Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 199

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 195←Archive 197Archive 198Archive 199Archive 200Archive 201Archive 202

Prep 6: Linking to Wikipedia namespace within a hook

Are links to the Wikipedia: namespace really allowed in a DYK (2024 Auckland Wikicon)? Maybe there's precedent; maybe it has been discussed and decided, in which case, fine. But I'm surprised this unusual step is never even remarked on in the review. Given that the Wikipedia: namespace is not part of the encyclopaedia, it seems very self-referential to link it within a content area of the front page. I don't see a prohibition on linking to other namespaces in the Guidelines, but then I personally would have thought it too obvious to state. Are all namespaces acceptable targets for DYK hooks? MartinPoulter (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing in the guidelines that explicitly forbids linking to non-mainspace pages, but given that our guidelines refer to "articles" and not "pages", I guess it could be argued that implicitly, only links to articles should be allowed. For now I've done the simplest solution and removed the link, although I'd like to hear from both the nominator Marshelec and the reviewer PCN02WPS for their thoughts as well. Courtesy pings to participants Launchballer and BlueMoonset and promoter PrimalMustelid. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
If there is uncertainty about whether links to Wikipedia namespace are permitted in a DYK hook, then I accept its removal._Marshelec (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
To go slightly off topic, I really feel like articles shouldn't have any non-bolded links; disambiguation pages only have one link because they want to direct the reader to one clear place, and I think we have that same interest. But definitely not projectspace links, that's not helpful for the average reader. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
"articles shouldn't have any non-bolded links"? Did you really mean "articles"? "disambiguation pages only have one link" I don't get it; I've never seen a disambiguation page with only one link (you clearly don't mean a redirect) and I can't imagine what the point of such a page would be. Totally agree with you in opposing projectspace links in DYK hooks, though. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter: theleekycauldron means disambiguation pages only allow one wikilink per entry (MOS:DABENTRY). Hence she's suggesting that hooks should also only have one wikilink, or rather only the bolded link(s), per hook. Bennv123 (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks - I get it now. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Was this meant to be "hooks" and not "articles"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
yyep, it was theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Strongly agree with @Theleekycauldron - hooks should not have non-bolded links. I have considered this seriously in the past, in particular where my submitted hook had limited views on the bolded link but many many views on the non-bolded and non-reviewed articles also within the hook. (see e.g. Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Tidy_Trax) I strongly support that only bolded links should appear in a hook. Otherwise, in the current setup, we are pushing non-reviewed article links to the WP frontpage. ResonantDistortion 23:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of the appropriateness of the Wikipedia namespace link (which shouldn't be there), I have concerns about that entire hook. I'm not a fan of navalgazing in general but it happens from time to time. This is too over-the-top, however. This is a DYK hook on the main page about a DYK hook on the main page, and not only is it a hook, it's the most prominent image hook, with an image of someone pointing at themselves on the main page with Very satisfying to see your work featured on homepage prominently displayed in the image. This is not well-sourced either, since this "coincidence" is only supported by a powerpoint uploaded by the article's subject. That powerpoint is not a reliable source, and is about the importance of main page exposure, not exactly an unbiased source to support something being put on the main page. - Aoidh (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I've pulled the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Replaced. I'm annoyed because I thought myself involved (having promoted the hook displayed in the image), and I would have liked to review this.--Launchballer 13:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any rule that explicitly says you can't link to other namespaces in a hook, but it sure seems like a bad idea to me. I would also support a rule that says there can't be any non-bolded links in a hook. They just distract from the main event. RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd be against a blanket rule against non-bolded links in hooks. I get where the sentiment is coming from and ideally we'd want to avoid adding as many links in a hook as much as possible, but they may sometimes be necessary. For example, for certain hooks about things that may not be understandable to all audiences (like hooks about American football/baseball/basketball/cricket), links may be necessary to give context. While we probably should do more to encourage minimizing extra links, this should probably be a case-by-case thing rather than a blanket rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
"The main event" has a different meaning in the two contexts. If a user is on a disambiguation page such as Khalili, we know they have an interest/ intention to find something connected to that name, so links that do not relate directly to that name are a distraction. When a user is on the home page, we don't know anything about what, if any, subject-specific desires or intentions they have. So it's not possible to distinguish links that meet the user's need from links that don't. We only know that they know English, and in a DYK hook they may see names or terms they are not familiar with. In line with the educational purpose of the site, they should expect to be able to click on them to learn the meaning of that word. The fact that we, the authors of the site, regard one link as more important is irrelevant. Users are at different levels of learning: for some, the interesting fact might be that Muhammad Sadiq (photographer) photographed the Kaaba; for others, this is meaningless until they learn about the building in Arabia called the Kaaba. So I would oppose any new restriction on non-bolded links and would not take seriously the analogy from disambiguation pages. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Forever Young (horse)

I'm kind of dubious about the sourcing: inside-games.jp doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings about being a WP:RS. I can't read Japanese so I'm going off the automated translation: "Expectations are already high that the horse will be turned into an Uma Musume." So, an unattrbuted statement in an unsigned article in what looks to be a WP:UGC fan-blog. RoySmith (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@PrimalMustelid @Storye book @NinetyNineDragon ping RoySmith (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The inside-games.jp article was published by a website called Inside, which is owned IID, Inc. [ja], a company listed on Tokyo Stock Exchange since 2015. Although it does not lead to automatic notability of the company (WP:LISTED), I believe it also proves that it is not just a fan blog. Besides, the article is signed by 茶っプリン. And it is obvious that the statement is unattributed since the article quotes the reaction from the Internet. If you are still uncomfortable with it, its owner Susumu Fujita also mentioned about its relationship with Uma Musume Pretty Derby in his interview on Netkeiba, saying if Forever Young wins the Kentucky Derby, it can become a popular uma musume ("horse girl").
Besides, I changed from "the winner of the Saudi Derby" to "the first Japanese horse finished third in the Kentucky Derby" (source) in the hook. Please revert me if it is not appropriate. Thank you. NinetyNineDragon (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, it seems that I can't change the hook. If anyone who can do it thinks "the first Japanese horse finished third in the Kentucky Derby" sounds more impressive, please help me change the hook. Thanks. NinetyNineDragon (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. According to what the creator tells us, that source is OK. So in good faith I defer to their opinion of the source. Re the hook: I still approve all the hooks as they existed at the time of promotion. Storye book (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Attica (1974 film)

@PrimalMustelid, GamerPro64, and OlifanofmrTennant: The hook is confusing. It says ...directed a documentary about the Attica Prison riot in 1974 which sounds like the riot was in 1974. RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What about:
Alt 1 ... that in 1974 Cinda Firestone, the heiress to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, directed a documentary about the Attica Prison riot?
Alt 2 ... that Cinda Firestone, the heiress to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, directed a documentary about the 1971 Attica Prison riot?
--evrik (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, the "Synopsis" section needs to be cited, as it is not a work of fiction and does not fall under MOS:PLOTSOURCE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The NYT review can be used to cite the synopsis. --evrik (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Alt 2 would work. GamerPro64 00:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've put ALT2 onto the queue, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Double trouble?

Queue 2 and Queue 3 both have portraits for their lead photos. I vaguely remember a rule that we don't like to do that. RoySmith (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I also propose moving Bedok Reservoir to slot two, between Gligorov and Smith, so that there would not be two adjacent bios.--Launchballer 13:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 33 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 29. We have a total of 196 nominations, of which 91 have been approved, a gap of 105 nominations that has increased by 15 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Input needed at Template:Did you know nominations/Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season

Hi all. This is a weird case. Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season was an existing article created in main space in 2008. It remained for several years until it was merged/redirected (without a discussion that I can find) to 1993 Atlantic hurricane season in 2011. The old article's history is still extant in the Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season article. The article was recreated in a much improved version recently. Is this new? A 5x expansion? My understanding is we go off existing article history, so I would guess it would be a 5x expansion given that the old article is still there in the history and there are overlaps in content between the new and old versions. Also, do we ignore the bulleted text for a timeline page, or do we count it when looking at prose count? All opinions welcome in helping to clarify how we should handle this nomination.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@evrik It isn't 5x longer. If we discount bulleted text, the original prose count is 1,816 characters of prose making the required 5x expansion 9080 characters. The article currently has 4,085 characters not including bulleted text. If we include the timeline itself and its bulleted text (the majority of the article's content is presented this way), the gap widens even further by a significant amount. I'd be ok with overlooking the bulleted text because that seems in keeping with policy. I am less inclined towards considering this new because it is clearly an article on the same topic with overlapping points in the timelines, and most importantly both versions of the article share a single article history. I think we need to consider that this wasn't created as a new page but is a restoration of an old one with a single article history. That clearly shows it isn't a new page. Calling it new would set a bad precedent.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@evrik I can understand why some editors might view it that way, which is why I brought it here. I'm sticking with the need for a 5x expansion, but could respect the decision to consider it new if that is the majority view. Let's get some more opinions to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
After over 12 years of absence, I'd say that the article should be considered new, but that any reused material from the 2011 incarnation does not count toward the minimum 1500 prose character requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset That seems reasonable. Are we counting bulleted text in the new prose count?4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
4meter4, bulleted text never counts as prose. DYK check gives the current total as 4086 prose characters, all of them in the intro paragraphs. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm supportive of considering this a new creation rather than an expansion of a prior version of the article, after more than a dozen years of the namespace being a redirect and there being effectively no live version of the article displayed to readers. Especially on comparing the current version to the 2011 version and seeing how improved the current version is compared to the 2011 version, I think considering the nominated article a new creation falls within the spirit of DYK highlighting a wide range of fresh content on Wikipedia. I support allowing this nomination to proceed. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Richard Louhenapessy

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Louhenapessy)

This doesn't seem entirely accurate to me. I can understand that the second mayor came into office due to Louhenapessy's arrest, but the third and fourth seem to have taken office for unrelated reasons, because their predecessors as acting mayor couldn't be in that position any more or were replaced. I suspect a small tweak would be fine, to remove the causality and just highlight that there were four mayors overall. Pinging @Juxlos, Narutolovehinata5, and Bruxton:  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe replace "due to" with "after", then? Juxlos (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that also works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, late reply - yes, it almost works, although given that Louhenapessy himself is also one of the four, that might need a slight re-tweak. WIll think about this shortly.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Or maybe:'
Juxlos (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Elvio Porcel de Peralta

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Elvio Porcel de Peralta)

  • ... that after receiving his record 97th ejection, footballer Elvio Porcel de Peralta went to the referee and punched him?

