of specific values themselves, the numbers are far different. What initially began as a "radical, obstructionist faction" has become mainstream. The NYT and other media outlets aren't quite there yet. Viriditas (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how that picture forces a view on anyone, can you explain? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've got a picture of Nemo because they won Eurovision, not because anyone wants to "force our views" on dress-wearing? DYK isn't exactly Eurovision. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: there is really no discussion possible on these issues. You said If you're trying to say conservatives would admire that. I pointed out in that thread about Tate that we put a former kidnapper on the main page but only highlighted the thing we wanted people to know. People are in an echo chamber much of the time here. We did not have to be positive about Tate, we just had to not be negative. You have stated over and over that was not possible. Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Lightburst, long discussion, I'm not following...what have I said over and over wasn't possible?
And is the hook about Baker any less negative than the one we ran about Tate? To be clear, I don't think that was a particularly interesting hook, but it's certainly not positive. It says she was imprisoned for thirty years. The fact she was transgender was purely context (and is the part I kind of find boring...so what?) And I certainly don't admire her or want to treat her kindly simply because she's transgender. She's clearly a horrible person in many ways. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not the case, as I said at ANI. Yes, the best thing would have been not to run the hook at all, but given that we did, if we bent over backwards to find a not-negative one, given that the vast majority of reliable sources about Tate are negative (for quite obvious reasons), then we're not serving the readers anyway because we're misrepresenting the article. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not running Tate at all was actually my preferred option and was suggested by some editors, but it was never going to reach consensus due to DYK's general reluctance to reject nominations especially if they're salvageable. Plus it would seem unfair to the nominator to not allow it to run despite their hard work, going back to the "sunk cost" mention above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a WP:DYK/null rule? If not, maybe should have one? "If all reviewing editors cannot agree to run a hook on a controversial topic, and at least one editor recommends invoking the null rule, then without 100% agreement, the hook(s) should be discarded and the nomination should be closed as not promoted." Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a good option and seems unworkable. We have editors that would kill topics. If you have been on here any length of time you will see that we are not at 100% for anything. Lightburst (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did stipulate controversial, and if you look at the nominations, 90% appear non-controversial. Of the controversial noms, 90% of those appear to have full agreement on the hooks that are chosen. Tate was highly controversial and did not have anything approaching consensus or agreement. A null rule would give people the ability to default to discard instead of what we have now, which is defaulting to approval (for the reasons mentioned elsewhere in this discussion). Another proposed solution is to think about implementing a temporal embargo, as there is an inverse relationship between controversy and the length of time a hook claim has been in circulation; although there are exceptions to such a thing, as the Reagan and AIDS discussion showed. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could see needing X% support in cases of controversial nominations. Valereee (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context is important here, I didn't propose the hook that ran. I had also long given up on the nomination and discussion, believing it was better avoided, long before the hook was approved. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For instance right now there is an image of a man in a dress on the main page. Do you think some readers may find that offensive? We force our views all the time.
History is a great subject that more people should study. One of the first things you learn about the history of fashion is that men have been wearing dresses, skirts, and tights since the beginning of civilization. Viriditas (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a photo of a "man in a dress" anywhere. I see a non-binary person in a dress whose article makes no mention of them currently being a man, only that they won awards nearly a decade ago under the category "male". Or are you misgendering them? Funny, for some reason I was under the impression you had less social capital than other users and would be blocked for insulting or otherwise being rude to people, which misgendering certainly is (even if they're not a Wikipedian). Sincerely, Dilettante 16:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting. I'm sorry for the rude tone and it won't happen again[reply]
@Dilettante, this reads as angry and sarcastic. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but could you please try to edit yourself? This is a collaborative project. Valereee (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. ... that the celebrity doctor Nandipha Magudumana was imprisoned and investigated for twelve crimes, including murder connected to a fugitive's prison escape? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one is a bad hook that should not have been posted (thank you for reporting it at ERRORS). It is already clearly prohibited by the current rules, so it is not a good example for changing the rules, it just shows that our review processes are too sloppy. At least four people failed to notice that this is an obvious BLPCRIME/DYKBLP violation. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1. I'm a little concerned this is even in the article, with Wikivoice saying "Nandipha Magudumana aided Thabo Bester to escape from the Mangaung Prison"...she hasn't been convicted? And also in Wikivoice that she "abandoned her family"? Ping to Dxneo. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo, you wrote (at a user talk) I thought the DYK error on Dr Nandipha was addressed the very same day it was removed from the main page. Why is it referenced here again?; taking to that article talk. Valereee (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I expect there are quite a few people who would argue this passes DYKBLP. The recent RS coverage of Dr. Magudamana is largely negative. At least for some, this means we should only run a negative hook (lest we violate the ever-unerring, ever-applicable policy known as NPOV; perish the thought of IAR), or at least that's what they said about Tate. The fact is that DYKBLP allows for far too many interpretations—some (including mine) would clearly prevent both the Tate hook and this one; some would allow both to be posted.
The BLPCRIME issue is outside the scope of this discussion, but from what I can tell, Dr. Magudamana was a public figure in South Africa prior to the criminal charges. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting. And for the second time I'm seeing what seems to be sarcasm. Maybe we should take this to your user talk. Valereee (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a section there. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying there. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a strong believer in "innocent until proved guilty", and I do not think we should ever run any hook about living people accused of crimes, and have made it very clear that such a hook would be unacceptable for Andrew Tate. The BLPCRIME policy basically tells us to include content accusing people of crimes only when it is unavoidable, and so it can't ever happen in DYK hooks. This is not even a matter of DYKBLP. —Kusma (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your work here Evrik. I want to say we did do something wrong or there would not be such consternation across the project. It is not pandering for me to say that I appreciate the editors here. I have become a better editor from my experiences in DYK and I have also been able to evaluate GAs and new articles at NPP. I think the editors here are quality and while I have had disagreements with a few I respect them. 4meter4 for instance, was right about this situation. We should be less binary in our good vs evil opinions. I am guilty of talking at people instead of to them and of this kind of rhetorical flourish. I think we make conscious choices to promote items that fit our world view and some suggestions above are to reject those that do not. I think that It was good for us to discuss the Tate nomination. I want to note that Leeky has been absent from the conversation. Leeky is a DYK regular who we often look to for guidance, yet they were the most vociferous in arguing for a negative hook here. Thanks for the discussion Valereee I feel heard and I want to say I heard you. Lightburst (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst, that's very kind, and I'm very glad you feel heard. I hope there's no question that you know I respect your input and also your point of view. Valereee (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also oppose any form of rule or procedure change. This was a one-off rare incident and the fact that it's so rare is a good thing. It being so rare also means it's not indicative of anything other than an odd outlier that resulted in a lot of (probably unnecessary) discussion. We can and should continue to deal with any such issues on a case by case basis. None of the methods used at DYK need to be altered. SilverserenC 16:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think when we get expressions of concern from other community members, it's worth considering their point of view. We actively don't want to be or to be perceived as a walled garden. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my mind the issue here is not BLP. I just can't wrap my mind around how it could be that. I do, however think that sometimes, out of a desire to get as many pageviews as possible and/or an effort to be funny, DYK reviewers loose their way. I have submitted a number of DYKs myself and I get it, you want people to see your hard work, and a good hook makes that more likely, but this was entirely avoidable. Just because an article meets the basic criteria for DYK doesn't mean it has to be on the main page. This was brought up right at the begining of the initial review of the submission but apparently wasn't strongly considered. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way I've closed the ANI thread as it was not going anywhere productive.
