Template:Did you know nominations/Hideaway (U.S. Senate)
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hideaway (U.S. Senate)
A hideaway in the United States Capitol
- ... that some members of the United States Congress are assigned secret offices called hideaways (example pictured) where they can take naps and entertain mistresses?
- ALT-1: ... that some members of the United States Congress are assigned secret offices called hideaways (example pictured) whose locations are sometimes unknown even to their own staff?
- Reviewed:
ForthcomingTemplate:Did you know nominations/Patricia Haynes Smith
Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 17:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC).
@Chetsford: Article new enough, long enough, sourced, neutral and plagiarism free. The image is free, used in article and clear. Hook is interesting but next time please attach the hook here rather than making the reviewer search it in the article. QPQ not done. Corachow (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Pinging nominator Chetsford. Need feedback from the community here.
First of all, I have concerns that the tone of the article is more tabloid than encyclopedic. We have some BLP issues in that article. What specifically jumped out at me was, "Senator Bob Packwood, meanwhile, is alleged to have sexually assaulted a woman in his hideaway" I don't even see Packwood's name in the source: 1 I went to Bob Packwood that claims, "a Washington Post story detailed claims of sexual abuse and assault from ten women", but the Washington Post source says, "unwanted sexual advances as reported by 10 women, mainly former staff members and lobbyists."2 There's an ocean of difference between "unwanted sexual advances" and "sexual abuse and assault"
Just removed from the article by another editor was an external link "An image of Joe Biden in his hideaway", which was nothing more than Biden sitting in a chair in front of a table, with no one else visible.
Feedback, anyone? — Maile (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that it needs some attention and, being both political and non-encyclopedic in tone, is not fit for DYK at present. Kingsif (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Both the article and the hook are written as though the US Senate is all male. There are currently 26 US Senators who are women. Also Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has a private extra office space, as do some others in the House. Not that much difference from private corporate America, where management gets offices, but everybody else has a cubicle. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- "I don't even see Packwood's name in the source" -- From the source [1] (which is bifurcated between two pages): Senate Finance Committee Chairman Bob Packwood, R-Ore., resigns to avoid expulsion after after more than two dozen women accuse him of sexual assault. One incident allegedly took place in his hideaway.
- "Both the article and the hook are written as though the US Senate is all male. There are currently 26 US Senators who are women. " No, it is not written "as though the US Senate is all male". It tells the history of hideaways from 1800 to 2020, during which period there have been 57 female and 1,382 male senators. That is a sad reality of history but not something it is within the scope of my ability to control. I have included, to the greatest degree possible, references to females using hideaways. However, I am unable to create content where content - due to historic political paternalism - simply doesn't exist. If there are sources I have missed, however, that tell more of the story of females using hideaways, please feel free to add them to the article or, send them to me and I'll be happy to do so.
- Let me know if you have any other concerns. Chetsford (talk) 01:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- being both political and non-encyclopedic in tone, is not fit for DYK at present" While that may be your opinion, we have no such policy. Recent DYKs on political topics include: Hans Ustrud, Huey Long, 1860 Londonderry City by-election, National Council of the Judiciary, Group of Personal Friends, Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush, etc. etc. If your concern is that this history and architecture article involves current politics, you are mistaken. Seven politicians are mentioned by name in the article, of whom, four are dead and three are retired. Chetsford (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Chetsford I don't have a problem with ALT-1. For whoever reviews this, the source for that is Page 21, section What exactly is “the office?” of the Congressional Intern Handbook 1 I do think that because this is about the hideaways for both the House and the Senate, you should move the page. Perhaps to "Hideaway offices (U.S. Congress)" or something similar. I'll leave it up to anyone who reviews this, as to whether or not the article itself is a tad click bait-ish with its emphasis on sexual liaisons. It's not like other human beings don't do the same thing on the sly, when the opportunity presents itself. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- While it's true that WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, I'm not sure why that's relevant as to whether we acknowledge the use of hideaways in this manner. I don't believe that WP's job is to present a burnished view of the U.S. Senate as a solemn institution of Spartan morality but to present it in the way reliable sources describe it, even if that may not be entirely celebratory. To the question of renaming, since only 5 of the 435 members of the House have hideaways while 100 of the 100 members of the Senate do, and the hideaway is commonly associated with the Senate, I think the current set-up of simply acknowledging the presence of House hideaways within the article is fine. Chetsford (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
This nomination has been sitting here nearly a month without resolution. If not resolved, it will be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- It appears the one objector is fine with Alt-1 and the other objector was registering a drive-by objection and didn't take any further issue once his concerns were addressed. No one else has expressed a concern. I'll ping Corachow to see if they're fine with Alt-1. Chetsford (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- While it's true that WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, I'm not sure why that's relevant as to whether we acknowledge the use of hideaways in this manner. I don't believe that WP's job is to present a burnished view of the U.S. Senate as a solemn institution of Spartan morality but to present it in the way reliable sources describe it, even if that may not be entirely celebratory. To the question of renaming, since only 5 of the 435 members of the House have hideaways while 100 of the 100 members of the Senate do, and the hideaway is commonly associated with the Senate, I think the current set-up of simply acknowledging the presence of House hideaways within the article is fine. Chetsford (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Chetsford I don't have a problem with ALT-1. For whoever reviews this, the source for that is Page 21, section What exactly is “the office?” of the Congressional Intern Handbook 1 I do think that because this is about the hideaways for both the House and the Senate, you should move the page. Perhaps to "Hideaway offices (U.S. Congress)" or something similar. I'll leave it up to anyone who reviews this, as to whether or not the article itself is a tad click bait-ish with its emphasis on sexual liaisons. It's not like other human beings don't do the same thing on the sly, when the opportunity presents itself. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
