Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Texas power crisis
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
2021 Texas power crisis
- ... that Governor Greg Abbott initially and incorrectly blamed the 2021 Texas power crisis on frozen wind turbines? (Source: USA Today)
- ... that during the 2021 Texas power crisis, the governor ordered natural gas producers not to export gas out of state? (Source: Governor's official web site)
Created by Burritok (talk). Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk) at 02:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC).
- I changed "blamed" to "initially blamed" in the Greg Abbott hook. He later backtracked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- I added an alternate hook about hoarding natural gas. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I am impressed by the quick and good work on this article; let's hope it doesn't get bogged down with news items and trivia, but so far so good. It's clean, verified, new enough, long enough. Both hooks are verified, but I say we go with the first, for its obvious attractions. Since Burritok is a brand-new user there is no need for a QPQ, but we should, given the extensive history, give co-credit to User:EDG 543 for all their good work. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose the first without clarification that it was false and misleading. Reywas92Talk 01:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies, thank you, and I agree, the article did turn out well, thanks to the efforts of many editors working in tandem. However, I would have to agree with Reywas92. I think we should mention that it was a false accusation. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Reywas92, there is no need for "strongly" anything here. We're all colleagues. User:EDG 543, if you like you can tweak the hook, but I think you'll have to do so in a more neutral manner than "falsely", with all its implications. You could add "and incorectly"; that seems to be neutral enough to me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Drmies, I fully agree and the change has been made. Thank you for your suggestion. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 02:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- OK so I'll tick that off again. DYK volunteers, the sooner we get this on the front page, the more hits! Drmies (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- DYK is not a means of promoting political causes. The article has disputed/failed verification info in the lead and infobox that could be fairly readily resolved, but using the nomination/DYK summary to fact-check governor Abbott's early statement which placed incorrectly weighted blame on wind turbines is hijacking DYK for partisan purposes. We should tread carefully here. As for his order against exporting natural gas, that doesn't seem particularly salient or interesting. IMHO the winter storm article is probably more deserving of a DYK, but for this article, there has to be a better fact to call out. There was already an In the News nomination; and the winter storm is currently in the In the News section, and probably more deservedly so, since it is a larger event inclusive of this one. Star7m (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- This statement is absolutely verified; see the source provided. There is no basis for the idea that political topics cannot be featured in DYK, nor is there basis for the idea that when an article details a smaller aspect of a larger event, only the larger event can be featured. What you didn't mention is that you yourself added those tags to the article lead; you're not just observing them. And it's also impossible not to notice that for someone with four edits total, all of which are related to this, you know quite a bit about the Wikipedia process. I would be very careful about accusations of "hijacking DYK for partisan purposes" when you cannot prove you're acting with clean hands. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I was not questioning whether the statement was verified or accurate. There are two aspects of DYK review, the condition of the article and the suitability of the called-out DYK fact/blurb. The "disputed/failed verification info in the lead and infobox" was a concern unrelated to the Abbott quote. Regarding the larger concern with the Abbott quote, I know there is obviously precedent for political topics in DYK, but DYK should not be weaponized to cherry-pick statements to target politicians. Do we really "need to know" this? Star7m (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- What we really need to know is whether or not you're a sockpuppet, as I have reason to suspect you may be (WP:PREC, WP:XS, WP:BRIEFLY). Drmies, would you care to look into this? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Star7m, to be fair, I doubt if there has ever been anything included in the DYK section that was actually completely necessary for anyone reading it. The general rule regarding politics, according to WP:DYK is that it should not be "a means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches)." So it seems that we should examine our intentions in displaying this: is it to simply share the fact that renewable energy sources were blamed for the crisis, or to defame Mr. Abbott? I don't see any words that would indicate a violation of WP:NPOV. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 16:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I was not questioning whether the statement was verified or accurate. There are two aspects of DYK review, the condition of the article and the suitability of the called-out DYK fact/blurb. The "disputed/failed verification info in the lead and infobox" was a concern unrelated to the Abbott quote. Regarding the larger concern with the Abbott quote, I know there is obviously precedent for political topics in DYK, but DYK should not be weaponized to cherry-pick statements to target politicians. Do we really "need to know" this? Star7m (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- This statement is absolutely verified; see the source provided. There is no basis for the idea that political topics cannot be featured in DYK, nor is there basis for the idea that when an article details a smaller aspect of a larger event, only the larger event can be featured. What you didn't mention is that you yourself added those tags to the article lead; you're not just observing them. And it's also impossible not to notice that for someone with four edits total, all of which are related to this, you know quite a bit about the Wikipedia process. I would be very careful about accusations of "hijacking DYK for partisan purposes" when you cannot prove you're acting with clean hands. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Star7m, drive-by editors who are either socks or totally inexperienced shouldn't get to torpedo this submission. I left your comments, for now, but removed your untick. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- Update on this: [1] AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)