Small point, but I have never heard the term ejection being used in a football (soccer) match before. Sending off is the usual nomenclature, at least where I come from. I could understand if it were an Americanism or something, but it looks like the article is written in British English, given that it says Honours (rather than Honors) and uses dmy dates... @BeanieFan11, Launchballer, and PrimalMustelid:  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above suggestion. --evrik (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 Done, thanks, that works. Just on a small point of order, I would have to take issue with the suggestion that "We should use whatever term the source uses, preferably translated by a native speaker of Spanish". That is almost the opposite of what we should be doing - per WP:PARAPHRASE and other guidelines, "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words". If there are various terms for "ejection" that are clearly synonyms, then we should choose the one that matches our MOS and other prose factors, not just blindly use the same terminology as the source - more particularly when that source isn't even in English in the first place. Anyway, doesn't really affect anything here, just thought I'd reply to that!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

The hook appeared on the Main Page today but I have received no message on my talk page as such despite being the hook nominator. Please do take up the issue for consideration. Looking forward to the issue being resolved. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot was just a bit slow off the mark today. It arrived at 12:24 UTC. Schwede66 01:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Random text at top of DYK noms

I noticed at one of my recent DYK noms it created with the random text "{{DYKsubpage |monthyear=May 2024 |passed= |2=" at the top. I don't think that's supposed to be there? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone took out "Post-promotion hook changes [[User:GalliumBot#darn|will be logged]] on the talk page; consider [[Help:Watchlist|watching]] the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.}} from somewhere, which causes a }} to be missing. --Launchballer 01:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
It's this edit by @Theleekycauldron: that did it. I've reverted it, but I don't speak Lua, so someone who does should make the edit again leaving the }} in.--Launchballer 02:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
It's been done.--Launchballer 02:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't really know Lua but I'm fairly sure that's the answer, so I've gone ahead and done it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hook needed Mohammad Saifullah Ozaki

I got involved in this nomination and I think we need help with hook ideas to proceed. Bruxton (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I added Alt2. --evrik (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you both for the hook ideas. Now we wait. Bruxton (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@John Cummings: bring your questions here. --evrik (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Bruxton, evrik thanks, I guess what I'm struggling with is the vast majority of his article is about his radicalisation and being the emir of the Islamic State in Bangladesh. Where as the hooks are about him wearing a face mask and knowing about finance. This feels extremely strange. John Cummings (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton and Evrik: Pings don't work without signatures. I can tell you that I deliberately sidestepped his militancy stuff out of an abundance of BLP caution.--Launchballer 08:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I have no proposed two alternative hooks. Not much else I can do. --evrik (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I need some quirk

@Evrik: From the source about chasing people... I feel like there is a good hook in the 30 days of different people wearing a fake bull's head which is streaming fireworks while they chase random people through the streets. I had some difficulty translating the text but that seems like a good option. Bruxton (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
... Ecuador has crazy cows? RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Catchy hook, what makes the source reliable.--Launchballer 23:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Catchy hook I do for free. Sources you gotta pay extra for. Interestingly enough, I see we've got Crazy Cow which sounds positively gross. RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
It was pretty good. I remember it as a child. Of course, you had to like strawberry milk, which was very popular at the time due to Nesquik Strawberry powder, which all the stores carried. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I guess it competed with Franken Berry. Personally, I'm more of a Corn Flakes guy. RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
They were made by the same company. It's all about fiber for me. My go to cereal these days is Nature's Path Smart Bran. I can't get enough of it. I've bought something like 20 boxes in the last year. Great product. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I like graham crackers soaked in milk. --evrik (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

"Alt... that some towns have "crazy cows" that run around scaring people, and some towns have as many as thirty fire bulls with Sparks flying 1.5 meters (4 ft 11 in) from the bulls horns? --evrik (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we saying cow because of the translation "crazy cow" in the lead? Because technically a cow is a female cattle and a bull is a male. The article is about bulls. Bruxton (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Some countries in Latin America call the "creatures" cows. In Spain, it's all bull.--evrik (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Crazy is an ableist insult. Being needlessly insulting to many of our readers is a very poor idea. Eric the Angry Communicator (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to wikipedia. --evrik (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The encyclopedia where anybody can be a sock. RoySmith (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It's too bad that the bulls aren't described in reliable sources as "great". If they had been, you'd have a chance at "great bulls of fire". Goodness gracious! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

a good quirky shakes your nerves and rattles your brain, eh? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Ha! Great Bulls of fire! JLL was a rather controversial figure but he could tickle the ivories. Bruxton (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This thread leaves me "breathless." How about:
"... that while the people of San Sebastián use flaming bovine puppets during their great week festival, the puppets are not "great bulls of fire"?"
--evrik (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I cannot access the source @Evrik: but the hook will work if the language is in there. I just suggest that our best practice is to minimize other links in the hook. Bruxton (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Most of the information in that hook can be found here:
Goñi, Félix M. "Fuegos artificiales en Euskalherria" [Fireworks in the Basque Country] (PDF). Normativa sobre espectáculos pirotécnicos (in Basque). Gobierno vasco. p. 26. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 May 2024. Retrieved 2020-03-06.
I have no problem stripping the links. Any suggestions for the word puppet? --evrik (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
It is still an unreviewed nomination so best put your hook in there and wait for a review. Bruxton (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
yeah, but I was hoping to get a herd of new ideas.

Some help please

Template:Did you know nominations/Lineage (anthropology)

  • @Me Da Wikipedian: is blocked for three more weeks. I can pass the DYK nomination, but the hook needs work. I can't propose and approve the hook. I'd rather not let this languish. Can anyone propose a better hook that I can approve?

--evrik (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for the nominator, Me Da Wikipedian, if they return. @Evrik: it may be better to fail this one. Parts of the article directly contradict the cited sources. Compare the Lumen source to the "In ambilineal lineage," paragraph, for example. The article is heavily cited but a lot of it is to dictionary definitions. Rjjiii (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Erik Sparre

  • ... that Erik Sparre (pictured) is known as "the father of Swedish constitutional law"?

(DYK nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Erik Sparre)

@Launchballer, OlifanofmrTennant, and ThaesOfereode: Per Manual of Style#Attribution this quote, which represents an opinion of sorts, should be explicitly attributed in the article text with who said it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru I'm guessing you meant WP:Attribution? RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Ha, actually I think I meant WP:Manual of Style#Attribution, just forgot the WP prefix... that's an actual guideline page (the one you've linked above seems to be a proposal which failed to gain consensus in 2007). The general point is that quoted opinions should be attributed in text anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Kind of a newbie question, but I'm looking at this and just am curious about the MOS. The book cited is a secondary source and Peterson is clearly relying on other sources calling Sparre "the father of Swedish constitutional law", writing He has become known as the father of Swedish constitutional law rather than It is clear that the origins of modern constitutional law in Sweden originate with him or With these considerations in mind, we should call Sparre the father of Swedish constitutional law; in other words, Peterson is not proffering his opinion on the matter, but rather reporting that Sparre is called that. In this sense, the information given isn't interpreted; despite being a secondary source, this is tertiary claim. Given that he does not cite sources inline, I can't identify the ultimate source(s) of that claim. Since this claim does not appear to derive from Peterson's subjective view or his opinion after collecting other facts and presenting them, is it still necessary to state him as the progenitor of the title in the text itself? No worries if it is, but I want to make certain because I don't want any readers to get the implication that Peterson is the guy who came up with that title rather than simply reporting it based on the sources he used. Cheers, ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I have found Erik Sparre, the father of Swedish constitutionalism here by Michael Roberts (historian) and den svenska konstitutionalismens fader, Erik Sparre here by sv:Alf Nordström, so I agree that Peterson is reporting what Sparre is called. and it does not need attributing. Whether it is suitable as a hook is another question. TSventon (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean, it does not need attributing? Being the "father of Swedish constitutional law" is not AFAIK an objective fact, such as an official post that he held or something so obvious that it can be baldly stated in Wikivoice. This is an opinion implying that he was in some sense important in the early history of that subject and also a somewhat idiomatic expression... It's there in quotes and we need to know who said it. If it's a widely-held opinion, then that should also be stated, with appropriate citations showing that the view is indeed widely held.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Amakuru: The Nordström and Michaels sources note that he's called that. I think it's clear that Peterson is implying that it is a widely-held belief, but I get that might need to be clearer for a claim like that, but cf. George Washington's page where the claim of the title "Father of His Country" is backed generally by source Mount Vernon Ladies' Association, while the title is cited as being used in the citebundle preceding it. Even so, I'm happy to add the Michaels and Nortström sources into a citebundle, especially since I think it's better than Peterson alone. Or even Several historians have referred to Sparre as the "father of Swedish constitutional law", with an appropriate citebundling. Also, @TSventon: thanks for finding those sources; they didn't come up in my initial research! ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, yes - the "several historians..." wording sounds good to me and bundle it up etc. if you can do that easily. Re George Washington, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I wouldn't necessary count that as evidence of anythign in particular... my interest here is just to check the MOS in relation to this DYK hook Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Great, that works for me! I'll add the citations and rephrase the sentence when I get a chance tonight. And re GW, yeah I realize what I wrote wasn't really all that useful anyway. No matter. Do I need to ping you when it's done? ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@ThaesOfereode looks good now, thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Cosmic Ray (film)

(DYK nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Cosmic Ray (film))

@Hinnk, Bruxton, AirshipJungleman29, Z1720, and DigitalIceAge: this claim seems a bit dubious to me... As far as I can tell, the article music video doesn't mention this song or video at all, and it seems there were things accepted as music videos before 1962. The Boston Globe source also isn't unequivocal in this assertion, it merely says "Conner is credited by some with making the first music video", which is quite a weak assertion when we don't know who these "some" are. I'd suggest focusing on something else and maybe the nom should be reopened, but happy to hear views.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I thought the hook said "credited as", not "recognized as"; as it stands, the hook is much more unequivocal than the sources or article, yes. Thanks for spotting that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I see, it was my review. Do we want to workshop a hook here or de-promote and work there? Bruxton (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
If it were a matter of just phrasing this with attributed opinion language, i.e. "Joe Random music writer considers...", it would be easy to fix in-place. But give that we don't even know who said that, I think it makes more sense to pull it. Unfortunately, I need to run right now, so can't handle it myself. RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with the process for addressing issues after promotion, so I'll let you all do you what you need to. There's an ALT2 in the nomination that can be used. I just want to note that Conner's role in pioneering the music video is possibly the best-known thing about him, and so it's frustrating to see Wikipedia's poor coverage of experimental cinema get included in the justification, when this really seems like a question of picking a different synonym for "called". hinnk (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Hinnk: if there's a way to reword it and perhaps bring in other sources that make it clearer that its status as the first is held as a main-stream viewpoint, then I'd be happy. As I mention re George Washington above, I don't necessarily hold the quality of other articles as an essential part of what happens in individual DYK cases, but I did find it a bit odd that for such a bold claim of being the first music video, this wouldn't rate a mention at music video at all... Re process, if we can get a satisfactory turn around in the next 24 hours then we can just workshop here, but if more time is needed then we can reopen the nomination page. That just means it returns back to the nom page and is given more time before eventual repromotion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's odd that it isn't mentioned in the Music video article. Having worked on articles in this space for a little while, I've also found this to be common because of a bias toward commercial works, which are covered in sources that tend to be more accessible. (The other side of this being that, despite some pretty notable scholars writing about its importance, it was a 2-sentence stub here until now.)

