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 Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
ALT1:... that "abuse of human rights" occurred during Polish Stonewall on 7 August 2020, during which 48 people were arrested, including passersby? Source: ditto
ALT2:... that during Polish Stonewall on 7 August 2020, 47 people were arrested either peacefully protesting or as passersby to the demonstration? Source: ditto
Comment: Recent event, so better to run sooner rather than later
Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 10:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC).
Comment: grammar? Probably use plural 'passersby' or 'a passerby' with an article in original and ALT1. ALT2 is badly-worded. Should be: '...or while passing the demonstration'. Malick78 (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Typos fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. In future, feel free to do it yourself... (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
While this article is overall good for a DYK, I am unsure if the proposed hook is correct. Some media sources have dubbed this event Polish Stonewall, but I don't think this is a common name yet. I would be cautious when it comes to saying, in wiki voice, that this is the name of the events. At best, I'd suggest saying that "has been dubbed by some media as such", but it is a bit WP:WEASELish. I recommend this is placed on hold while the name is discussed on article's talk, where I'll start a discussion. (Note: I have no other concerns except the name; otherwise - date, size, copyvio, etc. the article is good for a DYK, but I think we need to have a discussion about the naming). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
ALT0 states that this is an informal name for the event, which is accurate. Alternatively, another hook could be written which did not include the name. However, I think ALT0 is good. (t · c) buidhe 10:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The article was moved, however ALT0 is still accurate and works. (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree except as noted on talk, there have been other incidents dubbed as such. Maybe adjust the hook to say "has been one of several incidents described as the PS"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
the hook does not state that it is the absolute only incident that has ever been described by anyone as such. Besides, a google search in English or Polish confirms that this is the main incident that primarily goes by that name. Your suggestion would make the hook less accurate (what are the "several incidents"?) and less hooky. (t · c) buidhe 08:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I have adjusted this template to reflect the article's move (the template page itself should not move). I have also struck ALT1 and ALT2, as they use "Polish Stonewall" as if it was an official name (it seems clear, since the article was moved, that it is not a common name and therefore shouldn't be used as such). I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that ALT1 disagrees with the other hooks in that it gives the number as 48 rather than 47. Which should it be? Out of curiosity, have any American sources characterized this as "Polish Stonewall"? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually, what Vice News wrote in that link was in what some campaigners are calling “the Polish Stonewall”. So it's some of the people who were protesting or part of a wider campaign who gave themselves that name, not a name that Vice News gave it or even endorsed (hence the quotes). It doesn't help here when sources are not accurately being represented. I'm finding ALT0 increasingly misleading: we're responsible for the implications of a hook, which can themselves be not as neutral as they ought. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
It accurately represents that source and others: it is a name that *some people* are calling it, the hook does not attribute that name to anyone in particular. See the definition of the verb "dub": "give an unofficial name or nickname to (someone or something)." (t · c) buidhe 00:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The 'Polish Stonewall' name is cool, but it is not common. Accuracy > cool factor, this is an encyclopedia, after all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I have provided evidence of many sources which reference it. 3+ are cited in the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Overall: New enough, long enough, well-sourced throughout and impressively neutral bearing in mind the challenges of a subject which has much public confrontation. Earwig found a lot of similarities, but because this article has existed for a while, it's fairly clear to me that Earwig simply found a blog site which had copied wholesale from this very article. So no plagiarism in my opinion. so all that remains to be finalised is the hook. Firstly may I say, Buidhe, that the convention here on DYK is of consideration and respect for the creator/expander/nominator. As a rule, DYK reviewers don't go in and half-delete a carefully-constructed article when they have not read the citations and because they just don't get it. That recently happened to me with a biography (outside DYK) and I can assure you that that was such a shocking experience, that I had to send out copies of my original article to all the authorities known to have worked with the biography subject, so that they could see what happened. They were all as shocked as I was. I'm telling this story to demonstrate that you have been very lucky so far with the stability of this very well-written and much-needed article, and I hope that this good situation continues. The DYK process does demand a certain humility from the nominator. So long as it doesn't compromise the article, it's worth sacrificing the odd ALT or two - the ALT will only exist for half a day (on current schedules) anyway. Personally I don't particularly disagree with the "Stonewall" ALTs, but I don't care if we lose them, either. OK they might hook some extra views in, but there are other ways, and those other ways may well smooth the path of this important article through DYK. So please could you consider biting the bullet and providing us with an alternative ALT without the Stonewall bit? Maybe something using the subject matter that in 2020 in Poland there were protests against the arrest of LGBT activist Margot and against regional self-declarations of LGBT-free zones? Since the DYK section gets a worldwide audience, the major proportion of readers probably didn't even know that - I certainly didn't - so that kind of new and shocking information makes it hooky enough for me. Forgive me for such a long explanation and plea to you - I just want to get this very deserving article through DYK smoothly and quickly now. Storye book (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Storye book (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. If the current hook is deemed unacceptable despite the fact that this appellation is widely reported on internationally, perhaps the following suggestion would be accepted: (t · c) buidhe 15:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that 47 people, including bystanders and an amateur reporter, were arrested in Warsaw at a protest against the detention of LGBT activist Margot in August 2020?
