Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Svante Thunberg

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: rejected by Cielquiparle (talk) 08:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Svante Thunberg

(
)

New article on redirect by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 09:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC).

  • Frankly, who cares about anything like that, about anyone? Tabloid garbage. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Clearly not you, SergeWoodzing! It has some impact. But please feel free to suggest something else. Moonraker (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

PS Also see recent questionable activity in the article's edit history, the article's talk page and the nominator's talk page. SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I do see some, but not by me. Moonraker (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Nominator has now drawn h own fantasy picture of Thunberg and uploaded it to Commons in another attempt to push this through. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
That is your take on it, SergeWoodzing, but I have indeed, although very few images are used, and it makes no difference to whether a nomination is “pushed through”. Please see WP:Civility. I see you have not suggested a better hook yet. Moonraker (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:Civility is irrelevant when nothing uncivil has been done. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
See above. Moonraker (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
If nothing else, this hook is primarily about Ernman, not Thunberg; I would probably object to its approval and airing. Moonraker, is there another hook that could be found? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
It is about both of them, Theleekycauldron, and I can’t see any rule at Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook that says the subject needs to be the main focus, or has to be the doer and not the done-to. We seem to get a lot of hooks that your comment could rule out. Is there a bullet point in that rule you have in mind? Moonraker (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Moonraker: The subject needing to be the main focus is one of the more unwritten rules – come to think it, probably a good addition for the supplementary guidelines. The idea behind it is that narrowing the focus of the hook to the bolded article prevents hooks from being a vehicle for nominators to put whatever they want on the Main Page. We can ask at WT:DYK, if you'd like. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, the whole purpose of having written rules is so that people know what they need to comply with, and the judgement can be done consistently and objectively. Having unwritten rules means life is far harder for all of us, and there is less consistency. The main focus thing may be a good idea, but I would suggest getting agreement to build that into the rules we all work with. And here, Thunberg is not exactly incidental to events! Moonraker (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, does ALT2 overcome your possible objection? Moonraker (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Moonraker, that's exactly what WP:DYKSG was meant to be when it was created – DYK develops so many "unwritten rules" that we eventually had to start, well, writing them down. ALT2 is more centered around Thunberg, but now I'm a little worried about it coming across as tabloid-y? Like, there's a lot of people who would judge a couple who got pregnant without getting married after just two months, and I'm worried that we'd look like we're catering to those people. Obviously, there's nothing even remotely about that in the rules, but if you'd be open to workshopping with me, some editorial discretion can't hurt. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
  • i am a little concerned about whether the image provided could be seen as a derivative of this image. i can't seem to figure out the copyright status of the latter image, though it appears to have been taken during a press conference at cop24. also, i thought i might submit a proposal centered on svante rather than ernman.

    alt1: ... that Svante Thunberg admitted that he "didn't have a clue about the climate", but changed his behaviour, not to "save the climate, [but] to save [his] child"?

    Moonraker, does this hook seem appropriate? of course, i'll defer to any hooks you'd prefer to propose. dying (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [struck alt1. dying (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)]

Hi, Dying, your image is a photo, and I imagine the copyright belongs to someone who took it. This is a drawing and the copyright is mine. I see no problem with alt1, that was an interesting comment I found and added after creating the nomination. Not sure if you are acting as a reviewer here? If you are, I believe the reviewer needs to check all hooks and say if they are within the rules, someone else later decides which is the best one to go with. Moonraker (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: in your alt1, the square brackets are awkward, but you could lose them if you also took out the quotation marks. I don’t know that it’s about changing behaviour, what Thunberg says is “I did all these things ... to save my child”. You would need to find a form of words to cover it. Moonraker (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Moonraker, the image is clearly either based on that photo, or on a photo or video taken around that time. although you may have modified the original to an extent that the derivative work may be copyrightable, i believe you would still need permission from the copyright holder of the underlying work in order to use this image on the main page. (commons has a page explaining how the laws on derivative works apply to files uploaded to commons.) in any case, i think the point is no longer relevant, considering Legoktm's overriding blp point.
i wasn't sure what exactly "all these things" referred to, but the wording i used is based on the bbc source's phrase "her parents' changes in behaviour", and i believe it is noncommittal enough to avoid being wrong. (i had originally thought about using a phrase like "supported his daughter" before i realized that the bbc source didn't appear to explicitly state this.) i'm not attached to the wording, though, and would be happy to replace it with a better alternative. i had used quotation marks to be able to use svante's construction, but if the square brackets are too distracting, here's an alternative.

