Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream

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 SarahSV (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream

[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 08:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC).

  • I have reservations. I assume the author means well, but inclusion of this term on the front page of Wikipedia would be extremely disruptive to the business of getting an encyclopedia built, and could have the unintended consequence of causing Wikipedia to be inaccessible to users who are forced to go through content filters, such as schools. For some topics, this may be good practice. But weighing the cost for the benefit, I have to wonder if this is appealing to much beyond a prurient interest. Would the hook be interesting if not for the shock factor? If not, then I'd say it's gratuitous. Is there a way to rewrite the hook in a way that doesn't hold such potential to be disruptive? The articles themselves have very little information about these locations aside from the use of this word in their names, and just barely meet the length criteria for a DYK article. Might I propose something like: ... that in New Zealand, the original place names of Tawhal Hill, Kanuka Hill, and Pūkio Stream all included a racial slur? Owlsmcgee (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed, works of literature are covered under WP:Notcensored in my understanding, as are articles intended to create a better understanding of things we deem offensive. Nonetheless, there is also WP:NOTFREESPEECH. We're not engaged in a discussion of the three articles' right to exist (I am in favor), but only whether they should be synthesized and promoted on the front page of Wikipedia, despite its considerable potential to create a disruptive environment and an unwelcoming environment for editors of color. Your article is not being censored, by any means. Whether it should be promoted is another discussion, and one I hope other editors will weigh in on, but I'd also say this fits under WP:Offensive material, in particular: "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Inclusion of a racial slur in a DYK does not, in my opinion, increase the quality of the articles you created, and the inclusion of a racial slur, when other words can be substituted, does not make Wikipedia more informative, relevant, or accurate. I believe a suitable alternative is possible, and I hope you will work with me to come to a consensus on an ALT wording of your hook. Thank you for tolerating my concerns! -Owlsmcgee (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Under WP:DYKHOOK, the hook must be "hooky". I feel that in using the other names it doesn't draw people in as much as the former names do. Also it isn't promoting those names, the hook clearly portrays them in a negative light which is right to do. But it would make people want to read about why and the change was made and the process about it. I am treating it encyclopedic as I feel that not including them also make it less informative as these are historic names that only got changed last year after 150ish years of bearing that name. I still prefer to use the originals as I feel it is the best hook that balances the names and public opinion on them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't see what the issue is. There have been a few other instances of Nigger being on the main page as I recall.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I, too, have reservations; The C of E is no stranger to hooks with this kind of shock value and potential controversy and the subsequent resistance to their use. Using the word "Nigger", bolded, three times in a single hook is akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull, and completely unnecessary as well as inappropriate. The following hook would still be interesting, if far less controversial:
  • No, I don't like that s its a bit dull unless you explain what the "racially offensive" word was. I think we should still use the original. Or at least do this compromise: ALT2... that New Zealand's recently renamed Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills and Pūkio Stream use Māori-based names to replace ones based on the word "Nigger"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Support the proposed ALT2. The original seems a little overboard, but we should not avoid the offensive term entirely. --Khajidha (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I support the proposed ALT1. It is, in fact, a more intriguing hook, since it leaves some mystery to be looked into. bd2412 T 21:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • TonyTheTiger I've done a formal review and it all checks out, QPQ, timing, length, no copyvio or other plagiarism detected. The articles seem to give undue weight to the ethnically dubious etymology of the place names, but that will be handled by the discussion I presume. Anyway, now I am just waiting on a consensus to emerge on that discussion over at WT:DYK#Using the "N" word multiple times in a hook. I've stated my concern and am giving others room to speak on the issue. Owlsmcgee (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I will echo here what NewYorkBrad has said in the discussion at WP:DYK. The proposed hook should not be used. bd2412 T 02:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. This should not be used. SarahSV (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the history of the N-word (and F-word) on the main page. I recall The Motherfucker with the Hat being on the main page in uncensored form. I seem to remember a book or manual with the N-word on the main page. I am not a fan of the N-word, but support consistency in employing censorship (or not employing it). I am aware main page standards are changing because I have seen tags put on two of my main page entries in the last month, so maybe I need to catch up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is not a question of conforming to past behavior, but advocacy of a course of action that is either maliciously provocative or completely ignorant. Either way, this should lead to DYK topic bans all around for its advocates. bd2412 T 12:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
