Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Arming teachers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Arming teachers

(
)
teacher protects their students with gun in classroom
teacher protects their students with gun in classroom

Created by Bluerasberry (talk). Self-nominated at 18:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC).

  • The image I used has been the subject of controversy on the talk page. Regardless, this DYK nomination could proceed without the image if necessary. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    That image is going nowhere near the main page --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • A drive-by comment from me... I fear that this could turn out a lot like the very messy Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka nomination I handled some time back. The article is in a very hot-button topic, has very high activity and pageviews, is leading to disputes (the big orange banners at the top are an automatic obstacle to DYK listing per WP:DYKSG#D6), has two ‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] tags, and there are multiple talk page discussions with activity in the last 7 days. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: I can resolve the warning banners but I cannot cool the talk page. Under what circumstances is a lively talk page a barrier to DYK? Bluerasberry (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Another drive-by comment: although the article itself looks neutrally written, I wonder about the hook. The wording "a proposal to stop stop school shootings" is written in a way that suggests that there is reason to believe that arming teachers would stop school shootings. However, the article contains no evidence to support this suggestion. The caption for the image ("teacher protects") is also quite non-neutral; one could easily read the same image as "teacher threatens students with gun", reflecting more accurately the actual incidents described in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The "globalize" problem template is removed - special:diff/1092348842/1093279561 Bluerasberry (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

THIS NOM REQUIRES ADMIN COMMENT A single remaining cite-needed has been addressed. Both hooks are sufficiently cited. There appears to be mo remaining issues in terms of DYK, as the article is long enough, new enough (when posted) well cited and the nom has completed the QPQ. The image has been dropped and is no longer a topic for discussion here. However, there are arbcom posts on the talk page and it is not clear what this means in practice. The issue was raised above as D6, but that's not quite the same thing. This issue was not resolved as far as I can see. @Sammi Brie:, I believe the ball is in your court. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Guerillero, I don't understand your comment regarding the image. This is a controversial topic to be sure, but in what way is that image inherently unsuitable for the main page? However, the image is currently the topic of a deletion discussion, so we should put this nomination on hold until that's resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    It is a fanciful depiction of arming teachers that has no connection to a serious issue and was subject to a long discussion that resulted in its removal from the article --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    Ah, I did not realize it had been removed from the article. That certainly obviates the need to wait on the commons discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

- I have added an expand lead template to the top of the lead, for reasons discussed at WT:DYK, so this will not be ready to go until that's resolved. I'd also caution that we pick the hook text carefully, per David Eppstein, to avoid giving the impression that this is a proven method of reducing shootings.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination is still need of a review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The orange neutrality tag is still on this article, though it has been more than 30 days since the talk page was last edited. No substantive content changes have occurred since a few days later. The page otherwise seems to be close to ready, though I would suggest to Bluerasberry to reword some of the public debate section to use fewer phrases from The Conservation's article [1].
  • ALT2 checks out.
  • ALT3 is possibly useful, though I wonder if that's a germane fact. (Side note: removed hyphen from "African Americans" in ALT3 per MOS:HYPHEN.)
  • ALT4 is not backed by a specific source to mention the non-implementation of the law.
  • I would like other editors, including but not limited to @Theleekycauldron, Amakuru, and David Eppstein, to appraise the page's neutrality in its current state. If it can be agreed that the tag is no longer necessary and the wording issue is resolved, I think ALT2 can be approved. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Is it even possible for this topic to be written in a way that will gain consensus from all sides that it is neutrally written? On the talk page we have apparently serious proposals that what the article needs is to think of the poor mass murderers and write it more from their point of view. Surely someone who takes that position will not be satisfied with a version that takes the point of view of the 95% of the teachers in the survey. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
      • If the neutrality question is going to remain this intractable, then perhaps this page is not suitable for exposure on the Main Page. We've spent nearly two months debating the topic, and while the article has definitely improved, it's probably time to end this nomination. It's something of a shame that the one missing link is so large, though given the "hotness" of the topic, it's not too surprising. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • No objection to closing I started the article and nominated the DYK but I have no capacity to engage further. I agree with David Eppstein - there may not be a form of this page which can avoid people raising neutrality concerns. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I readded the picture. If this is getting closed without passing anyway then it can close with the illustration I originally used for the article and this nomination. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Arming_teachers&oldid=1100597245"