    And just to expand on my point, the main page is not a tabloid, bot sometimes the DYK hooks feel like they are slipping into clickbait territory. Case in point from yesterday:"that singer Frank Croxton performed a duet with his father for the unveiling of a monument to a Confederate States Army general?" Technically true, but somewhat deceptive as it was basically a burial marker, in a cemetery, at the gravesite of the general in his hometown, in 1895, but the way it is worded implies the imagery of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and their pushing of Confederate monuments in public places. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of us also follow WO and I can see this critical tidbit is from the WO thread ClusterF%$ck dujour where they skewer DYK daily. The fact that you are still in there jostling around with the anti-wiki folks and then closing discussion about one of their favorite members is a travesty. Lightburst (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone at ANI is ipso facto jostling around with pro-wiki folks, and I think it's fair to say ATG was one of our most controversial members yesterday. Is it a travesty that an enwikipedian closed the thread? Should only people with no involvement with both enwiki and Wikipediocracy close threads? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One person's interesting hook is another's click-bait. --evrik (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that I don't think the purpose of DYK is for those composing the hooks to show everyone how very clever they are, nor is it to titilate. It shoudn't be, anyway. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was a mistake to shut down everything, @Just Step Sideways. No discussion here can result in any sanction for ATG. Valereee (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's just minutes ago AndyTheGrump accusing DYK of intentionally "making it harder for outsiders to participate", Just Step Sideways. Valereee (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That no admin had issued a 24-hour block after 48 hours of discussion indicated to me that a block was not going to be forthcoming. I've not personally taken a position on whether one was warranted or not, but issuing it days after the offending remark just seemed very unlikely. And the issue under discussion was personal attacks, the link you provide doesn't seem to be directed at a specific person and is not otherwise uncivil. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a reason to shut down the entire discussion. Valereee (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I don't agree, but also this is not the subject of this discussion. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Just Step Sideways: Geez it was open less than two days. Why on earth are you closing? when I was being discussed at ANI it was open for two weeks. There was a support viote just hours ago. I feel like this was not appropriate. I also want to say that you are quite involved with ATG at WO so you are 100% the wrong person to close that discussion. Suggest you back out your close. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess I should've blocked him right off the bat like I almost did, instead of allowing for discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, that probably would've been better. I can't really recall another time I've seen a discusion of issuing a 24-hour block go on for two days with no admin willing to issue the block. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I'd necessarily disagree myself, with hindsight. I'd probably still consider the block improper, but it might have encouraged me to try to get a little more sleep. For the record though, I'd draw people's attention to ScottishFinnishRadish's warning on my talk page. [7] Even if anyone else is under the impression that I'm somehow getting away with my unwise comments without potential consequence, I'm most definitely not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet just minutes ago you accused this entire project of intentionally "making it harder for outsiders to participate", @AndyTheGrump. I'm thinking you think you got away with something. Up until then I was in a forgiving and forgetting mindset. Valereee (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'd expand that comment to cover Wikipedia as a whole, so singling out DYK for it was probably unfair. If I were inclined, I could probably write a 4000-word essay on why I think Wikipedia actually needs to make things hard for outsiders to participate in order to function at all. So yes, I have negative opinions about DYK, and per my limited qualifications as a former anthropology student, I'd find it difficult to argue that such apparent obstructionism wasn't the consequence of human agency. 'Intent' is perhaps harder to pin down, so perhaps I should retract that suggestion, and instead ascribe it to an emergent property of collective behaviour, rather than to the intentions of individuals. The end result is the same though - trying to figure out who said what, and when, and how exactly collective decisions were arrived at - if they were actually arrived at at all - is nigh-on impossible to discern without reading everything three times, and hoping that one hasn't missed another discussion somewhere else that makes sense of it all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't the only proposal in that discussion. IMO a 24-hr block is almost always silly unless it's a case of high passion edit-war that people just need to sleep on and get less crazy about. Even then I'd rather see a p-block. Valereee (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion and voting was continuous, and I have left a message on JSS talk page. The close was not appropriate and involved. I will ask for an admin review if JSS does not back it out. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham has been sitting on the approved list for around a month now. The article describes the killing of a Palestinian Jewish convert by an Israeli soldier. The nomination discussion lasted two weeks, and spilled over onto this very page (link here); it resulted in the following hook: "...that David Ben Avraham was posthumously granted an Israeli residency after having been killed?" I can honestly say that I do not intend to promote this hook, because that might attach my name to a controversy caused by the presence of the article on the main page. Am I wrong to think so? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a controversial hook? The subject matter of the article, by its very nature, is controversial, but that hook seems sufficiently neutral without going overboard in its wording or POV on one side or the other. SilverserenC 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what is a controversial hook anymore. Personally, I wouldn't have said that the Frank Croxton hook mentioned above was anywhere close to "tabloidy", but Just Step Sideways clearly felt different. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That nonsense came from WO. I started an AN discussion which mentions the ANI close and the banter on WO. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible the long winding discussion might be a put-off, I've crossed off the old alts and restated ALT3 at the bottom of the page, which might help. CMD (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ AirshipJungleman29 I don't think it was "tabloidy" either. I wrote the Croxton article and that hook (although it was altered slightly without my knowledge). I never made the connection in my mind to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy when writing it... I pulled the hook fact directly from the cited source, which is why the hook fact ran. It was entirely accurate, and frankly I only suggested it because of the trend at DYK to call many proposed hooks about opera/classical music boring. It seems like hooks following something personal about classical singers tend to get chosen more and pass DYK review. That's the only reason why I picked that event as a hook. This is a case where someone's own experiences reading on a particular topic has shaped their perception, expectations, and assumptions about not only the hook but also the hook's author.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That nonsense came from WO. is a pretty funny accusation to make, as if WO is pulling my strings, when, as Lighburst is perfectly aware, I was the one who raised the point over there. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That David Ben Avraham hook is redundant. Posthumously means after he died. If we need 'was killed' for context -- which I'm not sure we do -- then we can get rid of posthumously. Pinging Makeandtoss Valereee (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1[edit]