      • BD2412, LOL. Let me get this straight. If I express an opinion different from yours, I should be topic banned? There is an ongoing unresolved debate going on you know. It is possible that there might be a cogent argument that you have not thought of. (The LOL is in no way related to the subject, just the immaturity of someone who thinks anyone who disagrees with them should be topic banned.)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
        • This is not expressing a different opinion, this is either straight-up GNAA-style trolling, or falling for such trolling. It is exhibiting so complete an absence of the editorial judgment as to make continued access to the main page untenable. bd2412 T 21:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To prevent confusion between The C of E's original ALT2 and Jo-Jo Eumerus's new ALT2, I have changed the latter to "ALT2.5" and adjusted Abyssal's comment accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The slur is not part of the title. There is no legitimate editorial need to include it in the hook at all. bd2412 T 19:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • And since when is the hooked fact supposed to be part of the title of the article? --Khajidha (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The hooked fact is that the names "contained a racial slur"; there is no legitimate editorial need to include the actual slur. bd2412 T 19:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • How about ALT4: ... that New Zealand recently renamed Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills and Pūkio Stream from names containing a racially offensive term? bd2412 T 19:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I am withdrawing my proposed ALT4 in favor of endorsing ALT1, which has the same effect. bd2412 T 21:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The article needs to be rewritten. It's currently just 277 words readable prose size, yet it contains the n-word nine times in the text/infobox and three in the references. SarahSV (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Word count doesn't matter, it's character count that does according to the DYK rules. The Royal C (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
      • The Royal C, that wasn't the point I was making. SarahSV (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am a bit curious on whether a subject can be made notable only for the fact that its name was controversial. I don't actually believe that any of these articles would really survive an AFD. They are just Hills that all were renamed after a bit of controversy. There is no encyclopedic content on any of the hills.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Tony, I agree. SarahSV (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
      • They could reasonably be merged into Canterbury, New Zealand#Geography. bd2412 T 21:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
        • That would be better. SarahSV (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Proposed, at Talk:Canterbury, New Zealand#Proposed merge. bd2412 T 22:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
            • I think that is a bit of a back-door deletion. I think it would be fairer to have a full deletion discussion about all of the options at WP:AFD. Possible outcomes include merge, but we should not open the discussion with that as the only alternative.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
              • I have no inherent objection to that course of action, but I think it would inevitably be a slower and more involved process. bd2412 T 22:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
                • I think it is the proper process. We never want to just excise content on WP. Almost anything but a WP:CSD should remain an open debate for a week anyways. I am hoping someone else will administer to the nomination, but if not, I'll get to it in a couple of hours.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawhai Hill--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Putting the nomination on hold per DYK rules until the AfD has closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Striking the original hook per consensus here and at WT:DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Owlsmcgee formally reviewed this nomination some time ago. I agree that each of the three articles are long enough and new enough and conform with the other DYK criteria. The articles have survived AfD and the hook has been discussed on the DYK discussion page. The consensus there seems to be that the best hook to use is ALT1, so I am approving ALT1 and striking the remainder. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • First, that is not happening. A random promoter can not overrule the consensus of the community, which is clear on this matter. Second, you are not off the hook yet. I will be initiating the appropriate procedures to topic-ban you from DYK for your conduct in this matter, whether that conduct arises from malicious intent or merely astoundingly poor judgment. bd2412 T 16:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Restriking ALT2 and ALT2.5 per Cwmhiraeth's review, as they were not approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This DYK should not go ahead. The articles were created to highlight the offensive words. These are not encyclopaedic entries and not what DYK is for. That the AfD failed is not a reason to move forward. SarahSV (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I did not approve this (a clarification) and to be frank, we have not come anywhere close to a "consensus" on the topic. A consensus is not a vote, it's a mutually agreed-upon compromise. This has not been reached, and seems like we have a good deal's worth of work to do to get there. - Owlsmcgee (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The fact that people are offensive, and have been offensive, is obvious and there is no reason to demonstrate that point on the main page. Listing offensive names is only for the lulz—no one needs to be reminded that the internet is not censored. I don't see why articles on unimportant geographic features should be listed on the main page, but ALT1 would be best if the nomination proceeds because it is intriguing and gives examples of Māori names which provides some encyclopedic value. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • "[N]o one needs to be reminded that the internet is not censored." Frankly a sizable number of participants of this very discussion are evidence that such a reminder is necessary. Abyssal (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