alt1b: ... that Svante Thunberg admitted that he "didn't have a clue about the climate", but changed his behaviour, not out of concern for the environment, but out of concern for his daughter Greta?

if alt0 or alt2 ends up being accepted and you prefer it over either alt1 or alt1b, i can strike both alt1 and alt1b so that a promoter does not have to decide; i had only proposed alt1 in case alt0 was going to be rejected.
my comment wasn't originally meant as a full review, but i don't mind doing one for you. however, i just noticed that although the article was created from a redirect, the redirect was created as the result of an afd nomination, meaning that another article had existed before the current one. as a result, i do not know enough about the finer points of dyk to determine if this article meets the newness requirement, so am pinging theleekycauldron for help. dying (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [struck alt1b. dying (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)]
I'd say that if consensus previously decided that the topic wasn't fit for a standalone article, and that consensus has now shifted, that counts as new. I think we've come across this at WT:DYK a couple of times, and no one's bothered to write down a rule, but we usually err towards lettin' 'em have it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
sounds good. thanks, theleekycauldron. Moonraker, let me know if you would like for me to review the nomination with alt2, or if you would rather me wait while you work with theleekycauldron to develop another hook. dying (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
ALT1'll need its own review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the image from the article and would also strongly recommend it be removed from this hook too. It's a BLP violation to claim that's what they look like, when they don't look like that! I think it's also close to running afoul of Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images. Legoktm (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Legoktm, I don’t know that it matters very much, but I am very puzzled by your claim of a “BLP violation”. We have Dying saying the image is clearly based on a photo — in fact it isn’t, but that seems to be saying it’s a good likeness — and we have you saying “they don't look like that”. Are you saying that no one living can be represented by anything except a photo, or that this drawing is not good enough? Moonraker (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Moonraker, i agree with Legoktm. the image somewhat resembles svante, but i do not believe it is accurate enough to portray him on the main page without worrying about blp concerns. what made it clear that the image is based on either photo or video taken at the cop24 press conference is how the image depicts svante with similar folds on his shirt, a similar lanyard, and what appears to be a similar microphone clip.
please note that i did not state that you were conscious of the image being based on either a photo or video taken at the press conference when you created it, but merely that it was based on such media. it's possible that you worked off of a photo of a photo taken at that conference, but then your work would have still been based on the original photo. if you have the appropriate rights for the underlying work, then my worries about copyright would be assuaged, but you don't seem to be asserting that. alternatively, i suppose you could have been personally present at the conference and then created this image from memory, but that is admittedly rather difficult to believe.
by the way, the image you recently uploaded to commons of edda göring bears a striking resemblance to a still from a television interview in 1986. dying (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Dying, I agree with you about the Edda image, but not the Thunberg one. The microphone clip, sure. Moonraker (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
The nomination cannot be promoted to the image slot if the relevant image isn't in the article, so that'll have to be worked out one way or another. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, I agree, the image needs to be in the article. If it isn’t there, this could only be promoted without it. Moonraker (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd be happy to review ALT1 or ALT1b, by the way, they seem good at first glance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, I have come across reviewers who say they have a preference between hooks, and I do that myself. I’d rather we had a reviewer who just reviewed the hooks on offer. Moonraker (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
i am not sure if this means that you would prefer to have one editor review all the hooks, rather than just a subset. i obviously cannot review alt1 and alt1b, having proposed them myself, so if you would rather i not provide a full review for you, just let me know. dying (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@Moonraker: I'll be honest. When you say you'd rather have a reviewer who just reviewed the hooks on offer -- don't you think you sound a little entitled? Being reviewed is a privilege, not a right. We don't have to cater to your preference. BorgQueen (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BorgQueen. I would agree with you that the final choice of hook is not up to the nominator. I do not think it is "entitled" for a nominator to want his or her hook to be reviewed. I must have checked out four or five hundred hooks myself, and I have never offered to review one I liked, but not the nominator's hook, which I didn't like. On whether being reviewed is a privilege, the system of QPQs means it is not a one-way street. The regulars here surely act in good faith, on the principle of "do as you would be done by". Moonraker (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moonraker: I see your points. Sorry if I sounded slightly blunt earlier. But I must say that I had felt disappointed by the way you rejected the offer from theleekycauldron, and seemingly, the one from Dying as well, which appeared to me unnecessarily selective. BorgQueen (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
