Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Dishonorable Disclosures

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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 Harrias talk 14:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Dishonorable Disclosures

[edit]
(
)
  • Comment: New article created August 15

Created/expanded by Belchfire (talk). Self nom at 08:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I have copy edited the hook per WP:DYKSG: it needs a "that". --George Ho (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Article length (2000+ characters) and age (2 days) are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. The original hook line verified in source. Looks good to go.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Pulling this one out of the prep area. A DYK hook about a politically motivated film attacking the US President during his re-election campaign needs to be carefully crafted, if it is to appear at all. This ho-hum hook apparently slipped under the radar... --Orlady (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I could see no fault with the review though. Do you want me to fail the article? Has the nominator been notified? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • We need to have more eyes on this before a hook with political implications, like this one, goes to the main page. This is the kind of hook that sometimes gets removed from the main page, and often causes eruptions at WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS. I delayed notifying the nominator, thinking that I would do it after reviewing the rest of this hook set, but got sidetracked by review of the next hook, which I also ended up pulling. I've notified Belchfire now. --Orlady (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Is there something in the eligibility requirements that I overlooked? I think other editors have been to the article since it was nominated, but if there are no NPOV problems to correct and it meets all other requirements, what's the issue? I believe the hook itself is neutral, which appears to have been acknowledged already. Belchfire-TALK 22:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a whole lot of clarity or a whole lot of consensus in that discussion. If this simply amounts to a general ban on anything tangentially related to politics or elections, it doesn't seem to me like it would that that difficult to distill it down to a sentence or two as a simple courtesy to the editors who spend their time on this stuff. So where does this stand? Belchfire-TALK 23:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Orlady, would you mind looking at this? Wikipedia:Did_you_know#hookcontent "Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates." We are well more than 30 days from the election. Belchfire-TALK 23:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign...
OPSEC spokesmen said the group has about $1 million at its disposal and hopes to raise more after the release of its mini-documentary, entitled "Dishonorable Disclosures," which aims, in spy-movie style, to document a recent spate of leaks regarding sensitive intelligence and military operations. This above is what I saw for the reference for the hook.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The hook was built from the opening line of the article as it existed when nominated: "Dishonorable Disclosures is a 2012 documentary film by the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, a non-partisan 501(c)(4) social welfare group composed of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives.[2]" diff, which was supported by this citation: [1]. Doug is looking further down in the Reuters article, but all he really needs is in the first sentence: "A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign..." Belchfire-TALK 23:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe I am following Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide. As far as I can tell my wording is STILL correct when I Reviewed the article and hook. Which part is incorrect?