with ALT3. Thank you, Buidhe. The hook is a bit long, but it works, and I believe that it cannot be shortened without removing necessary information. (I have taken the liberty of linking LGBT and Margot: please check that you approve). Thank you for your patience with the long process of this nomination. The article is worth the wait. All the best. Storye book (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote ALT3, but the article says 48 people were arrested. Yoninah (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
48 including Margot, 47 without. I think the article makes that clear. Use whichever number you think is less misleading. (t · c) buidhe 16:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: no, it wasn't quite clear, even after a few readings. I tweaked the article wording a bit. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
While this article is overall good for a DYK, I am unsure if the proposed hook is correct. Some media sources have dubbed this event Polish Stonewall, but I don't think this is a common name yet. I would be cautious when it comes to saying, in wiki voice, that this is the name of the events. At best, I'd suggest saying that "has been dubbed by some media as such", but it is a bit WP:WEASELish. I recommend this is placed on hold while the name is discussed on article's talk, where I'll start a discussion. (Note: I have no other concerns except the name; otherwise - date, size, copyvio, etc. the article is good for a DYK, but I think we need to have a discussion about the naming). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, well-sourced throughout and impressively neutral bearing in mind the challenges of a subject which has much public confrontation. Earwig found a lot of similarities, but because this article has existed for a while, it's fairly clear to me that Earwig simply found a blog site which had copied wholesale from this very article. So no plagiarism in my opinion. so all that remains to be finalised is the hook. Firstly may I say, Buidhe, that the convention here on DYK is of consideration and respect for the creator/expander/nominator. As a rule, DYK reviewers don't go in and half-delete a carefully-constructed article when they have not read the citations and because they just don't get it. That recently happened to me with a biography (outside DYK) and I can assure you that that was such a shocking experience, that I had to send out copies of my original article to all the authorities known to have worked with the biography subject, so that they could see what happened. They were all as shocked as I was. I'm telling this story to demonstrate that you have been very lucky so far with the stability of this very well-written and much-needed article, and I hope that this good situation continues. The DYK process does demand a certain humility from the nominator. So long as it doesn't compromise the article, it's worth sacrificing the odd ALT or two - the ALT will only exist for half a day (on current schedules) anyway. Personally I don't particularly disagree with the "Stonewall" ALTs, but I don't care if we lose them, either. OK they might hook some extra views in, but there are other ways, and those other ways may well smooth the path of this important article through DYK. So please could you consider biting the bullet and providing us with an alternative ALT without the Stonewall bit? Maybe something using the subject matter that in 2020 in Poland there were protests against the arrest of LGBT activist Margot and against regional self-declarations of LGBT-free zones? Since the DYK section gets a worldwide audience, the major proportion of readers probably didn't even know that - I certainly didn't - so that kind of new and shocking information makes it hooky enough for me. Forgive me for such a long explanation and plea to you - I just want to get this very deserving article through DYK smoothly and quickly now. Storye book (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Storye book (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
with ALT3. Thank you, Buidhe. The hook is a bit long, but it works, and I believe that it cannot be shortened without removing necessary information. (I have taken the liberty of linking LGBT and Margot: please check that you approve). Thank you for your patience with the long process of this nomination. The article is worth the wait. All the best. Storye book (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)