Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Trump administration migrant detentions

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Trump administration migrant detentions

(
)

Created by Starship.paint (talk). Self-nominated at 04:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Hook is just within length limit.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: StonyBrook (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Article is not neutral, editor who marked it as such is participating in the AFD and as such should not be participating in the DYK nomination. Further, you just have to read the article to read the slant, further, an article that is subject to an AFD should not be at DYK. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Says the editor who nominated it for deletion after it appeared here, and then slapped a tag on it. You'll have to quote it chapter and verse to make that case. I think it is written well and impeccably sourced, but unfortunately political topics such as these will always rub someone the wrong way. I reviewed the article because I was already familiar with it. You are also dancing here at two weddings, but can you point to a policy that disallows an editor who voiced an opinion at AfD to review it at an open DYK nom? StonyBrook (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
It's most certainly not written well and impeccably sourced, and it most certainly is not neutral. Whether or not you can review it is irrelevant, the article is at AFD and should not be at DYK. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@StonyBrook: - thanks for reviewing. Proposed shorter ALT1. Article was at DYK before AFD, this can be put on hold, but perhaps you can approve ALT1 if it’s good enough? starship.paint (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint If the hook was based on the quote Border Patrol agents told us some of the detainees had been held in standing-room-only conditions for days or weeks. then maybe it needs to reflect those words more closely. StonyBrook (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@StonyBrook: - you're right. Sorry about that. ALT2 proposed. starship.paint (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I've struck ALT2 also. Judging from all the controversy this nom has raised, it's prudent to keep Trump out of the title wherever possible. He is probably not micromanaging this situation. StonyBrook (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
How about this StonyBrook? starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
ALT2b looks ok to me. StonyBrook (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, let's wait for the AfD result then :) starship.paint (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@StonyBrook: - AfD result: kept. Anything else? :) starship.paint (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I added a minor inline cleanup template that will surely be addressed forthwith, but other than that it looks fine. A neutrality issue has been alleged, but not proven, and to some people no remedy of the language seems able to allay their concerns. This indicates that there are people who find the subject itself disconcerting and uncomfortable, but I don't think that takes anything away from it being a general interest topic that many others will find interesting and informative. If it's neutral enough for AfD it should be good enough for DYK as well. StonyBrook (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that this is ready. The article's neutrality is readily apparent. The sources used are primarily all left wing sources or sources with an agenda. It is not a balanced article. It is also not a quality article, it does not read well at all. That is passed quality control just show that the person who passed it just wants this article on the front page. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
We can agree that the article's neutrality is readily apparent. I disagree with your comment about sources when I see many high-wire RS (NYT, WP, ABC, BBC, PBS etc.) being quoted throughout the article, with a questionable one removed upon request. Are there any sources to your liking reporting on detention conditions at the border? Do they confirm, disprove or deny any of the claims being made? If so, would you mind telling us what they are so they can be worked into the article? What is the basis for your claim that this article that carefully summarizes past presidents' records on detentions; that directly quotes the president about the border; that quotes his wife, the VP and others about what they have seen with their own eyes at the border to not be balanced? Even if it were true what you say that it is not a quality article, according to DYK rules, articles do not have to be of very high quality to be posted here. And what you say about the front page does make sense because every single person who ever approved a DYK article wanted to see it go there. That includes the newbies. StonyBrook (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I meant non-neutrality is readily apparent. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Stated matter-of-factly, no evidence provided, no response given to any of the above concerns, but with two freshly slapped-on cleanup tags to the article header and with no instruction booklet from you on how to get them removed. StonyBrook (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, you are apparently well-versed on this topic, since you were able to look at my article and assess that it has factual errors and neutrality problems. Perhaps, with your expertise, you can start producing reliable sources that would help solve the factual and neutrality problems, because I believe as of now, you've produced a total of zero sources, while the sources I found must be over 90 already. starship.paint (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no interest. This article shouldn't exist. There are many articles that this article could be a part of, but you chose to make an advocacy article. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: - this isn’t an advocacy article. It’s a recent history article. Anyway, even if it was an advocacy article, then it should be obvious and easy for you to point out specifically exactly where the problems are, maybe even highlight every instance so that I can address it. But, I pinged you twice on the article talk page and you didn’t respond. That, and this statement does not seem collaborative. In light of your most recent actions, I will remove the tags. If you have no interest in improving the article, and have already exhausted AFD, better go to Deletion Review. starship.paint (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Trump_administration_migrant_detentions&oldid=1019521446"