Template:Did you know nominations/Roast Busters
- 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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Roast Busters
[edit]- ... that a company based in the United Kingdom changed its name following an unrelated underage sex scandal in New Zealand?
- Reviewed: This is currently a big topic in New Zealand, and it certainly has attracted international media attention. Mostly written by User:Camfairweather; the other main contributor uses an IP address (looks like an experienced editor, but given that these are the only contributions of that editor, I suspect that it's a Wikipedian who does not want to edit this topic under their login). Do we give DYK credits to anons? I have added the IP address for the time being.
Created by Camfairweather (talk), 115.188.118.214 (talk). Nominated by Schwede66 (talk) at 02:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC).
- I've edited this a bit, but it has big BLP issues and needs a specialist review. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what your concerns are. Your edits are certainly helpful, but what BLP issues do you see? Yes, some boys boasted about things that got them into deep trouble, but everything is referenced back to reliable sources (which are plentiful), so what is your concern? Schwede66 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Should not be mainpaged due to the BLP aspects. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- "No arrests" is exactly why this turned into such a big story in New Zealand, as arrests were exactly what the public was expecting. The Police said their hands were tied, as none of the victims had come forward with a formal complaint. Over the next few days, it transpired that three girls had been to police over the years, and that's why the high level investigation into police conduct is underway. But again, all of that is explained in the article based on mainstream sources. So what is the problem? Schwede66 07:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP generally. There are things stated in Wikipedia's voice that should not be, and some that probably should not be included at all. I swopped an "alleged" for "known" to "Currently, there are three known members of the group..." (who were then named), but more is needed along these lines, as they have not even been arrested, so all this is presumably based on media speculation. The media will have checked their wording very carefully with lawyers, qualifying the statements they make, and our article needs checking by a specialist. Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- What the public expects is of no concern to Wikipedia. We are not interested in convicting persons in the media without arrest, charge or a fair trial. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the names of the persons, as none have been so much as arrested and it is possible/likely that they themselves were underage at the time of the alleged offenses. Moreover, a source states that one of the persons has been effectively cleared, as he is no longer under any investigation. If and when charges are laid, I have no objection to reintroducing the names at that time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal of the names, given that at least some persons in question are under 18 and that they have not been convicted, much less charged. The article looks OK now though. Neljack (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As has been pointed out, if this article is to run it needs a full DYK review by a specialist in BLP issues. (It still hasn't gotten a standard DYK review on issues like length, age, neutrality and close paraphrasing.) I take very seriously Newyorkbrad's opinion that it should not be run on the main page due to BLP aspects. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's start with the good stuff: it's long enough and new enough. But why this version, an unattractive and poorly written BLP nightmare was put up for the front page is a mystery to me. After all the edits by Johnbod and others this is still not something we should put in the front window of our shop; I tried to make various tweaks but that's hard to do, since for the moment we're dealing with a news story, not an historical event that needs an encyclopedic article. (Yes, those are different things.) The BLP issues are dealt with, I suppose, but that leaves us with an article describing a very recent shit storm in the media whose consequences (remember, we need articles on things with lasting consequences) cannot possibly be determined at this time. What are the effects? New legislation? New guidelines for how the police and the schools are to handle these issues? A move away from victim blaming? Dumb-ass interviewers who claim it wasn't a big deal got fired? Time will tell.I have another problem: this hook is utterly trivial and a bit revolting. Let me sketch for you what happened--allegedly, of course. A bunch of underage girls were drunk (or were made to get drunk) and they were sexually abused, after which the perpetrators bragged about it on Facebook. The victims made police complaints which weren't followed up on, the school didn't do anything in response, one of the victims was bullied for having gone to the police--and a British company changed its name after its Facebook page received abuse. Seriously? That is the consequence we're advertising from these abuses in which a number of young women appear to have been scarred for life? That's adding insult to injury (I know, that's a gross understatement) and there is no way we should allow such a trivialization on the front page, advertising a poor and recentist article. No way. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight. You say the article meets DYK requirements. You have gone back through the article history and say that when it was submitted, it wasn't suitable but then conclude that in its current state, the previous problems have been overcome (through collaborative editing, just the way how WP should work). You then go into a discussion whether the article is finished and conclude that it isn't because other things will happen in future relevant to this article. Sure thing, but that's hardly one of the DYK hurdles to get over. You then start a lengthy discussion that concludes that the hook is unsuitable. That is a DYK issue and if others agree, we need a new hook. No problem. But you then somehow conclude that the DYK submission must be declined. At that point, you've lost me and there appears to be a break in your logic somewhere. I'd be most happy to provide an alternative hook, but only if others concur that the decline isn't justified. Schwede66 17:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't exactly get it straight. I didn't start a discussion, I said no. The article itself, hook aside, is already poor enough to not warrant placement on the main page. Schwede, you are welcome to call in a fourth or fifth opinion; I'll ping BlueMoonset to indicate we have a disagreement. (And to answer an earlier questions: yes, we have given DYK credit to IPs.) Drmies (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's stay away from this hook. Period. Find something else or have this failed. Perhaps this is true, insofar as the company did change its name, but that doesn't mean we need to be broadcasting this to 2 million people. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)