The simplest solution would be to use ALT2 from the nomination: "... that Bruce Conner conceived of his short film Cosmic Ray as 'presenting the eyes' for blind musician Ray Charles?" If a music video hook is preferable, we could chose a different verb: "... that Bruce Conner's Cosmic Ray has been credited/referred to/described as the first music video?" We could identify it as a precursor: "... that Bruce Conner's Cosmic Ray has been recognized as a precursor to the music video?" per Wheeler Winston Dixon [1]. Or we could connect it to Conner's reputation: "... that Bruce Conner's Cosmic Ray led to his reputation as 'the father of music video'?" per E. Charlotte Stevens's Fanvids and Scott MacDonald's A Critical Cinema 5. hinnk (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mainstream scholarship is a mixed bag when it comes to this (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Some say the musical shorts of the '30s were the first, while others cite the Scopitone since you didn't have to book a reservation at a cinema to view the short (mass media vs. capital-F Film), and others still credit The Big Bopper as he both coined the term "music video" and videotaped some of the first televised examples in the 1950s. All predate Cosmic Ray, so I would agree that this is a fringe view and too controversial to run as a hook. Most sources that do mention Cosmic Ray in the context of the music video cite it as a precursor to the abstract, new-wave style music videos popularized by MTV rather than as the first example of anything, which I guess makes sense although some of Len Lye's films like A Colour Box meet that descriptor too and are from the 1930s (at least one source agrees). DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

minus Removed - I've reopened the nom page and swapped something else in.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sitdown strike

  • ... that there were 583 sitdown strikes in the United States from 1936 to 1939, affecting more than half a million workers?

(DYK nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Sitdown strike)

@Carwil, LunaEclipse, and AirshipJungleman29: - two minor points:

  1. there are a few {{citation needed}} tags in the article
  2. also some of the short-form references don't match up with the corresponding long-form. These aren't recognized:
    • Nelson 1984
    • US Department of Labor 1939
    • US Department of Labor 1940
    • White, 2010 & 5
    • Meyer 2015
    • Lydersen & Tracy 2008

Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, the article says The Bureau of Labor Statistics counted; this was inappropriately recast into wiki-voice, i.e. there were in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: do you say this because you think the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not an independent source when it comes to these figures? Normally I'd be inclined to say official statistics as compiled by government bodies are likely to be accurate enough to report in Wikivoice, but I suppose when it comes to politically charged things like strikes, demonstrations and suchlike, there may be reason to suspect the government would over- or underestimate the figures?  — Amakuru (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I have no reason to believe the B of L is unreliable. It's just on general principles that an article shouldn't say more than the source promises, and likewise for the hook. RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
minus Removed - I've reopened the nom page and swapped something else in.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Climate of Triton

(DYK nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Climate of Triton)

@ArkHyena, Generalissima, and Launchballer: minor point probably, but I'm not seeing the clouds described as "thin" in the article. The atmosphere as a whole is said to be thin, so perhaps by extension so are the clouds? But would be nice to have this explicit if it's in the hook. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, never mind, I've added thin into the article with an extra cite.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I've also clarified this as ... discovered multiple thin, bright clouds. to the Clouds subsection, and as formation of thin atmospheric haze and clouds... to the lede, which should hopefully be more specific. ArkHyena (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Prep area 7

On 3 May AirshipJungleman29 promoted 9 hooks to Prep 7. Ravenpuff has reverted all of these promotions to a previous set. Checking these - it appears this set did not appear on the main page so this seems to be the correct action? I am not sure what is going on here - but it looks to be all the newer promoted hooks are now sitting in limbo with status as "promoted" but none having made it into a set. See the prep history [2], and for example Template:Did you know nominations/287 Broadway and Template:Did you know nominations/Agnes Kimball. Pinging @Ravenpuff and @AirshipJungleman29. To fix this - do the 9 DYK templates promoted on 3 May need to be pushed back to the approved list? ResonantDistortion 21:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies – I'm not sure what exactly happened, but it was entirely accidental and might have been an inadvertent use of the "unsaved changes" function. I have restored the correct version of the prep area, which should I hope fix the issue, although I'm not sure if something else has broken in the interim. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I am working on User:Bilorv/Challenges#Calendar. I could use a hook on the 13th. In Prep 4 there is this hook:
... that the memorial Ivančena was created to honor members of the Silesian Scout Resistance who were executed for their part in the resistance to Nazi occupation during World War II?
Would you please swap it to Prep 7? It would be appreciated. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, so I swapped it with that set's Polish hook. There are now two World War II hooks in prep 7, which is technically allowed, but I may kick William F. Fiedler back when prep 3 is promoted.--Launchballer 07:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Vanity request

When prep 7 clears, I would appreciate Template:Did you know nominations/Nozawana going into that set. I need the 23rd to complete User:Bilorv/Challenges#Calendar. Many thanks. --evrik (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I suggest moving it to the special occasion holding area, so that a prepbuilder will see it when they promote Template:Did you know nominations/David Raymond.--Launchballer 20:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Will do. --evrik (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I also suggest adding a source for the phrase "Nozawana is not Asian like daikon, but has strong European characteristics, and closely related species have been found in Fukushima Prefecture.".--Launchballer 20:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Noted. --evrik (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that it will not be able to run with the picture evrik—the multi-article hook will take priority. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Joanne McCarthy (basketball) Pulled hook

The discussion at [3] was quite unusual regarding pulling "... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers?". I was based on "The girls also have tackled bowling and gymnastics, Linda McCarthy said." this source.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  • It seems like there were objections to
  1. the use of the word all in the hook (which could have been removed).
  2. the fact that the hook was not mentioned in an unbolded article (which seems a bit irrelevant)
  3. noting a contextually peculiar hobby on the main page from User:Fram, which User:AirshipJungleman29 deemed a serious offense to the main page. Then User:TenPoundHammer confessed to reviewer error. So User:Schwede66 pulled the hook.
Hooks of the flavor that Person X who is now famous for Alpha once used to do a contextually peculular thing Beta, is an extremely common hook form on DYK. I don't see what the rub was.
  • Also, I have no understanding what User:Cremastra's comment "A DYK about a link is pointless—it doesn't highlight a specific article. Besides, the sourcing was suspect regardless of the article"
  1. Is the Chicago Tribune no longer a WP:RS?
  2. What is the meaning of specific article not being highlighted?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    My bad, by comment was confused, but the original concerns are still valid. Cremastra (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    User:Cremastra, If so couldn't you have removed the word All and delinked Jenny. Don't understand the third.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, specifically the one about the hook not being supported by the RS it cited, a reason I note is absent from the above three objections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    User:AirshipJungleman29, Not understanding how "... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers?" is not cited by "The girls also have tackled bowling and gymnastics, Linda McCarthy said.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    I tackled football and cricket as a child; that didn't make me a footballer or a cricketer. These words mean that you are proficient at the sport—the definition of "gymnast" is "a person who is skilled in gymnastics, often someone who competes in gymnastic competitions". I could also say "I and my friends all tackled rugby as children", where they played for county level and I did nothing more than catching the ball once and subsequently being bulldozed. That is something I could mention in an interview but which is out of scope for an encyclopedic article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    User:AirshipJungleman29, This is all a matter of tweaking a hook. I am hearing you say that having been a gymnast and or a bowler is different than having done gymnastics and bowling, which is a tweak issue for a hook. I.e., I think you are saying that the source supports ALT1"... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy did gymnastics and ten-pin bowling?", but not "were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers". In terms of an article about a subject who is WP:NSPORT as athlete, youth athletic activity is well within scope as it presents the evolution of her reason for notability. In fact, there is no athlete bio where I could present any youth athletic activities where I did not consider it within scope to do so. What is wrong with this logic.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Your changed hook is them simply not interesting. The DYK definition of interesting is "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". Children having hobbies is not interesting in the slightest. The original hook falsely claimed that they were all proficient in gymnastics and bowling, which is interesting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Why are you assuming their youth activities were hobbies? Competitive gymnastics starts at a very young age. The source is silent on whether they were hobbyists or competitors. There is some reduced intrigue with the downgrade of the hook from "... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers?" to ALT1"... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy did gymnastics and ten-pin bowling?" but this hook has embedded intrigue in the fact that Oh My!!! I did not know Jenny McCarthy had a notable sister. So there is that element of the hook the retains intrigue. For those that know who Joanne is, there is intrigue in that wow we actually know something about her athletic background, what else does the article tell us. Removal was a bit inappropriate in the sense that it removes all record of this appearing in the archive. I assure you if you put the downgraded hook back on the main page for the 5 hours it got shorted yesterday it would have enough intrigue to get viewers. It would also rightly appear in the archive for being in the closing version of a DYK run. Since this got over 7000 views even though it was slighted 5 hours, it deserves to at least be in the archive. It may not be the most intriguing hook ever, but it does deserve to be in the archvive, which only happens by being in the closing version of the DYK run. Can we just put the the properly revised version back on for the last 5 hours of todays set so it can make the archive.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. In fact doing gymnastics might give one a penchant for performing on a stage in front of an audience of fans and judges might make one inclined to want to perform on other types of stages for fans and critics like Jenny did. This topic could even be added to Jenny's article and be within scope.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    I have in fact, just added this to Jenny's article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    As alternative suggestions for phrasing this in an interesting way, perhaps:
    • ALT2A"... that basketball player Joanne McCarthy also did gymnastics and bowling?"
    • ALT2B"... that basketball player Joanne McCarthy and her actress sister Jenny did gymnastics and bowling in their youth?"
    I think while there is a way that mentioning all four sisters could be interesting it's harder to find that phrasing than just honing in on "person notable for A used to do B", which the earlier versions of the hook don't sufficiently directly highlight. I do think this hook fact can be and is interesting. I admit to finding that saying calling someone a "gymnast" necessarily implies a minimum level of proficiency seems an overwrought reading; a gymnast can be a mediocre hobbyist at gymnastics, and a a filmmaker can be lousy at the making films. Lacking major skill doesn't require one to say the person just 'does filmmaking' or 'does gymnastics'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    User:Hydrangeans, I agree that a bit much was made of this quibble. Although notability is not WP:INHERITED, and we don't necessarily want to port Inherited intrigue, there is intrigue in noting that Jenny McCarthy has a notable sister and having both links in the hook increases likelihood of a clickthrough. I prefer to have all the sisters listed, but including just Jenny is prefered to not including her, IMO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If you really need a completely different hook,

  1. ALT3"... that when Joanne McCarthy retired from basketball, she moved to Los Angeles to be a makeup artist?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks fine. Cremastra (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: This hook got pulled from the main page over a questionable quibble, which means it got short changed 4+ hours and did not make the WP:DYKA. Can you decide on one of these ALT hooks and restore this to be in DYK at the close of a run so it can be in DYKA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

If there's consensus for this to be given another 4 hours of airtime, I'd be most happy to arrange that at 20:00 UTC. Schwede66 03:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Happy for this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm supportive of this, with thanks and kudos to Shwede66 being up for arranging it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 Done I've restored it as ALT2B. Schwede66 20:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

"Coming out of my cage / and i've been doing just fine!" theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! --evrik (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Li Zhaoxing (nom)

  • ... that Li Zhaoxing (pictured), a former Chinese minister of foreign affairs, has published more than 200 poems and was known as a "poet minister"?