  • Article length (2000+ characters) and age (2 days) are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. The original hook line verified in source.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, Doug, didn't mean to argue with you at all. I guess you and I were looking at two separate things in the source that led to the same conclusion, is all. Thanks for reviewing and approving my nom. Belchfire-TALK 23:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
My point was mostly addressed to Orlady. I'm trying to figure out where I erred in the Review, since I believe I followed the Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide. IF I follow those guidelines, and it Passes, THEN shouldn't it be approved? I cann't work outside the guidelines.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not all of the "rules" are in the reviewing guide (for example, it doesn't contain the rule that says "Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided," which rule has lately been interpreted to restrict such hooks for periods longer than 30 days before the election) and no one reviewer has final say over what can and can't go onto the main page. In addition to the various rules, there's a matter of exercising judgment about potentially controversial and/or emotionally distressing topics, and a need to recognize that other people may have judgments different from yours or mine. I reviewed this hook when I was planning to move the "prep area" set to the "queue" and give administrator approval to the hooks, and after I saw the article, I concluded that I could not approve this hook. The bland hook may look "neutral", but it misrepresents the article topic by omitting significant information. The mere fact that 3 of the 5 cited sources are news stories that use the verb "attack" in their headlines (for example, the Reuters headline is "Special ops group attacks Obama over bin Laden bragging, leaks") is a strong indication that this is not a bland documentary film.
I'm not sure it would be appropriate to run any hook about this film, as most anything we write could have the effect of either promoting the film (for example, to potential contributors) or attacking it. However, here are some ALT hooks that seem to me less dishonest:
Good catch on the cite, Orlady. Thanks for that. I don't think ALT1 is appropriate, but I could endorse ALT2 with one small quibble: substitute "Obama Administration" in place of "Barack Obama", to depersonalize it. For that matter, we could avoid directing criticism at the President altogether, and just say that the film will be shown in swing states, making it that much more neutral, without glossing over that it's election-related. Belchfire-TALK 02:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but sugar-coating is not neutrality -- it can be a form of distortion. The article says "The 22-minute film criticizes President Obama and his administration"; and the emphasis appears to be personal and on the president, not on a bloodless administration. (The article quotes a character in the film as saying, "Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did....") --Orlady (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just floating an idea based on my understanding of the program, that's all. Hooks are supposed to be neutral, right? I'd like to go forward with a hook that isn't going to cause the nomination to fail in some future discussion. I'd kinda like to have Doug weigh in on this, too. Belchfire-TALK 03:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The hook looks simple and neutral to me. I'm not into "politics", so won't be able to give further polictical viewpoints. I'm just following the DYK guidelines. After over 200 DYKs I realize no one reviewer has final say over what can and can't go onto the main page. One thing I have noticed however is that Orlady has recently also pulled other Reviewed DYK nominations I did that has Passed. I don't want to believe it is connected to the 7-in-1 DYK nomination I recently submitted.--Doug Coldwell talk 11:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It's just luck that two hooks you had reviewed were in that same prep area that I reviewed before promoting it to the queue -- but I suppose the fact that you had done QPQ reviews against that 7-in-1 nomination meant that you had been responsible for approving a large percentage of the recently approved hooks on the noms page. Since you mentioned it, I have now looked at your 7-in-1 nom and made some comments there... --Orlady (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This sort of thing is part of the dirt of US politics and we need be really careful. The original hook is no good, if we have to run it then ALT2. Secretlondon (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
ALT2 is an unacceptable hook. It uses "a group describing itself" when the sources do not dispute that they actually are, and hides the name of the name of the movie that is the subject of the hook. ALT1 is better with the change, as it was a campaign official and not Obama himself who characterised the film that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hawkeye, your objection to ALT2 is easily remedied (and should be remedied) by replacing the phrase "a group describing itself as" with the phrase "a group of", per the sources. The phrase "describing itself" is a POV-ish expression of doubt and neither Reuters or the Wall Street Journal felt it necessary to muddy the water this way. See WP:ALLEGED. We wouldn't stand for this in an article and there's no reason for it to be in the hook. Belchfire-TALK 21:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW, of the three hooks here, I prefer ALT1. I put the "group describing itself" language into ALT2 because I found that kind of language in the article at the time, and I think there is significant reason to question whether a group of former U.S. Special Forces and intelligence officers have managed (on their own) to produce a movie and raise the money to show it as an ad. Based on the sources, I am not prepared to state as a fact that a group of former U.S. Special Forces and intelligence officers made this film. --Orlady (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
If you feel the nomination can go forward with ALT1, you have my support. I was queasy about it, but I will defer to your judgment.
If we wind up coming back to ALT2, I do need to point out that your expression of doubt amounts to OR. Again, Reuters and WSJ didn't have a problem making the statement without such a qualification. But that's a moot point if we're going with ALT1. Belchfire-TALK 21:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the status of this nomination, please. Belchfire-TALK 05:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Anything happening here, please? --PFHLai (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This film is highly related to the ongoing U.S. presidential election campaign. I get a lot of political email from all sides, and I am receiving email promoting this film as "the single most damning video against Barack Obama you will see." Running the hook in DYK before the election is sure to generate accusations that DYK is playing partisan politics. After the election, few people will care about this film. Consistent with the rationale behind the rule that says "Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates", this should not run in DYK. --Orlady (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The above post by user Orlady is nearly identical to a post made further up the DYK nomination page, which intends to disqualify the film 2016: Obama's America for the same reasons. Instead of copying and pasting my response from that discussion, I'll simply encourage other editors to read it here. But in addition, I'd like to ask Orlady what basis s/he has for disqualifying legitimate DYK article submissions, based solely on a seemingly intentional misinterpretation of the DYK rule: "articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided...". Orlady has stated that this rule can be interpreted to be "longer than 30 days", but as I read it, the wording "up to 30 days" clearly means: "within 30 days", and not "around 30 days" or "30 days plus whatever you feel like". User Belchfire raised this same question (without a specific response from Orlady) further up in this discussion on August 18. If the misinterpretation of a DYK rule can in fact be the basis for disqualifying an article, I think Orlady should at least explain why s/he is (breaking?)/bending DYK rules to disqualify another editor's article. Lenschulwitz (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The election is over, so I guess we can run this now. I am going to do another review of this article to make it ready for the main page, but first I want to know if there still is any objections against this article being promoted with ALT1? Mentoz86 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's clear this one through. It has been very thoroughly reviewed and the concern about the election - correct in my view - is no longer relevant. GTG Aymatth2 (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dishonorable_Disclosures&oldid=1189662559"