Erik Sparre[edit]

  • ... that Erik Sparre (pictured) is known as "the father of Swedish constitutional law"?

(DYK nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Erik Sparre)

@Launchballer, OlifanofmrTennant, and ThaesOfereode: Per Manual of Style#Attribution this quote, which represents an opinion of sorts, should be explicitly attributed in the article text with who said it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru I'm guessing you meant WP:Attribution? RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Ha, actually I think I meant WP:Manual of Style#Attribution, just forgot the WP prefix... that's an actual guideline page (the one you've linked above seems to be a proposal which failed to gain consensus in 2007). The general point is that quoted opinions should be attributed in text anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Kind of a newbie question, but I'm looking at this and just am curious about the MOS. The book cited is a secondary source and Peterson is clearly relying on other sources calling Sparre "the father of Swedish constitutional law", writing He has become known as the father of Swedish constitutional law rather than It is clear that the origins of modern constitutional law in Sweden originate with him or With these considerations in mind, we should call Sparre the father of Swedish constitutional law; in other words, Peterson is not proffering his opinion on the matter, but rather reporting that Sparre is called that. In this sense, the information given isn't interpreted; despite being a secondary source, this is tertiary claim. Given that he does not cite sources inline, I can't identify the ultimate source(s) of that claim. Since this claim does not appear to derive from Peterson's subjective view or his opinion after collecting other facts and presenting them, is it still necessary to state him as the progenitor of the title in the text itself? No worries if it is, but I want to make certain because I don't want any readers to get the implication that Peterson is the guy who came up with that title rather than simply reporting it based on the sources he used. Cheers, ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found Erik Sparre, the father of Swedish constitutionalism here by Michael Roberts (historian) and den svenska konstitutionalismens fader, Erik Sparre here by sv:Alf Nordström, so I agree that Peterson is reporting what Sparre is called. and it does not need attributing. Whether it is suitable as a hook is another question. TSventon (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, it does not need attributing? Being the "father of Swedish constitutional law" is not AFAIK an objective fact, such as an official post that he held or something so obvious that it can be baldly stated in Wikivoice. This is an opinion implying that he was in some sense important in the early history of that subject and also a somewhat idiomatic expression... It's there in quotes and we need to know who said it. If it's a widely-held opinion, then that should also be stated, with appropriate citations showing that the view is indeed widely held.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: The Nordström and Michaels sources note that he's called that. I think it's clear that Peterson is implying that it is a widely-held belief, but I get that might need to be clearer for a claim like that, but cf. George Washington's page where the claim of the title "Father of His Country" is backed generally by source Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, while the title is cited as being used in the citebundle preceding it. Even so, I'm happy to add the Michaels and Nortström sources into a citebundle, especially since I think it's better than Peterson alone. Or even Several historians have referred to Sparre as the "father of Swedish constitutional law", with an appropriate citebundling. Also, @TSventon: thanks for finding those sources; they didn't come up in my initial research! ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes - the "several historians..." wording sounds good to me and bundle it up etc. if you can do that easily. Re George Washington, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I wouldn't necessary count that as evidence of anythign in particular... my interest here is just to check the MOS in relation to this DYK hook Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that works for me! I'll add the citations and rephrase the sentence when I get a chance tonight. And re GW, yeah I realize what I wrote wasn't really all that useful anyway. No matter. Do I need to ping you when it's done? ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaesOfereode looks good now, thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thanks. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Ray (film)[edit]

(DYK nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Cosmic Ray (film))

@Hinnk, Bruxton, AirshipJungleman29, Z1720, and DigitalIceAge: this claim seems a bit dubious to me... As far as I can tell, the article music video doesn't mention this song or video at all, and it seems there were things accepted as music videos before 1962. The Boston Globe source also isn't unequivocal in this assertion, it merely says "Conner is credited by some with making the first music video", which is quite a weak assertion when we don't know who these "some" are. I'd suggest focusing on something else and maybe the nom should be reopened, but happy to hear views.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I thought the hook said "credited as", not "recognized as"; as it stands, the hook is much more unequivocal than the sources or article, yes. Thanks for spotting that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, it was my review. Do we want to workshop a hook here or de-promote and work there? Bruxton (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a matter of just phrasing this with attributed opinion language, i.e. "Joe Random music writer considers...", it would be easy to fix in-place. But give that we don't even know who said that, I think it makes more sense to pull it. Unfortunately, I need to run right now, so can't handle it myself. RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too familiar with the process for addressing issues after promotion, so I'll let you all do you what you need to. There's an ALT2 in the nomination that can be used. I just want to note that Conner's role in pioneering the music video is possibly the best-known thing about him, and so it's frustrating to see Wikipedia's poor coverage of experimental cinema get included in the justification, when this really seems like a question of picking a different synonym for "called". hinnk (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hinnk: if there's a way to reword it and perhaps bring in other sources that make it clearer that its status as the first is held as a main-stream viewpoint, then I'd be happy. As I mention re George Washington above, I don't necessarily hold the quality of other articles as an essential part of what happens in individual DYK cases, but I did find it a bit odd that for such a bold claim of being the first music video, this wouldn't rate a mention at music video at all... Re process, if we can get a satisfactory turn around in the next 24 hours then we can just workshop here, but if more time is needed then we can reopen the nomination page. That just means it returns back to the nom page and is given more time before eventual repromotion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's odd that it isn't mentioned in the Music video article. Having worked on articles in this space for a little while, I've also found this to be common because of a bias toward commercial works, which are covered in sources that tend to be more accessible. (The other side of this being that, despite some pretty notable scholars writing about its importance, it was a 2-sentence stub here until now.)