@Toadboy123, Makeandtoss, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm not sure I trust this seemingly government-connected source for the claim it's making about a government official in the hook. Is it independent/reliable? Also, citation 4 to Deseret News is incorrect; it's to a history.com source, which would be unreliable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed citation 4. If there are concerns on the reliability of the source of the hook, we can replace it with another sources such as these [4], [5], [6]. Toadboy123 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Toadboy123: do any of these verify "poet minister"? Having trouble with access... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Source 4 which is by South China Morning Post confirms that Li is a prolific poet and has published over 200 poems but does not mention that he is called 'poet minister'. However a source in the article by People's Daily mentions that Li is called 'poet minister'. Toadboy123 (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
It says he is called a "poet diplomat", which the hook might need to be adjusted to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Decade Team selections (nom)

@Gonzo fan2007: I'm struggling with the notability factor here, particularly on WP:LISTN. Are there any independent sources that give notability to the Packers' prevalence on the All-Decade Team? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron I'll note that WP:LISTN specifically states that it is not an all-inclusive guideline (One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable...) (my emphasis). I think this list clearly satisfies WP:LISTPURP, specifically because it is grouped by theme and provides navigation between articles with related qualities (being selected for the same type of recognition). From a WP:LISTN perspective, the topic of "Green Bay Packers players All-Decade Teams" is discussed. Here is a Packers.com piece that provides the full list of the specific topic. Other news organizations also develop their own "All-Decade Team" for specific teams, like the Packers. 247 did it here, Forbes notes that five Packers were selected for the PFF All-Decade team, USA Today did it for the Packers and all of the news articles reporting on the selection of Aaron Rodgers include his Packers teammates, like here. Obviously the HOF lists each All-Decade Team member by team and is the most notable, which is why it is used for the basis of this article. Hope this helps. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

2024 opening of regular sessions of the National Congress of Argentina (nom)

@Cambalachero and SounderBruce: Hmm, I'm not sure that this is notable under the relevant guideline of WP:NEVENT. I'm glad to see non-U.S. politics getting the U.S. politics treatment, but unfortunately, we do have pretty high barriers in this area because of U.S. politics cruft. Also, I trust that Infobae is a reliable source? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Those speeches are the Argentine equivalent of the State of the Union address in the United States. And it seems in {{State of the Union}} that Wikipedia has articles for all and each one of those. Cambalachero (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
That's true, but notability isn't transferred that way – SOTUs are so notable they're widely assumed to pass NEVENT without a hitch. The sources currently in the article don't demonstrate the same thing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Many of those links are not Wikipedia articles, but Wikisource entries. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Infobae is a fairly reliable source. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I have added some international sources to the article. As for lasting effects, the "Pact of May" proposed in the speech is an ongoing topic of political negotiation still today, see here. Cambalachero (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Ground Round (nom)

@Sammi Brie: ooh, an interesting foray for you! Can I suggest this alternate hook?

  • ... that at the restaraunt chain Ground Round, customers were allowed to drop their peanut shells on the floor?

Thought it might be cute :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, my childhood! The peanut shells on the floor are one of the first things I remember about that chain. That and the cartoons on the projector. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
There are some other chains that did that (I remember once eating at Logan's Roadhouse, which did similar). This is fine; I don't know if it's completely unique. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
That is true Sammie, many places still feature the peanuts shells on the floor. Texas Roadhouse for instance. Bruxton (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Chances R in Chicago had peanut shells on the floor by the mid-1960s, years before Ground Round was founded. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
A little copyediting:
  • ... that Ground Round customers dropped peanut shells on the floor?
RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination and Article in Prep 5

Extended content
I think this hook does not flow well and it is not approved in the nomination. ... that Ronald Reagan only acknowledged AIDS in 1985, despite it having killed thousands in the U.S. since 1981? The part I am not fond of is "despite it having killed thousands". The hook in the nomination flows better in my opinion .. that despite AIDS being identified and causing thousands of deaths since 1981, President Ronald Reagan did not publicly acknowledge AIDS until 1985?. Despite is used in both hooks and it appears in WP:WTW so we need to decide if it should be used.
After reading the hook I looked at Earwig. It looks like quotes caused a 77% Earwig score. Courtesy pings to promotor @AirshipJungleman29: Nominator @Wasianpower: reviewer @Buidhe:
If we need some hook tweaking we can do it here; alternatively if nobody sees this hook the way I did, we can leave it. Bruxton (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I actually think that the modified hook reads better, while the original is perhaps too long and a bit clunky, while burying the article topic in the second half of the hook.
"Despite" is ok in this case, because it's the sources making the connection not the wikipedia editor. Otherwise it would be OR. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree that it is generally inaccurate to say AIDS killed people as people die from AIDS complications (diseases caught with a compromised immune system), not AIDS itself. I’m not sure there’s a way around using a “although/despite” type word here, and it’s worth noting that the contrast drawn here is very common in literature on the subject. Possible compromise hook:

that Ronald Reagan only acknowledged AIDS in 1985, despite AIDS causing thousands of deaths in the U.S. since 1981.

🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Also just realized, it's important that the word "public" is used here, as he had private meetings on the subject in 1983.

... that Ronald Reagan only publicly acknowledged AIDS in 1985, despite AIDS causing thousands of deaths in the U.S. since 1981.

🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bruxton and Wasianpower: I have no opinions on the killed/caused deaths dispute (seems much of a muchness to me, and reminds me of this) so this hook is fine, but I do feel that my rearrangement, as buidhe noted, improves the flow of the hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Not fond of that hook from a neutrality perspective, it reads as taking a very deliberate stance on something the lead says is a "source of controversy". The hook implies a continuous period of deliberate ignorance for that period, and while that is probably true for some of it, the disease didn't even have its name in 1981. The "Reagan administration response" section starts only in October 1982. The hook also doesn't read that clearly without background knowledge about the history of the disease (coming to the US some time in the 1970s but only being clearly defined beginning in 1981) and of American political history (inauguration in 1981). CMD (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict):Despite appears to be editorializing because it sets up an accusation that Reagan willfully ignored the crisis. With that said, I think the wasianpower hook idea is better. Bruxton (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
It isn't WP:OR editorializing when this contrast/despite is something reliable sources have pointed out. The controversy the article mentions is not about whether Reagan was as president publicly silent on the matter of AIDS until 1985, as that's uncontroversial fact part of the public record and in reliable sources. The controversy is over the appropriateness of that silence and whether as president he should've taken a public stance on addressing the public health crisis or whether his administration's action/inaction was normal/fine. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm obviously biased because it is my hook, but I disagree that it is implying deliberate ignorance on Reagan's part. The hook is about his public silence in the early years of the AIDS epidemic, which is an uncontroversial fact. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
What is the distinction between public silence and deliberate ignorance here? The article suggests he didn't understand the severity of disease until 1985 (deliberately or not). CMD (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The distinction IMO is that public silence is concrete, and we can and do have factual historical record of it. Whereas deliberate ignorance would require us to see inside Reagan's head to know what he knew and what his motivations were. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The link between the two that creates the implication is the framing. "...only...despite...killed thousands...", not a bald statement of uncontroversial fact. CMD (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Is the framing controversial?
Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Whether or not the framing is controversial is an entirely separate question to what the framing is/does. Your hyperlinks show a mixture of different wordings, some more obviously pointed than others, but they include some good examples of being bit more contextualized/specific. For example, the Vanity fair framing of just year looking at 1985 and deaths at that point is a lot clearer and sets up a simpler point than suggesting the same situation existed across five years. CMD (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see how the Vanity Fair example here is any different than the others. The AIDS epidemic in the United States is considered to have began in 1981, which is also when tracking of infection and death numbers begin. All that Vanity Fair is doing is making that implicit rather than explicit, which only exacerbates your point about required background knowledge on the history of the disease. As shown in the examples Hydrangeans kindly provided, this kind of wording and framing is very common across reliable and neutral (AP, NPR, Washington Post) literature on the subject, so I guess I don't understand what the issue here still is. I can see how you may personally view this fact as reflecting negatively on Reagan, but even those who defend Reagan's AIDS record do not dispute this fact. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I think we can dispassionately state the facts and the hook is still interesting. Despite is a word that injects blame when the word is not needed - a reader can draw their own conclusions. I also see the word "only" which also leads the reader. As an example, here are two hooks about Nero, ...that the Roman emperor Nero Fiddled as Rome Burned? or ...that despite the fact that Rome was burning, Roman emperor Nero only played his fiddle? Do both say the same thing? Yes, but one tells the reader what to believe and one allows the reader to draw a conclusion.Our article on Nero states that it may not be true so this is just an example. Bruxton (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I'm fine with using that format. How about:

... that Ronald Reagan did not publicly mention AIDS until 1985, four years after it was identified and after more than 5,000 people in the United States had died from it?

🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
As much as I think this is an excess of caution, it is a clean hook and would have my support. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bruxton@AirshipJungleman29 Does this hook look good to you? 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I would trim the "four years after it was identified" bit—diseases are identified all the time, and no-one expects politicians to comment until they cause suffering on a mass scale. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree with AirshipJungleman29. I struck the part which was mentioned above. I am satisfied that the hook idea suggested is more neutral. Also wasianpower. I hope you will continue to participate in this section of the project. Bruxton (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! I plan to, appreciate your help and guidance in this discussion. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
There's entire books and scholarly papers that discuss the "deliberate ignorance" of the "gay disease" by Reagan and the members of his fundamentalist Christian administration, who went on record saying that gay people deserved to suffer. ACT UP was formed in 1987 after years of Reagan's extreme cruelty and harsh policies. None of this is the last bit disputed or controversial. However, it needs to be said, and I've brought this up many times before, sometime in the 1990s, a well funded effort was made by billionaire-funded conservative foundations to scrub the historical record of these facts, and for decades, we've seen conservatives write articles and books whitewashing Reagan's true, disastrous record. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
A specific quote about that would probably make a better hook. CMD (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The hook seems too tendentious in that it implies that Reagan was actively downplaying the topic. But consider this example from the article "In the 1984 Presidential Election... Neither Democratic candidate Walter Mondale nor Reagan made any public statement on the AIDS during the campaign, and no reporter raised the issue with the candidates." So, if the press corps and the Democratic candidate didn't take an interest in the topic, why would Reagan? The article is written from a single-issue biased perspective but, as President, he had many other issues to concern him. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    This proposed hook advances a false balance that can leave a reader with the impression that reporters didn't bring up AIDS in presidential contexts even though there were like reporters like Larry Kinsolving who did (see When AIDS Was Funny). Berhman's The Invisible People (published by Free Press, a reputed imprint of Simon & Schuster makes it clear that Reagan and his administration were aware of the epidemic and chose have Reagan avoid acknowledging it as political strategy, not as a matter of him being busy and concerned with other things (pages 25–28, portions excerpted above). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 10:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    Those are single-issue sources with a corresponding bias. I just looked at our article HIV/AIDS and it doesn't even mention Reagan once. Instead I notice that it says "The World Health Organization first proposed a definition for AIDS in 1986." Now President Reagan was not especially responsible for medical issues but the World Health Organization is. Trying to make out that Reagan was a villain for not addressing an issue that the WHO hadn't defined yet seems like a ridiculous conspiracy theory. It's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    HIV/AIDS also doesn't mention any heads of state, or surgeon general C. Everett Koop, a physician relevant to the disease's history in the United States but not necessarily globally. Content that wouldn't be due in a very broad level article like HIV/AIDS can be due in a subtopical article like Ronald Reagan and AIDS.
    Reducing the reputable publishers cited in the article like Penguin Books, University of Chicago Press, University of North Carolina Press, Vox, and more to biased single-issue sources is a characterization that I think can't hold up. In any case, neither the article or hook use non-neutral language like calling Reagan a villain or evil. If anything, the Wikipedia article's depiction turns out rather soft compared to some sources, emphasizing as it does the effect of personal acquaintance Rock Hudson's death on Reagan's trajectory. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    I've not seen anything which would pass WP:MEDRS. And the article makes medical claims such as "AIDS disproportionately affected, and continues to affect, members of the LGBT community, with gay men and transgender women being the most at risk." But this is sourced to an activist organisation and, as I understand it, it is wrong. When considered as a global pandemic, the people most at risk seem to be those living in Africa. See, for example, the WHO fact sheet which says nothing about the LGBT community in its coverage of risk factors. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    Andrew Davidson, WP:MEDRS standards are not required for content which does not fall under the category of "Biomedical information"—WP:NOTBMI indicates that aspects such as history, society, and culture don't require MEDRS sourcing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    See WP:BMI which explains that biomedical information includes "Population data and epidemiology" such as the "Number of people who have a condition". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    No, I agree with you on that, was just pointing out that WP:MEDRS is only tangentially relevant to the article under discussion, which mainly focuses on socio-historical topics. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    I've gone ahead and updated that claim with sources from the CDC. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    We should probably look through this article to see that prose and sources comply with our policy of NPOV. Andrew Davidson - can you help edit this article? Bruxton (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    I have trouble getting past the first four words: the title of Ronald Reagan and AIDS. This seems to personalise the topic in an improper way because Reagan himself wasn't especially active in driving policy. The main complaint seems to be that his administration was too slow in acting but that's just being wise after the event. Initially the disease was not well understood and it took some time to figure it all out and even now it still kills about 500,000 annually. That's about 100 times greater than the numbers of deaths complained about in those early years and it's obviously not all Reagan's doing or fault. A better approach is to consider the overall campaign of successive administrations. See Fighting an Epidemic in Political Context: Thirty-Five Years of HIV/AIDS Policy Making in the United States for a more systematic and scholarly view. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    That makes sense. It may be that the article began with a thesis about Regan's inaction, and then sources were found to support it. Bruxton (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I had also thought that the title was not well-chosen. "Response of the Ronald Reagan administration to HIV/AIDS" seems more encyclopedic, if a trifle long-winded. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    I almost went with that name, I decided against it because, as you said, it's long winded, and because I thought the section on Reagan's personal views might be out of place there, but I'm fine with that title if it's generally preferred. I do also think that it may be worthwhile to move this discussion to the article talk page, it seems out of scope for the DYK talk page. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    The AIDS response of Ronald Reagan specifically has long been an issue in LGBT history (see AIDS-Holocaust metaphor for an example), as well as a general source of controversy in the discourse of American politics (examples 1 2 3). AIDS is a frequent topic of discussion when it comes to the Reagans' legacies (4 5 plus many more sources from the left which specifically attack Reagan for his AIDS legacy). I think what you're discussing is more within the general scope of HIV/AIDS in the United States which is worthwhile, but I also think it's justified to have a page specifically on Reagan's response. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I'd call reliable sources pointing out the silence of the most powerful man in the United States during the time, who was personally acquainted with victims, and who was (as Berhamn documents) apprised of its seriousness by administration insiders but chose to heed other advisers' sense that silence was more politic, a matter of sources from the left which specifically attack Reagan. I'll grant that Democracy Now is shrill about it, but that's not the tone of the Wikipedia article, and it's not the tone of Invisible People, NPR, KQED, AP. Juxtaposing Reagan's silence and the death toll even appears in an even-handed (one might even say rather glowing), biography like H. W. Brands's Reagan: The Life (Doubleday, 2015): He maintained presidential silence on AIDS throughout his first term, even as the death toll mounted into the many thousands (656). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
    Very fair point, I was referring more to sources like this 1. Not saying those articles from aren't justified either, just pointing out that Reagan's AIDS response specifically is notable by itself. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
To wrap this up, are we ok to insert this hook which was discussed above?

... that Ronald Reagan did not publicly mention AIDS until 1985, after more than 5,000 people in the United States had died from it?

@AirshipJungleman29: Thank you for making the change. Without objection we carry on. Bruxton (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Prep 2

Enchylium limosum

How is "Enchylium limosum loves lime" interesting? Lots of plants can't grow in acid soil, which is why garden shops sell lime by the ton. RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Environmental damage in the Gaza Strip caused by the Israel–Hamas war

This is being discussed at Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war. To avoid fragmenting the conversation, please leave all comments there. RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I'm hard pressed to see how this complies with Hooks must adopt a neutral point of view. Also, regarding The article should not be subject to unresolved edit-warring I see that Bruxton wrote on the nom page, it appears mostly -stable, just the nominator and myself have edited it today. That's probably because it's under WP:ECP. This seems like not what we want to be running on the main page. RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has edited the page for ten days so it does not keep changing. Because the article is stable, I have no idea what the edit warring comment is about. What am I missing? There is environmental damage in every war (think Agent Orange), but the sources and article call this out as systematic ecocide against greenhouses and farmland. Do you have a suggestion? Meanwhile I will ping promotor @PrimalMustelid: nominator @John Cummings: and participant @Launchballer: Bruxton (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the hook is exactly as viable and less fraught with the omission of the characterization, someone tell me if I'm wrong about that, i.e. ... that Israel has systematically destroyed 38 to 48 percent of trees and farmland in Gaza using bulldozers and tens of thousands of bombs? Remsense诉 13:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that "systematically destroyed 38 to 48 percent of trees and farmland in Gaza using bulldozers and tens of thousands of bombs" is misleading as it implies that Israel has used tens of thousands of bombs to destroy trees and farmland, while tens of thousands seems to be the number of bombs used for all purposes. TSventon (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Very good point, thank you for catching me up. In that case, I'm not sure how to rewrite it. Remsense诉 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I would remove "tens of thousands of". TSventon (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
It is deeply misleading to say "trees" were systematically destroyed. Nowhere in the article does it say Israel is systematically destroying all the trees of the Gaza strip. As for the broad range of percentages, one sentence in the article even says that the estimate includes trees felled for firewood. CMD (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I've unpromoted this; I'll leave it to somebody else to re-fill the prep set. It can get sorted out on the nom page. RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, RoySmith and others, some questions:

  1. Can someone explain what the process is now and exactly what has happened? What does it mean to be unpromoted?
  2. What needs to change/agreed for this to be included in DYK?

For clarity this ref describes the destruction of trees and this and this ref both use the word systematic to describe the destruction.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, that's a fair question. When we find a problem (or think there's a problem) with a hook, we need to figure out what to do. In the best case, we talk about it, decide it's not really a problem after all, and life goes on. Or, we might decide that it is indeed a problem, but we're able to come up with a fix (perhaps a change of wording) quickly enough that it can be fixed in place with no time lost. But sometimes (as happened here), it looks like it might take a while to sort out. Once the hook is in a prep set or queue, there's a clock ticking for when it's going to reach the main page, so the best thing to do is pull it out of the prep set or queue and pretend that it was never promoted. Now people get to work on it without the time pressure of the clock ticking away. Presumably at some point (although this isn't guaranteed) a fix will be devised, it'll get promoted again, and all we've lost is some time. Or, it's possible that after more discussion, it's decided that this isn't going to run after all. But best to have that conversation on the nomination page. RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The refs are quite clear on "systematically" being the correct terminology. The refs even explicitly call it ecocide. The only response I can make here is Chipmunkdavis was wrong and you shouldn't have listened to them in the first place, RoySmith. They made an inaccurate claim that was already refuted by the article and its references. (By the way, I agree with the removal of "tens of thousands" from the original hook, merely because it makes the resulting hook more straightforward and concise). SilverserenC 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
As I said above, best to pick this up on the nomination page. RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Unsure why you're putting "systematically" in quotes and suggested I am somehow disputing that term, as I did not do so. The article uses "systematic" in three places (plus a quote that repeats one of these): "systematic and intentional destruction of agriculture", "systematic and that the Israeli military are intentional targeting of the Gaza's agriculture", and "The effects of this systematic agricultural destruction". Nowhere in the article or in the two sources above are trees in general noted as a target of systematic destruction; the target as per the article and sources is agriculture. The hook is synthing together the systematic destruction of agriculture (source two above) with the overall environmental destruction symbolised by trees (source one above). CMD (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis The Gurdian calls out "tree cover" and "Orchards" which are also trees. A hook has been approved Bruxton (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I am aware of this, and note that both The Guardian piece and the en.wiki article do not say the orchards are all tree cover. Orchards are trees, they are not all trees, nor are they all of the agricultural areas. Both The Guardian piece and the en.wiki article do note in the text that there was tree loss due to use for cooking and heating, which is not what the previously proposed hook was covering. (That is in addition as well to the tree cover lost due to non-systematic destruction.) For general record on this page, the new approved hook (nom page) is ALT2: "... that 38% of farms and orchards have been destroyed in Gaza?", which does not conflate the different issues of general environmental damage, specific agricultural damage, and overall bomb numbers. CMD (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The article still conflated the different issues, as the lead said "By March 2024, nearly half of tree cover and farmland had been destroyed by Israeli forces by bulldozers and bombs" and the overview section "By March 2024 38–48% of tree cover and farmland had been destroyed by Israeli forces by using bulldozers and bombing" I have removed the last part of each sentence starting at "by Israeli forces" as that seemed to be the easiest solution. TSventon (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I really don't agree with this solution, it makes it passive as if its just sort of happening, I've explained on the DYK template. Many thanks to RoySmith for the explanation of the process. If we could centralise the discussion on the DYK template that would make it much easier to follow. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nozawana