      • You are free to plaster your user page with the 'N' word if it pleases you to defy "censorship" that way. However, you can't force the community to accept such gratuitous displays on the front page against consensus. bd2412 T 16:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
      • That comment suggests a misunderstanding of WP:NOTCENSORED which refers to the fact that an article about sex needs to discuss sex, and an article on anatomy needs to have pictures of anatomy, and nigger needs to use that word. NOTCENSORED applies to articles but its principle also applies to the main page. However, the principle is that WP:DUE content relevant for an encyclopedic explanation of the topic is not censored. While I understand the point bd2412 makes, I assure you that anyone who focused on writing nigger on their user page would be indeffed for displaying immaturity and poor judgment (WP:NOTHERE). Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • All, I want to make sure we don't get into simple stonewalling here. It seems to me that there is a general lack of consensus around the use of the N-word in the hook. Someone needs to compromise, and if there is no compromise reached soon, I think we need to cull this proposal. The C of E, I would encourage you to please pick, or suggest, a hook that does not use the N-word, or withdraw this DYK from consideration, or accept that this is simply too controversial among editors to go forward. Thanks! - Owlsmcgee (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Technically its already been passed and is just waiting for promotion. But As I see there is a lot of strong opinion here, I will acquiesce and accept ALT1. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No need to ping The Royal C, as that's an alternate account of The C of E. As I suggested ALT1, I'm hardly going to object to it now. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I oppose ALT1 and all other variations. The DYK should not go ahead because the articles were created solely to highlight that word. That shouldn't be rewarded, and we ought not to lead readers to that word without good reason. SarahSV (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The DYK should not proceed because the only reason to draw attention to these unimportant geographic features is to feature offensive terms. The motivation of those involved is irrelevant, but the effect of the DYK would be to use the main page for trolling, and that should be discouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree 100% with Johnuniq and I feel that nothing more needs to be said.Jorm (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that this sort of barely notable, stubby subject matter is not what DYK is intended to highlight. However, I also agree that if it were to proceed, ALT1 would be the wording to go with. bd2412 T 20:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Very belated, but while the AFD was not closed as delete, it did not close off the possibility of a merge. I believe these articles should be merged anyway, and quite ignoring the language issue, there simply isn't enough content to satisfy the length criterion anyway. There is almost nothing known about these geographic locations other than their names. Just close this nom. SnowFire (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. After lengthy time and consideration I'm closing the nom here. Thanks everyone. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Objection. On what grounds? This had already been passed in accordance with DYK procedure, it just seems there are a lot of extra comments expressing personal opinions afterwards but nothing overriding it on any policy based reason. Now it seems this is being closed on a whim without any policy based reason why. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I endorse Owlsmcgee's close. bd2412 T 22:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @The C of E: Having articles that do not seem to stand on their own is a policy-based objection. Anyway, I have opened a formal merge discussion at Talk:New Zealand Geographic Board - please take a look. SnowFire (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I recall lengthy discussion about this DYK prior to my decision to close it. In my view, we were unable to reach a consensus about the language that was suitable for all parties. It seems to be the community consensus that this is not appropriate for a DYK. There are practical policy reasons provided by Snowfire and my own original reasoning stands - WP:NOTFREESPEECH - but I encourage you to take this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard if you disagree with my decision, as I don't intend to prolong this discussion any longer. I will also note that this passed on technical grounds, by my own assessment, but technical grounds do not mean it is appropriate for a DYK. I don't know of any policies that compel me to put forward a DYK simply because it meets the bare minimum of technical criteria, when the community consensus is that the articles are not interesting enough on their own to merit inclusion as a DYK. I have done my best here, but it seems we are at a deadlock, and I'd welcome a move to the noticeboard if you think it's appropriate. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Also worth citing WP:GRATUITOUS, Wikipedia should not "include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines," but the content of the articles in this DYK are literally limited to the fact that their former place names were offensive. Strip that away as a factor for including them, and you are left with no compelling reason to highlight the articles as a DYK. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This cannot proceed while the merge discussion is ongoing, though if there is a consensus to close it regardless, I believe that would take precedence. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: The merge discussion has concluded and Tawhai and Kanuka have been merged however Pukio has not and consesus is that it shouldn't. As such, this can now proceed with Pukio only, I have adapted ALT1 to cover it. ALT5... that New Zealand's recently renamed Pūkio Stream uses a Māori-based name to replace a racially offensive one from the late 1800s? Would we be able to restore the tick now? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not urbandictionary where it might be amusing to feature an unimportant stream because its former name was offensive. That is not the point of an encyclopedia or its main page. Johnuniq (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Owlsmcgee's citation to WP:GRATUITOUS stands. There was already substantial consensus that this was not a good fit, and the conclusion of the merge discussion does nothing to change that. Good job getting Pūkio Stream to its present state, though. bd2412 T 22:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Approving ALT5, which checks out with inline citations and raises none of the concerns of gratuitousness raised. The article survived the merge proposal, and has been checked against the traditional DYK criteria above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there really such a dearth of DYK content that a proposal as controversial as this one really needs to go ahead? The consensus is very much against this article moving forward under WP:GRATUITOUS. Two spoke out against ALT5 and no one has spoken in favor. Is there an affirmative case as to why this is so important to include? -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: Consensus is clearly against this DYK going forward, irrespective of the outcome of the deletion and merge discussions. The gratuitousness is not strictly in having a slur appear on the main page for the umpteenth time, but in the slur being the supposed focus of the article. We have already trodden down this path before, there is no reason to revisit it. bd2412 T 04:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Consensus was against using the word in the hook, not that the hook shouldn't go ahead. You two are the only ones pushing hard for it not to run and gratutious doesn't apply here as the word isn't being used in the proposed alt. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
In retrospect, my original position was to support ALT 1 over the original proposal. I withdraw my objection to ALT 5. bd2412 T 13:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The C of E, it is inappropriate at this stage to misrepresent what has occurred in this very long and contentious nomination. Back on November 11–14, it looked like there was a developing consensus that the nomination should not be run at all; it's why I posted though if there is a consensus to close it regardless, I believe that would take precedence back on November 30. It wasn't just Owlsmcgee and BD2412 who were objecting to this nomination being promoted regardless of hook, but also SarahSV, Johnuniq, and Jorm. Others, such as Jo-Jo Eumerus, commented on ALT1, though didn't express an opinion on whether the nomination should actually be run. (I'm also pinging Cwmhiraeth and TonyTheTiger, who were both pinged on November 11, though they didn't respond then, to be sure I've notified everyone here who has participated; if I've missed anyone, they should be pinged as well.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I was about to close this when I saw bd2412's latest comment, so I held off. But I do think it should be closed now. There's clearly no consensus that it should go ahead. SarahSV (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I would say that technically it was already properly closed by Owlsmcgee above, who very clearly said "I'm closing the nom here"; I believe this was a correct interpretation of consensus (and so stated at the time), and I see no basis for an alternate close beyond that. bd2412 T 17:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I commented on the thread on the DYK talk page in October, and although like bd2412 I supported ALT1 then, it was very reluctantly and it is clear there is no consensus to link such a contentious article to the Main Page. It is time to move on and close this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
(another edit conflict) Generally speaking, I believe the consensus and concerns about gratuitousness were mostly directed at the idea of dropping a triple N-bomb on the main page (or a single one), with a subset of that directed at concerns about the article. The C of E's ardent campaign to do so definitely hindered the ability to go forward with a less provocative alternative, but I don't believe that that means such alternatives are inappropriate; after all, it is the reviewer's job, not the nominator's, to approve a hook. That said, I do find it interesting that it took until last year to wipe away an extremely derogatory racial slur from the official name of a stream, and I believe that that curious fact is enough to satiate concerns about intra-article gratuitousness (even if the article was perhaps conceived with gratuitous intent). I'm proposing ALT6 on that basis. If anyone still believes that this should not go forward please say so, but I believe that the hook is interesting and hookey, appropriate, and implicitly highlights the concerns that generated many of the comments above.
ALT6 ... that New Zealand's Pūkio Stream had a racial slur in its name until 2016? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
(Sorry SlimVirgin, didn't notice it was an edit conflict with you closing/archiving this. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
What is closed is closed, and best to let lie. bd2412 T 19:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Tawhai_Hill,_Kānuka_Hills,_Pūkio_Stream&oldid=960447417"