The simplest solution would be to use ALT2 from the nomination: "... that Bruce Conner conceived of his short film Cosmic Ray as 'presenting the eyes' for blind musician Ray Charles?" If a music video hook is preferable, we could chose a different verb: "... that Bruce Conner's Cosmic Ray has been credited/referred to/described as the first music video?" We could identify it as a precursor: "... that Bruce Conner's Cosmic Ray has been recognized as a precursor to the music video?" per Wheeler Winston Dixon [8]. Or we could connect it to Conner's reputation: "... that Bruce Conner's Cosmic Ray led to his reputation as 'the father of music video'?" per E. Charlotte Stevens's Fanvids and Scott MacDonald's A Critical Cinema 5. hinnk (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Mainstream scholarship is a mixed bag when it comes to this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Some say the musical shorts of the '30s were the first, while others cite the Scopitone since you didn't have to book a reservation at a cinema to view the short (mass media vs. capital-F Film), and others still credit The Big Bopper as he both coined the term "music video" and videotaped some of the first televised examples in the 1950s. All predate Cosmic Ray, so I would agree that this is a fringe view and too controversial to run as a hook. Most sources that do mention Cosmic Ray in the context of the music video cite it as a precursor to the abstract, new-wave style music videos popularized by MTV rather than as the first example of anything, which I guess makes sense although some of Len Lye's films like A Colour Box meet that descriptor too and are from the 1930s (at least one source agrees). DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

minus Removed - I've reopened the nom page and swapped something else in.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sitdown strike[edit]

  • ... that there were 583 sitdown strikes in the United States from 1936 to 1939, affecting more than half a million workers?

(DYK nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Sitdown strike)

@Carwil, LunaEclipse, and AirshipJungleman29: - two minor points:

  1. there are a few {{citation needed}} tags in the article
  2. also some of the short-form references don't match up with the corresponding long-form. These aren't recognized:
    • Nelson 1984
    • US Department of Labor 1939
    • US Department of Labor 1940
    • White, 2010 & 5
    • Meyer 2015
    • Lydersen & Tracy 2008

Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article says The Bureau of Labor Statistics counted; this was inappropriately recast into wiki-voice, i.e. there were in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: do you say this because you think the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not an independent source when it comes to these figures? Normally I'd be inclined to say official statistics as compiled by government bodies are likely to be accurate enough to report in Wikivoice, but I suppose when it comes to politically charged things like strikes, demonstrations and suchlike, there may be reason to suspect the government would over- or underestimate the figures?  — Amakuru (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to believe the B of L is unreliable. It's just on general principles that an article shouldn't say more than the source promises, and likewise for the hook. RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed - I've reopened the nom page and swapped something else in.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Triton[edit]

(DYK nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Climate of Triton)

@ArkHyena, Generalissima, and Launchballer: minor point probably, but I'm not seeing the clouds described as "thin" in the article. The atmosphere as a whole is said to be thin, so perhaps by extension so are the clouds? But would be nice to have this explicit if it's in the hook. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, never mind, I've added thin into the article with an extra cite.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also clarified this as ... discovered multiple thin, bright clouds. to the Clouds subsection, and as formation of thin atmospheric haze and clouds... to the lede, which should hopefully be more specific. ArkHyena (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination bot glitch[edit]

Starting Template:Did you know nominations/Tobias and the Angel, whose hook begins "dyk that, unusually for..." the bot would not accept "that" followed by a comma. Once completed, with an added space, the space could be removed. But ideally this could be fixed. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of nominators[edit]