@Amakuru: Very sorry for not leaving a note, but there was a request to run Nozawana on 23 May?--Launchballer 22:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: ah shoot, OK then, will look for somethign else. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer and Amakuru: Thank you. My calendar is closer to being complete. --evrik (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Minor hook issue needs correction - queue 3

"... that the Golden State team is the first expansion franchise in the WNBA since 2008?" This should be changed to "... that the Golden State Valkyries are the first expansion franchise in the WNBA since 2008?" as the team name has been officially announced. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The hook is actually in Queue 3; I've amended the section header above accordingly. We have 24 hours for the fix to done. Note that the DYKmake credit already reflects the name change; however, there is no citation after the one occurrence of the name in the article as should be done (pinging BeanieFan11). This will need to be addressed; I'd like to suggest that the team name occur at least once in the body of the article, and that the new paragraph about the name and logo and such also have a citation added at the end. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Some edits were made after I had initially created the article (adding the unsourced content). I should be able to get to them soon, although I'd appreciate if someone could also make the hook change as requested. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Could we get someone to change the hook now? @Amakuru:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@DYK admins: BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
BeanieFan11 that could possibly have been posted at Errors to avoid pinging all the admins. TSventon (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I changed it to GS Valkyries is, would that be correct? It's a team, not multiple Valkyries? Valereee (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Golden State Valkyries article uses are, as do Dallas Wings and Las Vegas Aces (selected at random). TSventon (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: Hmm... I'm not completely certain. Though, I think I'd lean towards are as that's the format that all WNBA teams use. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't sports. I grammar. :D Using is was partly about it/they is/are the first franchise, for me. So we'd say the Indiana Fever are the first franchise, but the Indiana team is the first franchise? Valereee (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: That sounds right to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I've changed it to are. If anyone objects, it's your fault. :D Valereee (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Phases of ice

There's some passages (notably the paragraph starting "In 2018, researchers at LLNL...") which might be considered WP:CLOP of https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/science/superionic-water-neptune-uranus.html. A 2O on that would be appreciated. RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging nominator InformationToKnowledge, Rjjiii (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith and InformationToKnowledge: Thanks for bringing this up. I've rewritten the "In 2018," bits, which after peeking behind the source's paywall likely did not pass WP:CLOP. Aside from the "In outer space" paragraph, I haven't done source checks on other parts of the article. Rjjiii (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks good now, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! This article was a product of many merges, and after I got rid of duplications and moved all the dry data to a table, the remaining text was mainly referencing journal articles. I noted the NYT cite, but only thought of it as RS, and didn't really consider it would have more CLOP potential than the other references. Thanks again! InformationToKnowledge (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
InformationToKnowledge How much of this article is actually new?--Launchballer 06:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
...I thought looking at the article history would answer this question? I clearly labelled the edits which have moved the material from (mostly stub-like) merges, and you can see what the subsequent edits have done with that material. I thought that what I had done met the criteria, and that a nomination reviewer would reject the submission if it didn't. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Classy 101

  • ... that Puerto Rican singer Young Miko composed "Classy 101" in Los Angeles and had never met Colombian singer Feid before recording the song with her?

Pollosito, Bruxton, PrimalMustelid, I think that "her" refers to Feid, who appears to be male. TSventon (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon: Nop. That "her" refers to Miko, because Feid recorded that, it's mainly his song (appears on Ferxxocalipsis), despite the both singers are credited as lead artists. If it's very confusing, please, let me know. Santi (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Pollosito, what about
  • ... that Puerto Rican singer Young Miko composed "Classy 101" in Los Angeles and had never met Colombian singer Feid before he recorded the song with her?
TSventon (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I think it's better. Thank you. Santi (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm made the update. RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I struggled with that nomination and hook so thank you. Bruxton (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Me at the zoo

Just a query about the copyright status of the video used in this set. My concern would be that technically, Jawed Karim would not be the copyright holder of this clip, as he's not the one who filmed it. That was his friend Yakov Lapitsky, whom he gave the camera. That means that technically, Karim doesn't have necesarily the right to release said video under the CC licence, as we see he did on his channel at [7]. I don't know if this is enough of an issue to merit a rethink - unlikely Lapitsky will care about this after all this time - but thought I'd mention it anyway (noting as well that the CC designation has since been removed from the site, which would normally be invalid, but it clouds the matter if it wasn't Karim's to release in the first place). Would anyone with copyright experience care to comment? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The copyright holder of the video is clearly Lapitsky. It's therefore questionable whether Karim could upload the video with a CC license. The normal process at Wikimedia Commons is for the copyright holder to confirm to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) that they release the video under a free license using the permissions text on this page. I'd pull the video; this shouldn't be the lead hook. Schwede66 21:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, should have tagged RoySmith. Schwede66 22:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Schwede66 thanks for the ping. My bad on not picking up on the copyright issue. Thank you to @Amakuru for spotting it. I'm not an expert on copyright, but my understanding of how it works is that Amakuru's analysis is correct. Unfortunately, I'm swamped at the moment so I'd appreciate it if somebody else could handle swapping it out. RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll attend to it. Schwede66 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 Done The replacement hook has two instances of "(pictured)" in it. I've never seen this done before, thought about how this could be condensed to one instance of it, but failed to come up with something that makes sense. If anyone can think of something clever, please say so. Schwede66 22:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
You could remove the first "(pictured)" and adjust the second to "(pictured on flower)" Schwede66? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the excellent suggestion, AirshipJungleman29. Schwede66 00:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Bed of nails defense

@Maury Markowitz, Panamitsu, and AirshipJungleman29:

The following sentence needs a citation: "This led to the MX missile project and its many changes in basing strategy as the nature of the threat changed." Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Le Touquet (nomination)

Just spotted a report at Errors literally 5 minutes before the hook went live:

"that even though about 100,000 bombs fell on Le Touquet during World War II, making it "the most mined city in France ...". My reading of the article is that the 100,000 refers to mines (i.e. explosive devices planted carefully by hand designed to explode when the enemy encounters them), not to bombs dropped from aeroplanes. In this case it was the Allies who were dropping bombs and the Germans who were planting mines. So the hook needs a rewrite or to be cut. Jmchutchinson

Upon a very quick reading of the article, it seems the concern is justified. I've thus pulled the hook. Heads up to @Szmenderowiecki, Elli, and PrimalMustelid: as nominator, reviewer and prep promoter. I'd say we find a new hook and then promote again, as it's a very solid article. Schwede66 00:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah man, sorry about that. Didn't catch the discrepancy. I'd change it to "even though about 100,000 mines were left in" maybe? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Nobody got hurt; no trouble. I've reopened the nomination page. Schwede66 02:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination bot glitch

Starting Template:Did you know nominations/Tobias and the Angel, whose hook begins "dyk that, unusually for..." the bot would not accept "that" followed by a comma. Once completed, with an added space, the space could be removed. But ideally this could be fixed. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

2 queues left.

@DYK admins: Currently, we have 2 remaining queue sets promoted. As usual, I recommend promoting more prep sets so that we can clear the approved hook backlog. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is a backlog, or that there is any real urgency. Let's save the emergency pings for admins for when the deadline is under 24 hours, rather than over 50? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Promoting queue sets ahead of time instead of at the last hours is more ideal, could allow for a smoother process of ironing out errors. That said, instead of at 2 queues, I can notify admins when we’re at one or no queue sets left. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes in fact, further to our conversation last week, it's actually better to notify earlier rather than later, because if admins have to do a rush job to get a set ready in under 24 hours, and not do full checks, then errors can creep in.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I stand corrected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Well I don't know about "corrected", I'm only offering an opinion ...  — Amakuru (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I've got to say the near-constant DYK pings are annoying to the point I'm tempted to remove myself from the list. PLEASE use them sparingly. WaggersTALK 07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@DYK admins: , well hopefully the 36-hour point, which we have now reached, is a compromise between Amakuru's and Waggers's positions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
A 36-hour point does sound good, and if for some reason no action is taken, we can ping again at the 12-hour mark though hopefully this won’t have to happen. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm with Waggers. I find these pings annoying. I'm a volunteer, I don't like being nagged because I'm not working hard enough. Pinging the DYK admins should be reserved for real emergencies. RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Philomena Franz

@Lajmmoore, AirshipJungleman29, and Launchballer: I'm having trouble verifying the hook fact. The source talks about her various experiences, and says that she wrote an autobiography, but doesn't explicitly say that those experiences are covered in her book. It's reasonable to assume they are, but that's not what the source actually says. RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @RoySmith - thanks for picking this up de:Zwischen Liebe und Hass describes the plot of book, and that it includes these things. Of course that can't be used as a reference to the page, but can the book itself be the reference? I left it out initially Lajmmoore (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with our sourcing rules when it comes to book plots, so I'll leave that to somebody else to answer. RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Plot sections about fiction are generally exempt from our guidelines on sourcing, but this is not the case for nonfiction books. If the hook is from the autobiography itself, I guess simply citing the book itself and the page number would be enough. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Live into 85

@AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, and Sammi Brie: The article says "sexually assaulted", which got turned into "groped" in the hook. Not quite the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Didn't think there was a difference, but the source says "groped", so I've adjusted the article.--Launchballer 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
One is a subset of the other. Thanks for the adjustment. RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, @Launchballer, @Sammi Brie, @RoySmith -- the hook is
Moone is still alive. I think we need a discussion about negative content in a BLP, here. It's in Queue 1, which is up next. Valereee (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I had a similar thought when I reviewed this, but decided it was adequately sourced so OK. However, if somebody else is also thinking it's a problem, then it's a problem and needs to get fixed or pulled. RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
... that the Hogmanay special Live into 85 was sufficiently shambolic for the BBC to promise that the following year's offering would be free from bagpipes, accordions, and kilts?
... that the Hogmanay special Live into 85 was so shambolic that it ended a 32-year tradition?--Launchballer 14:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I've swapped to P4. Valereee (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
It's in prep 2, and right now queue 1 has three adjacent bios.--Launchballer 14:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Amie Parnes

@Launchballer, Juxlos, and Pac-Man PHD: This is a WP:BLP citing tweets for biographical information. That's pretty dubious. Surely some better sources could be found? RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Both uses (birthdate and birthplace) comply with WP:ABOUTSELF.--Launchballer 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
One tweet says "There are a million of those on Calle Ocho. I was born here :)", the other, "For my covid birthday today, I’m putting on a fresh pair of pants." I don't see how those support the stated facts. RoySmith (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so I just checked the Calle Ocho tweet, and 'here' appears to be a reply to another tweet, which isn't there any more. I've taken it out. "April 15" refers to "today" on a tweet posted on 15 April, and the other source gives her age as 35 in October 2013, which is permissible per WP:CALC.--Launchballer 20:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Are we supposed to assume that "covid birthday" means "actual birthday during covid lockdowns"? It could and maybe even likely does mean that but this medium is so terse and fluid that it's hard to be sure. Also, when I view the tweet, I see its date as "5:33 AM · Apr 15, 2020". Do we know what time zone it was when it was posted? Do we know whether that's the same as the time zone shown? Do we know whether the poster thought of that time as being late at night on one day or early in the morning on the next day? That's why we need better sources for this sort of thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Or "covid birthday" could be "the anniversary of when I got covid". I see https://wikibiography.in/amie-parnes-wiki-bio/ says "15th of April 1977", as does https://www.marathi.tv/amie-parnes/. https://wikinetworth.com/politician/amie-parnes-wiki-bio-age-married-husband-education.html says April 19. I don't count any of those as WP:RS, but neither do I count guessing what some tweet really means to be a RS. I agree with David; we need better sourcing for this. RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Cut, and merged the rest of that section per WP:OVERSECTION. It won't mean "anniversary of when I got COVID" as it wasn't really a thing in April 2019.--Launchballer 21:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Notification of nominators

I suggest we make it a requirement that nominators be notified via ping on their user talk of discussions here of their hooks/nominations. Valereee (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support a requirement for pings, such as when I modify hooks post-promotion per WP:DYKTRIM, but I think notifications on user talk is a bit excessive in both instances. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems excessive until you start looking at how many hooks are modified in prep with no notification to anyone. One single person making sometimes major changes unilaterally. A hook of mine about Martin Luther King was changed to use BrEng date format. Valereee (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. Anyone want to draw up a helpful notification template? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It's actually two discussions, I suppose. Discussions vs. modifications. We've asked people modifying to ping, and they simply don't do it. Discussions are a second issue. Most discussions probably do include pings, often to not only nominators but also reviewers and promoters. Some slip through. Valereee (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Revised. We can deal with the annoying problem of revisions in prep later. This one's more important. Valereee (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll be honest. I try to ping people (the nominator, the approver, and the promoter), but it's just too much of a pain so sometimes I don't bother. Many people have signatures that don't match their user names, so you have to click through to their user page to be sure. RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I think basic effort is enough. If someone has a difficult-to-ping username and it gets mangled, that's on them. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
What about simply posting a notification on the template page of the DYK nomination? Such as "There is an active discussion about this nomination link here". The nomination may concern more than just the nominee, and saves the issue of pinging users. If the nominee isn't watching the page then that's their own problem really. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, that's an extra step, whether the change is made in prep/queue or bringing it to talk here. Pings can be done in the edit summary of changes in prep/queue, or they can be done in the post on talk. Valereee (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Yup, then 100%, unequivocal support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support The preface to this is a discussion elsewhere and issues I raised regarding an entire discussion occurring without my knowledge as the nominee (no notification or reference on template page). So I support and appreciate the efforts these two users are currently making on this matter, as some pings definitely slip through. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Definitely support. I'm rather surprised this hasn't been made a requirement years ago. If you're discussing someone's content (or actions), it should be required that you notify them. Just like what ANI requires. SilverserenC 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Here's a perfect example of what I was talking about. If I click on the signature just above, I get to a page which ostensibly belongs to User:Silver seren, but when I copy-paste that, I get a broken ping. Why did you have to install some fancy CSS on your user page that makes it harder for people to communicate with you? RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that one's on you RoySmith—the {{u}} ping system doesn't use the "User:", so {{u|Silver seren}} should work, but the above doesn't. That said, I have definitely seen someone try to ping Silverseren (no space) before, which didn't work, so they might want to adjust the signature a little. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
But Silverseren isn't Silverseren. It's Silver seren. Valereee (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
And I agree with this, @Silver seren. If you want pings, make your username easy to ping. Valereee (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Whenever I ping someone, I just copy paste their username from their HTML signature, to make sure it's right. Since plenty of people have signatures that aren't their exact username. Also, RoySmith, the link you made there uses {{u}} wrong. The link you made is User:User:Silver seren because User: isn't a part of that template. As a direct link, without ping, User:Silver seren works perfectly fine. SilverserenC 01:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, I got that I shouldn't have pasted the user: But the gist of my point was that some people have signatures that don't match their username and that makes it a pain to ping them. RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, some of us have no idea what "copy paste their username from their HTML signature" means. And that's not something we expect people to know. What I do when I really want to make sure is click to the user page, copy from there, and come back to paste. But we don't expect people to go to that much trouble either. If you want pings, make pings easy. Valereee (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I have boldly added a line to WP:DYKTRIM, although I'm not entirely satisfied with the wording. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Which I removed due to lack of consensus. RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, we probably need more input. I (obviously) think this is what we should do, but we can't require it without consensus. I'd support adding it as 'best practices' until then, though, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Valereee (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support enforcing pings - actually on user talk doesn't seem excessive to me. If people want to tinker with hooks (and many do), they should do it earlier in the process. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment it should be a best practice and not an absolute requirement. --evrik (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    So insinuations of running a PR campaign for a BLP or bad faith nominations can go unchallenged by the nominee then, if they are not notified of the discussion, for example? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment agree with Evrik. We do have many rules and guidelines already. Bruxton (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Nominators should be involved with their DYK hook nomination every step of the way, and having them be pinged in these discussions ensures that they involve themselves in addressing issues as soon as possible. Being pinged to be notified of DYK statuses is a regular expectation of the DYK process anyways despite what some may suggest. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds like a no-brainer and would help avoid confusion and needless discussions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Nominators and reviewers should probably be pinged as best practice, but like some above hesitant to write it into a rule, for risk of ending up with AN/I-like situations where the initial comments are all make sure you ping. Other examples exist, it is probably best practice to link to the nom page, but I am not sure making it a rule would help. CMD (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I am trying hard to do this (usually I want nominator input when I raise an issue), but let us keep it a suggestion and not a must-do rule. (I.e. if an admin forgets to ping the nominator, then the next person who sees the thread should just do the pings instead of berating the admin for Not Following The Rules; DYK admin work is unfun enough already). Also, would/should something like the mention (by Valereee) of the butt implant rumor nomination somewhere above require a ping? —Kusma (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    In an ideal world, we would have an easier way to raise an issue with a hook in a prep or queue. I need to copy the hook, link to the nom and the prep/queue, and figure out who the nominator(s) and other involved people are and ping them, all of this in addition to explaining my query. Admin queries are far too common to be this cumbersome. (In an ideal world, QPQ reviews would catch all of these issues and we would not need to discuss whether or not to ping). —Kusma (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    A bot could do that, I'd think. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


ANI thread - "BLP issues with Andrew Tate DYK hook"

I've changed the thread title to match the current ANI thread title (that title was changed too). The original title was insulting. But if the original title was insulting enough to cause offense and be changed, then we can't really simultaneously quote it verbatim here and say it's OK.--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

