Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Langer

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: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Jack Langer

(
)

Any questions, please ask. Schwede66 22:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Moved to mainspace by BeanieFan11. Self-nominated at 22:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Jack Langer; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Given that this is already late by several days, and how the IP already has experience with DYK, I'm not inclined for this to have a IAR exemption from the seven days requirement, which we usually only only grant if it's a day or two; longer exemptions are usually only granted if the nominator is totally new to DYK, which is not the case here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
    • I'm thinking... if the IP requested that it could be nominated when it was nine days old, and the seven-day limit can be extended up to two days (so, nine days), and the only reason that it wasn't within nine days was due to the user who was requested to do it nominating a bit late, could the IAR exemption still be applied? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
If it was just nine days, then perhaps that could have been allowed, but as it stands, it's 11 days. That's somewhat more on the "not inclined" side of things considering even 10 days is already considered borderline for IAR. Had the writer had been new to DYK, it probably would have been just fine, but they're not. It's a shame since the hook is actually pretty interesting and hooky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I mean that the IP had requested it to be nominated when it was nine days - and it should have been nominated then (which would be in time) - but Schwede66 didn't realize the time and nominated it late - IMO that should warrant an IAR exception (especially since its an interesting hook and the IP had tried to get it nominated in time) - maybe hold a discussion at WP:DYK? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, lateness (beyond nine days) is my fault; I do apologise. And I agree with BeanieFan that the hook appears interesting. I will respect the final decision on this matter and won't bicker. Schwede66 02:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm the IP who requested it to be nominated two days late. Apologies. Without getting into details, life interfered. Just one additional point - it's not as though I'm submitting this so I can receive DYK credit. Of course as an IP I do not receive that. So, to the extent that we impose a lateness rule to discourage those who are seeking DYK credit from being dilatory, that's not perhaps an issue in my case. I'm just seeking to, as the other editors have pointed out, have a DYK that is interesting promoted. As that would be good for the project. No personal "benefit" here. Thanks. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6812:B74F:F3EF:5299 (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Willing to overlook two/four days lateness. New, long enough. Did some copyediting while reading through. Some other issues, however.
  • There is a high amount of copyvio from this NYT source; this needs to be paraphrased
  • Need new better sources to replace SEC filing and self-published obituary
  • Failed verification of restricted ... from receiving any money for televised events unless I'm missing something
  • Need at least one independent source to support the relevance and content of the Aftermath section
  • Is this investment banker Jack Langer certainly the same as the basketball one? Am I missing a source linking them?
  • For neutrality, perhaps clearly state the NCAA's position – we hear a lot about why they wrong, but not exactly their underlying rationale
  • Fair bit of work to do, but an interesting enough topic that I hope we can see it through. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks. I've sought to address your thoughtful points. Let me know if you have any further thoughts.
  • As to the possibility of copyvio from the indicated NYT article, I note that the linked to detector concludes "Violation Unlikely." And what matches it uncovered included (typical for sports articles) phrases such as "National Collegiate Athletic Association" and "Maccabiah Games" and "ECAC Council" and "Yale" and "NCAA" and "Ivy League" and " Art Bergstrom" - all of which themselves are not copyvio concerns. That said, I've lowered the detector's "Violation Unlikely" score even further, in response to your comment.
  • As to SEC filings, just a glance at RSN yields discussion in which (with no dissent) User:John M Baker spoke of the authoritative nature of SEC filings at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 ("What is an "official" statement by a company?"), which is in accord with the discussion of SEC filings at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 120 at which they discuss "EDGAR/SEC filing".
  • As to the use of the obituary, merely to reflect his mother's first name, I think that the comment at RSN is perhaps applicable and sensible where it says at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 50 at "Funeral leaflet published on a personal website": "Context is important... few sources are "always reliable" or "always unreliable". A self-published obituary or funeral notice is probably very reliable for non-controvercial information (date of birth for example), but not for anything more."
  • I've also provided sources for the TV revenue textual reference.
  • I've added a NYT ref and another one to support the relevance and content of the Aftermath section
  • As to his path, we of course know that Jack Langer attended Yale as an undergrad (graduating in 1971),[1] and then Harvard for business,[2] and that that matches the Jack Langer who was 73 years old on March 30, 2022 (matching the age of the basketball player) who attended Yale as an undergrad and then Harvard for business -- and then "From 1997 until 2002, he served as managing director and global co-head of the media group at Lehman Brothers Inc. From 1995 until 1997, he served as the managing director and head of the media group at Bankers Trust & Company. From 1990 until 1994, he served as managing director and head of the media group at Kidder Peabody & Company, Inc. Mr. Langer currently serves as a director of CKX, Inc., SBA Communications Corp., and Atlantic Broadband Corporation, a private company." [3][4][5]
  • As to the NCAA's driving force here--It was mentioned obliquely, but I've found a more direct statement by its executive director, referred to in a number of sources.
  • BTW, ironically, this appeared in a Harvard publication column entitled "Did You Know?" on October 30, 2003.

2603:7000:2101:AA00:6566:1438:8BA:D9FE (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Hi again. I see that you've put work in, but a couple issues are unresolved.
  • The copyvio issue was not with stock phrases, but rather paragraphs such as Yale becomes the first member of the Ivy League and the E.C.A.C. to be so drastically punished by the N.C.A.A. since that association was founded in 1906. Generally, punishment is limited to one sport. The current version – Yale became the first member of the Ivy League and the ECAC to be so harshly punished by the NCAA since the NCAA was established in 1906.[18] As a general matter, any punishment of a university is limited to one sport of the university.[18] – is still not really paraphrased (among other sentences)
  • SEC filing might be okay, but (see below) probably better to use a basketball-related source for his age
  • Obituaries might be okay for minor stuff; reminder that there was another which cited places of residence
  • New source here okay (ref20). Perhaps cite the page number (p. 115) with {{rp}}
  • New sources okay
  • Matching these Jack Langers is textbook original research – if no secondary sources have linked the two, the article should refrain as well
  • Still generally reads as pretty anti-NCAA, but the added sentence is welcome
When you are have finished fixing the close paraphrasing and removing the original research, feel free to place {{subst:DYK?again}} for a new reviewer to come by. For that reviewer, I propose the hook phrasing:
Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful review. I've further edited the article. At this point the Earwig's Copyvio Detector states "Violation Unlikely; 15.3% similarity." I don't see a basketball-related source for his age, and I had asked another seasoned editor of NJ articles, and he did not see one either. I'm not sure I know how to use the template you point to. I'll ask the next editor who you asked me to invited to review their thought on whether it is ok with what we have to indicate his investment banking background in their view. I haven't see, frankly, third party RS refs supporting the NCAA/Byers approach, but we do have what Byers himself said when questioned.
2603:7000:2101:AA00:C5EE:EC1C:6250:8821 (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Will give this one another look. Longhornsg (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Longhornsg: It's been a week since your comment, are you still planning to take a look at this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, @Narutolovehinata5:. Went through and copyedited a good bit to reduce some of the copyvios and off-topic POV digressions. There's still a lot in the article that I think would be better placed in the 1969 Maccabiah Games article or elsewhere, but that's not a reason to fail this article for DYK. It checks out against all other eligibility requirements. ALT1 looks good to me and is supported by the same source as the original hook. Longhornsg (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jack_Langer&oldid=1168719281"