I suggest we make it a requirement that nominators be notified via ping on their user talk of discussions here of their hooks/nominations. Valereee (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a requirement for pings, such as when I modify hooks post-promotion per WP:DYKTRIM, but I think notifications on user talk is a bit excessive in both instances. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems excessive until you start looking at how many hooks are modified in prep with no notification to anyone. One single person making sometimes major changes unilaterally. A hook of mine about Martin Luther King was changed to use BrEng date format. Valereee (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Anyone want to draw up a helpful notification template? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually two discussions, I suppose. Discussions vs. modifications. We've asked people modifying to ping, and they simply don't do it. Discussions are a second issue. Most discussions probably do include pings, often to not only nominators but also reviewers and promoters. Some slip through. Valereee (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revised. We can deal with the annoying problem of revisions in prep later. This one's more important. Valereee (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest. I try to ping people (the nominator, the approver, and the promoter), but it's just too much of a pain so sometimes I don't bother. Many people have signatures that don't match their user names, so you have to click through to their user page to be sure. RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think basic effort is enough. If someone has a difficult-to-ping username and it gets mangled, that's on them. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about simply posting a notification on the template page of the DYK nomination? Such as "There is an active discussion about this nomination link here". The nomination may concern more than just the nominee, and saves the issue of pinging users. If the nominee isn't watching the page then that's their own problem really. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's an extra step, whether the change is made in prep/queue or bringing it to talk here. Pings can be done in the edit summary of changes in prep/queue, or they can be done in the post on talk. Valereee (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, then 100%, unequivocal support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The preface to this is a discussion elsewhere and issues I raised regarding an entire discussion occurring without my knowledge as the nominee (no notification or reference on template page). So I support and appreciate the efforts these two users are currently making on this matter, as some pings definitely slip through. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely support. I'm rather surprised this hasn't been made a requirement years ago. If you're discussing someone's content (or actions), it should be required that you notify them. Just like what ANI requires. SilverserenC 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a perfect example of what I was talking about. If I click on the signature just above, I get to a page which ostensibly belongs to User:Silver seren, but when I copy-paste that, I get a broken ping. Why did you have to install some fancy CSS on your user page that makes it harder for people to communicate with you? RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one's on you RoySmith—the {{u}} ping system doesn't use the "User:", so {{u|Silver seren}} should work, but the above doesn't. That said, I have definitely seen someone try to ping Silverseren (no space) before, which didn't work, so they might want to adjust the signature a little. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Silverseren isn't Silverseren. It's Silver seren. Valereee (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with this, @Silver seren. If you want pings, make your username easy to ping. Valereee (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I ping someone, I just copy paste their username from their HTML signature, to make sure it's right. Since plenty of people have signatures that aren't their exact username. Also, RoySmith, the link you made there uses {{u}} wrong. The link you made is User:User:Silver seren because User: isn't a part of that template. As a direct link, without ping, User:Silver seren works perfectly fine. SilverserenC 01:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, yeah, I got that I shouldn't have pasted the user: But the gist of my point was that some people have signatures that don't match their username and that makes it a pain to ping them. RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, some of us have no idea what "copy paste their username from their HTML signature" means. And that's not something we expect people to know. What I do when I really want to make sure is click to the user page, copy from there, and come back to paste. But we don't expect people to go to that much trouble either. If you want pings, make pings easy. Valereee (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly added a line to WP:DYKTRIM, although I'm not entirely satisfied with the wording. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which I removed due to lack of consensus. RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we probably need more input. I (obviously) think this is what we should do, but we can't require it without consensus. I'd support adding it as 'best practices' until then, though, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Valereee (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support enforcing pings - actually on user talk doesn't seem excessive to me. If people want to tinker with hooks (and many do), they should do it earlier in the process. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it should be a best practice and not an absolute requirement. --evrik (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So insinuations of running a PR campaign for a BLP or bad faith nominations can go unchallenged by the nominee then, if they are not notified of the discussion, for example? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agree with Evrik. We do have many rules and guidelines already. Bruxton (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nominators should be involved with their DYK hook nomination every step of the way, and having them be pinged in these discussions ensures that they involve themselves in addressing issues as soon as possible. Being pinged to be notified of DYK statuses is a regular expectation of the DYK process anyways despite what some may suggest. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sounds like a no-brainer and would help avoid confusion and needless discussions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominators and reviewers should probably be pinged as best practice, but like some above hesitant to write it into a rule, for risk of ending up with AN/I-like situations where the initial comments are all make sure you ping. Other examples exist, it is probably best practice to link to the nom page, but I am not sure making it a rule would help. CMD (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying hard to do this (usually I want nominator input when I raise an issue), but let us keep it a suggestion and not a must-do rule. (I.e. if an admin forgets to ping the nominator, then the next person who sees the thread should just do the pings instead of berating the admin for Not Following The Rules; DYK admin work is unfun enough already). Also, would/should something like the mention (by Valereee) of the butt implant rumor nomination somewhere above require a ping? —Kusma (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In an ideal world, we would have an easier way to raise an issue with a hook in a prep or queue. I need to copy the hook, link to the nom and the prep/queue, and figure out who the nominator(s) and other involved people are and ping them, all of this in addition to explaining my query. Admin queries are far too common to be this cumbersome. (In an ideal world, QPQ reviews would catch all of these issues and we would not need to discuss whether or not to ping). —Kusma (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A bot could do that, I'd think. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


RfC: Should contentious topics be ineligible for Did You Know?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Snow close.--Launchballer 15:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics are constrained and tagged per WP:CTOPICS. They are, by definition, controversial and so will generate additional contention and work at DYK compared to ordinary topics. The editing restrictions applied to these topics also tends to make resolution of disputes difficult, protracted and slow. As DYK is oversubscribed, it may not need this aggravation. The question is whether we should add a rule to WP:DYKCRIT making contentious topics ineligible for DYK?

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should be discussion before an RfC, and I feel confident it would quickly find that we should not ban all DYK hooks from India. CMD (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This follows the recent extensive discussions here and at ANI. Looking for the most recent hook from India, this seems to be Asha Sobhana. That's not tagged as a contentious topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
I don't recall in those extensive discussions someone proposing the idea that all articles falling under CTOPICS should be banned, let along there being specific discussion on that question. There has been a suggestion to restrict BLPs, but that is only one of the many CTOPICS. CMD (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to emphasise what I said below, any editor is free to add {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} to Talk:Asha Sobhana if they so desire. I mean I could do it right now. I'm not going to in part since some may argue it's WP:POINT. I'd disagree on that since it's not disruptive to do so considering the DYK has already run and there's no harm in having the notice there; but it also doesn't seem to be that important to have a notice so better to just tell and don't show. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have lots of BLPs about sportmen and women like this. If such a template is added, at what point are constraints like 1RR and ECP activated? And at what point do you have to notify editors per the awareness clause? As this stuff seems quite bitey, it's good to understand it. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is unclear. Are you talking about "controversial topics" or about Wikipedia:Contentious topics? I definitely oppose any restriction on "controversial topics" because almost anything can be controversial (for example, anything with shock value or involving sex or crime or religion). —Kusma (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly not ready for RfC, so I have removed the RfC tag. —Kusma (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was quite clear that this meant those topics which are formally tagged as CT per WP:CTOP. I have revised the text to make this clearer. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, you are aware that anyone is free to tag any article where CT applies with the Template:Contentious topics/talk notice? There is no "formal" process for doing so, the only thing that really matter is whether CT applies so it can be done to any BLP to give one example. Normally this is no big deal since CT applies regardless of the notice, but your proposal makes it a big deal. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific example which sparked this was Killing of David Ben Avraham -- someone said they wouldn't promote this to DYK because touching it was too dangerous. The talk page for that has an {{ARBPIA}} template which says: "The contentious topics procedure applies to this article." and goes on to explain that WP:ECP and WP:1RR applies. It's this level of CT that I intended to cover. It's news to me that any BLP at all can be tagged in this draconian way and that bit of WP:CREEP seems to have happened at the end of 2022. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at talk:Andrew Tate, as that's been the main bone of contention lately, it has a {{controversial}} template which just seems mildly informational and a {{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} which is the full monty. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Biographies of living people are a contentious topic — are we really going to ban these from DYK? Multiple contentious topics are completely fine to be shown at DYK, we can't just ban all of them out of nowhere. Skyshiftertalk 12:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contentious topics include all biographies of living people, India, Pakistan, Iranian politics, Sri Lanka, anything related to post-1992 US politics, COVID-19, Eastern Europe, gender and sexuality and climate change. Disallowing so many large content areas is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. —Kusma (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, BLPs are not all contentious topics -- they are a different class of topic per WP:BLP. Excluding all BLPs would be a much bigger deal. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles are designated as a contentious topic." (Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons)? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This seems to be an example of why you really need to workshop before starting an RfC. It sounds like the OP is proposing that any article where the talk page is tagged with {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} or {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is forbidden from DYK but this has been very poorly explained.