BorgQueen, naming no names, I did not find all the comments on this page helpful and decided the best thing was to say no more. I agreed with Dying that he should not review his own hooks. Any selectiveness really only came down to thinking my hook was a good one and it was fair enough to want it kept on the table. Moonraker (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Moonraker, i was admittedly surprised that you did not mention being okay with me providing a full review, since i obviously cannot approve my own hooks, so can only approve either alt0 or alt2. (i am also surprised by your use of pronouns, but that is less relevant.) i was expecting to approve both alt0 and alt2 (without the image) barring any other major issues, so was also expecting to strike alt1 and alt1b. (i would have also noted theleekycauldron's concerns to the promoter, so that the promoter could bring the issue to wt:dyk if it seemed warranted.) i had interpreted theleekycauldron's offer as a way to allow all the hooks on offer to be reviewed, as she had made the offer after i had made the offer to fully review your nomination, so i was confused as to why you had mentioned a preference for one reviewer to review all the hooks on offer. of course, now that i have explicitly stated to you that i had expected to approve your hooks, i no longer think it is appropriate for me to actually review them, so i will recuse myself from doing so.
to any future reviewer, i will not be offended if you prefer to not review alt1 or alt1b; as i mentioned above, i would prefer to defer to the nominator's hooks, and had only proposed alt1 and alt1b in case the nominator's hooks were rejected. dying (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Dying, thank you for your thoughts. I am quite bemused by the twists and turns of this page. I said nothing to disagree with you doing a review. As you know, I don't agree with your objections to the image. You decided it must be derived from a photograph and therefore was a copyright violation of that, but that was all in your imagination. Meanwhile, Legoktm decided it was a BLP violation because it didn't look like Thunberg, and you then agreed with Legoktm. I do not see how you can have it both ways. That is perhaps beside the point, as the hostile removal of the image from the article takes it out of the picture. I doubt if I shall put myself to so much trouble again. Moonraker (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • "I'd rather we had a reviewer who just reviewed the hooks on offer" suggested that you disagreed with me doing a review.
  • i am not sure if you are aware that your language appears to be biased. neither Legoktm nor i "decided" that the image was a violation. characterizing Legoktm's action as a "hostile removal" seems unfair to Legoktm.
  • "that was all in your imagination" seems like an unkind remark to suggest that i am delusional. i don't mind, but considering that i provided prima facie evidence above for everyone else to examine, i imagine that your statement may not have had the effect you intended.
  • copyright violations and blp violations are not mutually exclusive. placing a copyrighted film frame of daniel radcliffe as harry potter in the infobox of the article on elijah wood would presumably also violate both.
  • yes, i noticed that you stated "This is a drawing and the copyright is mine" rather than "I drew this". my comments were carefully worded to leave you an out, but you never took it.
  • another editor removed your image of göring from the article on her, but you reverted the removal. to me, this is beginning to feel like a wp:1am situation.
  • if you did not find all the comments helpful, it may be useful to review them, keeping in mind that most, if not all, of them had been intended to be helpful. i had commented to try to hint to you that you should withdraw the image before others did it for you, but i see that i have failed. i only suggested alt1 because it looked like alt0 was headed for a quick fail, and wanted to save your submission.
  • i have struck alt1 and alt1b to make any potential reviewer's job easier. you are welcome to reinstate them if alt2 is not approved.
dying (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
At this point, myself and another user have both objected to ALTs 0 and 2 on the grounds that they take a tabloid-style approach to the personal life of a BLP. DYK reviews usually operate on a consensus of two, but with prior objections, a review wouldn't be enough to stamp either hook. If you'd like to go to WT:DYK, try to get a different consensus, that's up to you. If you're not okay with ALTs 1 and 1b, then this nomination currently has no hooks that can be stamped by review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, thanks for pointing out that a review would not have been sufficient to greenlight a hook in this case; i had not previously realized that. dying (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Moonraker: If you are unable to agree on alternative hook proposals, or are unable to propose a hook that would meet consensus, the nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I am only the nominator here, there has been no review, we are waiting for someone to review any of the hooks on offer. As it happens, I have made no objection to the hook suggested by dying, as improved, though I would not choose it myself. My objection was simply that I did not want it made the only option. Two questions for you, please. (1) Will you explain why I am obliged to "agree on alternative hook proposals", simply because theleekycauldron has personal objections to a hook which has not been reviewed? (2) When you say "the nomination will be marked for closure as unsuccessful", do you mean you will do that, and if so can you please give a link to the DYK rule that says that will happen and who can do it? Moonraker (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