More importantly, I'd note that anyone is free to place the first template on any page it applies, so anyone can place it on a BLP talk page for example. Normally this is no big deal unless editors are confused how CT works. The presence or absence of the talk notice doesn't affect whether CT applies. However under this proposal any editor can place the CT notice on a talk page where it would apply and ban it from DYK.

So suddenly the presence of the notice becomes potentially a big deal leading to WP:gaming concerns and a likelihood of editors being dragged to ANI over concerns they're adding CT notices just to ban something from DYK. I'm not sure the wisdom of such a proposal, DYK is already controversial enough on the administrative noticeboards.

At the very least IMO, this proposal should require the notice is present before it's proposed for DYK.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good solution either: new articles could still be nominated before anyone has had the chance to add a CT notice. The presence or absence of the CT notice at the time of nomination has very little to do with the contentiousness of the actual article and DYK hook. —Kusma (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is certainly true that CT's are more difficult to write about, which often means they involve more work to process at DYK (see Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war for another recent example). But that's not a reason to blanket ban them from DYK. RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I suppose there could be some way of flagging CTOP entries for review, but let's face it the vast majority of hooks related to CTOPs are completely unremarkable (especially as, technically, all BLPs fall under that flag). And, as we saw with Tate, most controversial issues arrive here anyway for discussion. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose Absolutely not. This is too large a category to exclude. Toa Nidhiki05 13:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: as long as the article is in good shape (which includes a neutral point of view) and the proposed hook is not a contentious or controversial claim, a contentious topic article should be an article like any other for the DYK process (and for all article-related processes such as AFC, PR, GAN, FAC, etc; for that matter). Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and suggest a snow close - The proposal is simply too broad. Now I know we just had a few discussions about contentious topics on DYK, including one that's ongoing, but I am not convinced that a blanket ban is the solution. It should probably be a case-by-case thing. Plus, having blanket bans would be unfair to editors who worked hard to bring the article to a good state if not create it, only to be told their efforts cannot be incentivized just because of the subject matter. There are times when precisely due to an article's subject it's not a good fit for DYK, but they are the exception and not the rule and we shouldn't have any strict rules about them. I know this discussion has only been up for a few hours but I would suggest closing this as soon as possible as this simply will not go anywhere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Future RFC on BLPs at DYK[edit]

Hi all. I an going to request that our regular DYK promoters, reviewers, talk page discussion participants, etc. participate in collecting examples of negative hooks on BLPs that ran on the main page, were pulled from the main page, or became contentious either at Wikipedia talk:Did you know or at the nomination page. This would include rejected hooks to be fair, because we want people to see where we have succeeded in the review process as well as where we may have failed. I know that some of our active project members do not wish for an RFC, but I think it best we allow for wide community discussion on this topic to help us be more consistent in implementing WP:BLP policy at DYK. The community needs to consider the challenges of meeting BLP policy within a DYK format where we limit content expression to 200 characters or less within a single sentence. I contend that the challenges of our format make compliance with WP:BLPBALANCE difficult in a way that is unique to DYK. The current BLP policy as written is article space targeted and its application at DYK is therefore challenging to work through. For this reason we need an RFC and we need to ask the community at large the questions within this RFC.

I am doing my best here to allow for as a wide a range of opinions as possible. Any thoughts on a better way to structure this RFC are welcome, as this is not something I normally do. We may stop the RFC earlier or expand the questions of exploration depending on the WP:CONSENSUS over individual questions. The goal here is to give us a community supported process for handling BLPs with either negative and contentious content at DYK nominations that specifically looks at how BLP policy should be applied at DYK review/promotion. That should benefit the project and hopefully prevent long protracted arguments at DYK (which are often over BLP policy) and elsewhere such as ANI. If we have a better articulated process with community support this will hopefully make our lives editing at DYK easier when it comes to reviewing proposed BLP hooks and will hopefully prevent conflict at DYK review and potential drama on project pages related to the Main page.

RFC Questions

  • 1. Can DYK feature negative hooks on BLPs and remain in compliance with WP:BLP policy? Consider the limitations of the DYK format and the language of WP:BLP policy in your answer. If no, Why? If yes, why?
If the WP:CONSENSUS is yes we move on to the next question. If the consensus is no we skip question 2 and move to question 3.
  • 2. How can we determine when a negative hook on a BLP can and can't be used? What specific guideline(s) should DYK reviewers follow when reviewing negative hooks on BLPs? What language should we include in a guideline that assists reviewers in making decisions and prevents conflict at DYK, Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, and other project pages? Consider the limitations of the DYK hook format and the language of WP:BLP policy in your answer.
Once opinions have been gathered and summarized we move on to the next question.
Once opinions have been gathered and summarized we move to specific proposed changes based on WP:CONSENSUS input.
  • 4. Are there any additional questions we should consider as it relates to DYK and BLP policy before moving on to proposals?
It's possible we may need to ask a question that was not predicted at the onset of the RFC, after getting input to the first three questions. I want to make sure we leave room to ask additional questions for community input if needed before moving on to proposals.

Proposals

  • Proposals should come out of the discussion resulting from the above questions. I am not going to go in with a set list of proposals because I think these should come directly from the community input to the RFC questions. The goal of this RFC is to improve DYK's review process as it relates to BLPs in order to assist DYK and its volunteers in being consistently compliant with WP:BLP policy and prevent conflicts at DYK review on BLPs. Once a proposal has been made we will vote and arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS on each individual proposal.

That is it folks. I am creating a sub-thread below for evidence to aid in the RFC. I am not the most knowledgable person on historic negative BLPs, so assistance from others is a must if we are going to do this RFC fairly, neutrally, and with the best possible change at a positive outcome for DYK as a project. Thanks to everyone in advance who helps. I will also create a sub thread on any suggested changes to the RFC questions/format. I want this RFC to be helpful no matter what conclusions ultimately are arrived at. I have my opinions, but they may not be the majority view, and my goal here is to actually make things better as a community space for DYK volunteers regardless of the ultimate outcome. I am hopeful we will come up with a better reviewing document for BLP hooks which will save us all unnecessarily repeating the same unproductive or contentious arguments in circles, and will make reviewing BLP hooks less contentious and stressful for our dedicated volunteers.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions on RFC construction[edit]

Please comment on the proposed RFC structure here. Any suggestions for improvements are much appreciated. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence[edit]

Please add examples below for the upcoming RFC. We need examples for the community at large to examine. The RFC can not go forward until there is a good sampling of evidence gathered.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE Please just post links and do not editorialize or discuss examples unless for some reason they should be excluded. We need a working list, not a running commentary. Limit all examples to BLPs specifically.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negative BLPs that were promoted to the main page without issue[edit]

Incident Year Comment Other

One of mine: Diether Dehm, see Template:Did you know nominations/Diether Dehm. A 2020 nomination where the less negative of two hooks was chosen, but certainly both can be understood as saying something negative about a living person. Not my best hook and not my best article, but it ran without controversy (and did not attract a lot of views). Not sure how to put this into the table, sorry! —Kusma (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negative BLPs that were pulled from the main page[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A DYK on the death of actress Gemma McCluskie, posted only three weeks after her 2012 murder: ANI thread:[9] Talk:DYK thread:[10]

I hope that it shouldn't prove necessary here to point out what WP:BLP says (and said in 2012) about taking consideration for friends and relatives etc of the recently deceased, the need to avoid tabloid-style sensationalism, and all the other obvious issues with this DYK. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure an issue from twelve years ago is relevant now? Except to show Andy's been calling people names for at least that long. Maybe we should concentrate on the past year or two? Valereee (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is from 2012, and shows that there is a long-standing issue with AndyTheGrump. It is an inappropriate hook sensationalising a murder, not a "negative hook about a BLP". —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to stifle discussion of long-term systemic issues with DYK duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I don't think anyone would disagree these were bad. But let's focus on today's issues. Valereee (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not without clear and unambiguous evidence that DYK has undergone systemic changes which would prevent a recurrence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So is it your intention to bring in here as evidence every DYK you've ever objected to in the past 12+ years? Because I think your strategy would be counterproductive to fixing the problem. Something that has been pointed out to you before, including very recently. Valereee (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is my intention to respond to the request made in this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which means you're going to completely jam up this apparently well-intentioned RfC by someone who agrees with you. Okay. Valereee (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what is happening. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it hasn't happened in twelve years then it's not a recurring problem. This is why 12-year-old evidence sucks. Levivich (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about actually waiting to see what other evidence is offered before dismissing it? I am still under the impression that this request for such evidence was made in good faith, even if some would apparently prefer to exclude anything they would prefer not to get scrutiny. Let other contributors provide their own evidence. If mine is all there is (which seems unlikely) you can then argue that there isn't a systemin problem. And no, I have no intention of bringing 'every DYK I've ever objected to in the past 12+ years' here. I brought up two, because they were clearly relevant to a discussion which seems on the face of it to be focussed around adressing systemic issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a suggestion how to get people to review more properly? Your method seems to be to reduce the number of DYK volunteers by insulting them. If you want to help, please review nominations and double check prep sets. All kind of issues are occasionally caught only at the prep-to-queue stage or at ERRORS. Some of them are comparatively minor (like repeating incorrect claims about "X was the first Y to do Z" from sources), others are bad (copyvios) or really bad (accusing BLPs of crimes that they have not been convicted for). It can be exhausting to check everything, and we do not have enough admins doing it. We need more (non-admin) eyes on the prep sets and queues. Yelling at volunteers like you do has as its most likely effect a reduction in our number of capable volunteers. Please stop making DYK worse and start helping to make it better. —Kusma (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I have raised the improper hatting above, along with what appears to be a more general attempt to prevent legitimate participation in this thread at WP:ANI. [11] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limit examples to BLP hooks only. All BLP examples, regardless how old, will be accepted. Editors are smart enough to recognize the age of the nom may impact its relevance. We don't have to trim them. All hooks not about a BLP will be hidden as above. Please avoid discussing examples unless there is a glaring problem (such as the hook isn't a BLP or the hook is not negative). Examples can be discussed at the RFC. We are just gathering evidence in list format without discussion at this time. All off-topic discussions will be swiftly archived to protect the RFC preparation process like the one above. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4, maybe put the information into a sortable table so people can at least sort by age? Valereee (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor skilled in templates wants to take that on, more power to them. I am not the best at table design.4meter4 (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am probably the editor least skilled in templates in any discussion on this page, so if anyone wants to fix whatever I did wrong, please do. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incident Year Comment Other
Gemma McCluskie 2012 Concerns about recently deceased BLP violation ANI thread:[12]

Talk:DYK thread:[13]

Negative BLPs that were contentious at Wikipedia talk:Did you know[edit]

Incident Year Comment Discussions
Andrew Tate 2024 Concerns about BLP vio Discussion

Negative BLPs that were contentious during review but not rejected[edit]

Incident Year Comment Other

Negative BLPs that were contentious during review and rejected[edit]

Incident Year Comment Other

Other issues[edit]