My point is simply if no suitable hook is agreed on, then yes the nomination can be closed as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
@Moonraker: All righty, let's see if we can't get this show on the road. What needs to happen for this nomination is at least one of two things:
  • You can lift your request not to have dying's ALTs reviewed on their lonesone.
  • You can dispute one or more of the objections made on this nomination at WT:DYK, and attempt to secure a consensus to approve one of your hooks on offer.
Right now, no single reviewer can approve any of the hooks in this nomination, because there are one or more objections to each hook that would require a broader consensus to overturn. So, letting this nomination wait in DYKN isn't the best idea. Moonraker, what's your next move? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, since dying struck out both his alts, my ALT2 is the only hook on offer, and there is nothing to stop anyone at all from reviewing that. I see dying said that was "to make any potential reviewer's job easier. you are welcome to reinstate them if alt2 is not approved." There is also nothing to stop you or anyone else from suggesting any other hook you like. You have made a personal objection to my hook which you have not related to any DYK rule, and you are not willing to review that; I can only guess why that might be. As it happens, I see nothing "tabloid-style" about it, and it clearly isn't a BLP violation. If it were, you would have removed the facts from the article at once, and you haven't done that. We are simply waiting for a reviewer who will either agree with dying and me that ALT2 is within the rules or else find the DYK rule against it that we haven't seen yet. Then we can take it from there. Moonraker (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  • @Moonraker: ah, okay, I can review. In the article, the information is sourced from a book that was published by a less-than-reputable source – I don't really want to edit this article, but I can't exactly figure out why a publisher with less than 200 works and a first-time author make a reputable fact-checked work that constitutes due weight on a BLP's personal life. If we get past that, I'll leave a note at WT:DYK asking about whether DYK wants to run the hook, because sometimes that's an inherently subjective decision the community has to make, and doesn't need to be based on any other rule in the book. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
    That makes a start, Theleekycauldron. I am sure there is nothing in policy that objects to first-time authors, even if that is correct. Is there any reliable source for the claim that Archipel is a less-than-reputable publisher? Moonraker (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Moonraker: By default, works aren't reliable sources – it'd be on you to show that the publisher has a reputation for publishing reliable biographical content that other works rely on, or otherwise expressing that the book has academic heft. Is this book widely cited in established RSes? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
    theleekycauldron, these seem to be tests you have thought up for yourself, as I do not find them at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which suggests a number of factors to be considered, and then editors are to judge whether they can rely on a source. You claim you have decided that this particular book, published by Archipel, is not acceptable because Archipel is "less-than-reputable". If you have evidence to support that, then no problem, your judgement will have some substance and I can go along with it, but do you? The burden is on you to make your case, not on me to prove you wrong. If you have no such evidence, then you are showing clear bias, if not dishonesty, and what you have said is defamatory of Archipel. In that case, you should apologize and withdraw from the page. Moonraker (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
    @Moonraker: By "less-than-reputable", I mean that to include "doesn't have an established reputation". Showing a source as reliable under WP:RS, which says that Articles should be based on... published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, requires proponents to demonstrate that the source does in fact have that reputation. The absence of one simply does not count – otherwise, everyone would be a subject matter expert. The reason I bring up being cited by others is that WP:USEBYOTHERS would be a likely path to reliability for a source that has somehow had a breakout reputation despite the low counts I noted before, if you can demonstrate it. Another path would be WP:RSCONTEXT's statement: In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Can you demonstrate some kind of fact-checking or editorial control? Maybe this is the author's first venture into the book world, and has previously published in academic journals, making them a subject-matter expert? I'm not asserting that this source is unreliable or disreputable, I just can't find any evidence to support that it is reliable or reputable. Could you help me out? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • @Moonraker and Theleekycauldron: Status of this nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Also pinging Dying and BorgQueen as they were also reviewers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I suggest we close it. BorgQueen (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Svante_Thunberg&oldid=1146846293"