I can't predict what other issues might come up. So I created this subsection if anybody has further comments that they want to make on this future RFC. I want this to be an RFC the whole DYK volunteer community can feel good about going into it.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A DYK on the 'Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu' was finally pulled in prep, just before it was due to go live, back in 2013. But only after a WP:BLPN thread, and another on WP:ANI, brought the matter to the attention of the broader community, DYK regulars having entirely failed to notice the numerous issues. The DYK stated as fact that this individual had been 'cooked in a curry'. This assertion was sourced in the article to a food blog. Note that not only have there have been no convictions for this alleged murder, it has never even been determined that Marithamuthu was murdered (or, apparently, that he is even dead at all), never mind being disposed of in this bizarre manner.
BLPN thread :[14]
ANI thread:[15]
Talk DYK thread:[16]
AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again over a decade ago. Maybe let's focus on current issues instead of playing Andy's Greatest Hits? Valereee (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not without clear and unambiguous evidence that DYK has undergone systemic changes which would prevent a recurrence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I mean this absolutely sincerely: why? If we want to fix now, let's focus on now. Valereee (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the "let’s hold DYK hostage until it gives into our demands" tactic. I originally suspected the Tate nomination would lead to this, regardless of the hook. This tactic is popular in some sectors, and it’s the preferred strategy of conservative legal activists who have used it to try and control the Supreme Court and get them to rule in their favor by bringing artificial cases for them to rule on. Viriditas (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump Undoubtedly, DYK has failed in other areas on occasion, but we can not handle every issue all at once. This RFC has a very specific focus. Please keep your examples limited to the specific topic area of this RFC. We are not looking at hooks that involve people who are dead, only those who are alive because the focus of this RFC is WP:BLP policy as it relates to WP:DYK. We have to keep the RFC. focused or it won't work and will be closed without any productive work being done. We can always look at another policy area in another RFC if it is needed. At this time, BLP issues have been the most consistent point of contention within the project which is why this RFC is needed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, it hasn't been established that Ayakannu Marithamuthu is actually dead. And both in 2013, and now, claiming, without proper sourcing that a named individual cooked another named individual in a curry to dispose of their body is clearly and unambiguously a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a consensus in this discussion to only stick to recent evidence. Since Wikipedia runs by consensus, you're beholden to it. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence whatsoever that there has been any sort of discussion sufficient to reach such a 'consensus'. And if there has, it should probably be brought to the attention of the broader Wikipedia community, who may very well have a differing opinion as to what is or isn't relevant to a discussion on the sort of systemic issues that this thread was apparently created to tackle. If we can't discuss it here, perhaps we need to do so in an environment where certain individuals cannot reject evidence because they don't like it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks isn't conducive to an RFC. Old evidence isn't helping us. If you want to study a problem and find a potential solution, you first have to ask the right question based on a set of assumed values. The evidence cannot tell you if those values are good or bad, it can only help you arrive at a solution you already agree is useful or helpful. Old evidence doesn't get us any closer to this answer. The majority of the respondents to this discussion have asked you to provide current evidence only. I'm asking you as well. Viriditas (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we can't have nice things. Valereee (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I'm trying to assume good faith, but it feels like you're torpedoing this effort, which seriously is making me wonder whether your actual intent is to prove DYK problems can't be fixed. I'm really sorry to say this. I think you're a well-intentioned editor. But it feels like...well, almost sabotage. I'm sure if anything it's subconscious, I know you'd never actually want to do that. This editor seems to be making a good-faith effort. Valereee (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe BLP is kind of incidental here, and not the underlying issue. DYK has three major problems:
  • QPQ reviewers sometimes do not check the article and hook for policy compliance
  • Prep builders sometimes promote the hook to prep without checking for policy compliance, assuming the QPQ reviewer did their job
  • Admins sometimes promote the prep to queue without checking for policy compliance, assuming the QPQ reviewer and prep builder have done their jobs.
When these three problems occur at the same time, errors slip through and we end up violating BLP, NPOV, copyrights or other core policies on the Main Page. Additional rules will not help as long as people skip the checks for rule compliance. —Kusma (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you've said is true, but it ignores the fundamental question that has been asked in previous discussions up above, namely, are all nominations suitable for DYK? Because right now, the problem is that we default to approve, even if people don't think it should run, instead of to discard, of which there is no mechanism to facilitate such a decision other than letting it time out, which rarely happens. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think having strict timeout rules would make it a lot easier to remove bad noms (for any reason) and would be worth trying, but I do not anticipate this to become community consensus. —Kusma (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The evidence categories seem too limited and debatable. For example, consider the case of Jimmy Carter who is remarkably still with us. In that case, several issues were raised at WP:ERRORS about a hook about him and multiple changes were made to the hook. That's often how it goes down – a discussion at WP:ERRORS and then a variety of possible outcomes. Pulling is not the only possibility. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a list of cases from my records which I'll compile as I come across them:
  1. Jimmy Carter
  2. Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales
  3. Murder of Alexis Sharkey
  4. Mick Jagger
  5. "35 people, including the President, First Lady, three senators, and a governor"
Andrew🐉(talk) 21:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These probably belong in the tables above if we want people to consider them, rather than in "Other issues"? Valereee (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No BLP" rule[edit]

  • Adding this here for discussion because Andy and others are trying to propose it, so I'm just anticipating their future proposal. I can't say that I really oppose or support it, but I think we should start discussing it now rather than later. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly get rid of a lot of articles about minor sportspeople or opera performers. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While BLP-related DYKs have clearly been amongst the most problematic, I'm not sure this is necessarily the best approach. To me, the underlying systemic issues are often more to do with the 'how' than the 'what' when it comes to DYKs. The problem lies in the process, more than the subject matter. Poor sourcing, poor judgement, and what appears to be an overwhelming concern to get something on the main page at any cost - even without proper agreement as to what - can happen with any topic. So yes, BLP-related material absolutely needs to be treated with great care, and if DYK can't do that, it shouldn't be permitted to, but that won't make the remaining problems go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be a sensible option in an omnibus RfC because it seems likely that some BLP-hawks might support it. The main complication is that almost any page is within the scope of BLP – not just biographies. The page just needs to involve living people in some way to qualify. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor hook issue needs correction - queue 2[edit]

"... that the Golden State team is the first expansion franchise in the WNBA since 2008?" This should be changed to "... that the Golden State Valkyries are the first expansion franchise in the WNBA since 2008?" as the team name has been officially announced. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1224041695"