FYI - Here is the permanent link.. I imagine there are a few here we may not be aware that they were discussed here. Lightburst (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm not going to comment on the ANI myself, as there often seems to be much more heat than light there. However, I think this could have been avoided with a less-controversial hook, like I mentioned earlier. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
It would have been avoided, and going for dramatic and pointed hooks extends beyond just BLP. See also the above discussion on Environmental damage in the Gaza strip. CMD (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I am mad at myself for not sticking to my arguments about BLP hooks. Honestly, It felt like a losing battle. Many wanted a negative hook and so we went with the subject's own words. ALt0 in the nom was great but nobody was having it; and so was your suggestion EG. Thanks for being the great editor that you are and for your suggestion. Bruxton (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion here, but the way the Andrew Tate discussion turned out felt like a case of DYK wanting to put politics above anything else, even Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree. I remember AirshipJungleman29, Lightburst, Epic G and maybe a few others like you who tried to reject neg hooks. It was my fault for relenting and approving the hook - I wanted to reward the editor who brought the article through GA. I think it was hard to reject the actual words of the subject, but as EpicG has said it was not necessary to use it. Anyway it is important that we debrief so that we move forward and grow. Bruxton (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Given that this is intended to be a debriefing I wonder if it would be a good idea to ask for their thoughts and opinions here now that the hook has run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to be honest here: I felt that any negative-sounding hook about Tate, regardless of personal feelings and politics, was going to be a bad idea. Even as someone who doesn't like him at all, I felt that a more neutral hook would have been a more suitable compromise (my preference was simply not running Tate at all, but that was never going to gain consensus). I felt that the discussion was more like a case of trying to right great wrongs or trying to insert politics into DYK, where personal political opinions were given precedence over our policies and guidelines. Yes, Andy may have been too grumpy and I agree that the tone of his comments were outright personal attacks, but he does have a point here: was the hook a good idea in the first place? It probably wasn't and like Bruxton I have regrets about not pushing against the hook more. However, I felt it was a losing battle since several editors wanted it and there seemed to be no way of that happening so I just stayed silent. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
You keep saying that removing negativity is a way to be "more neutral". It can be a way to be less neutral. Neutrality means reflecting the sources accurately, not eliminating anything charged. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you, I think that the way that Narutolovehinata5 conceives of neutrality and the way that wikipedia consensus generally has are incompatible, if Narutolovehinata5 edits in the way that they think is neutral they're going to be doing things which are the opposite of what the community thinks is neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there's any BLP violation here; the hook was well-sourced. But this does point up a fundamental clash between two DYK principles, that we avoid (unnecessarily) negative hooks on BLPs, and that every eligible and nominated article should eventually be allowed to run on DYK. The latter may not be explicit anywhere but it seems to be very difficult to decline nominations where there is no DYK problem with the article (like being too short or improperly sourced). Here, the coverage of the subject is so relentlessly negative that it would have been a neutrality violation not to run a negative hook, so we eventually decided that the word "unnecessarily" allowed us to run a negative one. Maybe we should instead have decided that, if the only NPOV hooks are negative, then we shouldn't have a hook at all. But I would very much not want to see this lead to anodyne hooks on subjects whose notability is primarily negative in nature; we might want to avoid those subjects, but we should not whitewash them.
Over on the ANI discussion, some have suggested DYK bans on BLPs and on currently-available commercial products. Maybe we should consider that? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea that just because a topic is controversial or negative means that any non-negative hook about them would be a neutrality violation. Take for example Russia, which was brought to GA and nominated for DYK but ultimately rejected. That was after the war had started but there were plenty of possible neutral hooks that could have been used; back then the issue people had was if it was in good taste to run a hook on Russia, even if neutral, given the war and all, and I guess we just had a similar case here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
If someone is mainly known for negative things we should not become the go-to way for them to rehabilitate their image by publicizing their love for puppies. At the time of that Russia nomination, all news about Russia was about their invasion of Ukraine. Despite their long history, it would very much have been a neutrality violation to portray them in any other light. It would have made us look like shills for the Russian invasion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The idea that having a non-negative hook about something known for negative reasons would be a case of righting great wrongs, and just because we don't run a negative hook does not mean we are endorsing, condoning or supporting them. I know other stuff exists, but it would be like having a positive hook about the United States or China on DYK instead of them being rejected on neutrality grounds, even though both nations are seen in a negative light in much of the world. My point is simply that ideally we should be separating our own personal politics from that of DYK or even the encyclopedia and there was probably a better way of handling this than how it turned out. For the record, I was opposed to Russia running back then, but in hindsight I wonder if it is unfair to deny a country with a long history of being featured on DYK just because of recent events (and thus recency bias), even as someone who supports Ukraine in the war. It isn't rehabilitation: you can describe neutral facts about something while still acknowledging their negative aspects, just as how you can say negative things about things largely seen in a positive light. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
If we run a non-negative hook on a subject for which the bulk of coverage is negative, then we are in fact going to be seen as endorsing, condoning or supporting the subject. It will be non-neutral promotion and it will be seen that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
+1. Just reject the nomination if anything positive would be UNDUE. Valereee (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
As for the bans, I would strongly oppose that. DYK in part is meant to reward contributors or at least incentivize them for improving articles, and not allowing them just because the subject is a BLP or a currently-available product would be deeply unfair, not to mention essentially disqualifying much of Wikipedia. Our normal guidelines and activities already seem to work relatively fine, and cases like this are rare enough that they're more of the exception rather than the rule, but in most cases any issues would already be easily dealt with. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
It may be meant to reward neutral-minded Wikipedia contributors, but what it has turned into for BLPs and products is a way for publicists to push Wikipedia into being an advertising site for their clients. That's a much worse problem than a reduction in the possible scope for rewarding contributors would be. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Cases of DYK being used to promote products are so rare that I can only remember one recent case of it happening, and even then it wasn't even a paid promotion. The closest would be fans writing about things they are fans of, but that isn't really the same. Of course a fan of, for example The Simpsons, would be the one most likely to write an article about something Simpsons related, or how a Taylor Swift fan is more likely than a non-fan to write articles about her songs and albums. If it was actually proven that a DYK was nominated to commercially promote a product, that would be dealt with through the usual means. I just don't see it as a regular enough occurrence to warrant such a drastic measure when other measures can already take care of them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Most of the ALTs about commercial products are promotional in nature because that's what RS are talking about and there's nothing else interesting about the subject. Things like "...that as of its release in May of 2024 the RXK7 was the smallest widget ever made?" We don't like to discourage editors who are interested in cell phones or video games or whatever, so we try to work with them. Maybe we should stop. It's not like being unable to go to DYK is going to prevent someone from creating iPhone 87. Someone will still create it.
In the case of Tate, my feeling was that the ALTs being suggested were either mealymouthed or were no less negative that the one we ran with. He ran a Hustler's University -- which was a pyramid scheme -- is either disingenuous (if we don't say what it was) or negative (if we do). I think we just need to stop running hooks about living people. It's too fraught. Valereee (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
It should probably be a case-to-case basis because many if not most BLPs that are nominated for DYK are uncontroversial. Tate was really just a special case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
So how do we decide? Do we really run "...that Andrew Tate is a surfer?" when literally 98% of RS are covering negative things? I don't want to unduly include negative shit, but when that's almost literally all that's out there, do we really want to have to cherrypick something neutral? And honestly does Taylor Swift ever need to be mentioned again on DYK? Valereee (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Can't we just remove the "unduly" from WP:DYKBLP? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're proposing, @AirshipJungleman29? That we shouldn't worry about something being unduly negative? Or that we should never run anything negative? I would actually object to either. Maybe you're saying if we can't say something nice, we should reject the nom? Valereee (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The latter, yes. I don't think blanket-banning all BLPs is a good idea—for one thing, they're around a quarter of the hooks. Saying "if saying something positive about [person/product/controversial current event] could reasonably be described as POV, just forget about it and move on" is good with me. No DYK hook is worth tens of thousands of bytes of discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Bios are a quarter of hooks, I don't think living people are? But I get your point. Agreed that the discussion over Tate here and elsewhere is not worth our time. I'm not actually sure the nominator would disagree. Valereee (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Tangent: just did a count of hooks from this month's sets, and came up with 20% for BLPs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Another reason to just get rid of them. 02:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Valereee (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Seems a bit drastic to me. Most are perfectly fine. I also suspect (with no evidence other than my experience in promoting) that BLP hooks are less WP:BIASed than the average bio hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes. Seems drastic to shoot them just to get around WP:BLP. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I broadly agree. I think one of the main problems with this nomination, and many like it, is the sunk cost fallacy attitude that if a nominated article receives massive amounts of attention and discussion, it has to get onto the main page (as Bruxton admirably admits above, they "wanted to reward the editor who brought the article through GA"), otherwise it is a waste of time and a betrayal of the DYK process. In practice, all this usually leads to is everyone getting worn down and a controversial/substandard hook getting allowed onto the main page. We don't have to do that to ourselves—we can, if we really want, but we don't have to. I think a line to that effect at WP:DYKCRIT wouldn't go amiss. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree. We err too much on the side of "Someone worked hard on this, we should find something we can use." Valereee (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
We had other choices. If you revisit that thread of our discussion many of the editors seemed to hate the person so much that they were unwilling to consider any hook that did not take him down. As Epic Genius says in the thread, you had a choice. So it is not a BLP thing if we follow our own rules. Lightburst (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I was talking more about the DYK culture than about this specific hook or about BLP, Lightburst. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Other choices like Uday was relatively neat and Qusay seldom raped the disabled? It's a choice, but it's a bad choice. If we're considering saying something positive about someone whose coverage in RS is 95% about bad things they've done, we're whitewashing. If our choices are
  1. Say something extremely well-sourced that is negative and not undue, and end up with someone losing their shit over it
  2. Say something trivial and unduly positive and end up whitewashing
  3. Reject the nomination
I think #3 is the best of bad choices. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
But #1 is better than #2 per WP:NPOV. —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
And I agree, which is why I supported it. In retrospect I think Black Kite was correct; 1 may be better than 2, but 3 is better than 1. Valereee (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Then we block the person losing their shit and move on, how is that even a question? We don't let editors who can't edit civility get a heckler's veto, we block them for disruption which losing their shit over DYK would by definition be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
It appears to be a question at that ANI, though. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Is it? At that ANI they seem to have done a good job of separating someone losing their shit (hence a discussion about a 24 hour block for the disruptive editor) and the underlying issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Still catching up here, re: "wanted to reward the editor who brought the article through GA". The irony being is I said I already didn't care about the DYK anymore, given the controversy, prior to the DYK being approved. So while this statement is probably accurate most of the time, in this case, it was because an alternative hook was provided that it was then approved. I specifically chose not to include that hook, to avoid all these inevitable issues (that enough users warned about over use of negative hooks). So it might be worth being more mindful of the nominees opinion, and then this could have all been avoided. The article is already an WP:1M, so no offence, but getting on DYK doesn't make any difference here. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
"currently available commercial products" is a massive area: books, movies, music would be reduced to things that are out of print. Various sports events are also highly commercial. If we ban these for advertising, I hope we also ban all hooks relating to religion (proselytising), beaches and other extant geographic features (good for the travel industry), museums, trains and TV stations.
It is natural for DYK hooks to bring attention to their subject. It is always possible that this attention results in additional sales. The only way to make sure it never happens on the Main Page is to remove all content from the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
And I agree, it's too massive, and unfortunately I'm not Czar. I do think we should tighten up on the brand-new whizbang that there really isn't anything interesting to build a hook around. I've always been a little torn -- it feels unfair to editors whose main editing interest is each new iteration of the iPhone or whatever -- but we've got nominated right now ... that RuPaul's Drag Race Live! replaced the eleven-year run of Donny and Marie Osmond's concert residency at the Flamingo Las Vegas? To me that seems pretty ho-hum. Show ends at venue, another show begins in that venue. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
That is a boring hook, and I think we should avoid this type of hooks independent of whether this replacement happened yesterday or 100 years ago. The problems is that our mechanisms for rejecting hooks are terrible and cause lots of drama, so I am trying to find new (or old) ways for us to get rid of bad hooks and other problematic nominations without the drama of explicit rejections, for example by allowing them to time out. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
How does that work? You're right that we don't have a mechanism...things just sort of automatically get moved through the process, and it's often at the prep>queue stage that some admin brings a hook here. Often multiple hooks in a single prep set. By which time so many people have been involved with the nom that there's a sunk cost. Valereee (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
"Any nomination that hasn't been accepted by a reviewer after three weeks or promoted to a prep set after six weeks is automatically closed as rejected" would both kill the backlog and give us a means to pocket veto any nomination. It is like DYK was in 2006, just with a lot more time before noms are rejected. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
But how do we encourage reviewers to not review and promoters not to promote? Reviewers just want to get their QPQ, and promoters want to get the sets filled. That's why stuff ends up here at the prep>queue phase, when some admin questions multiple hooks that got that far. We create a list every week or so asking people to review hooks that have been languishing. Valereee (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I can’t say I am surprised. I knew something like this would happen which is why I was so adamant against running a negative hook initially (and I never really felt good about it even after being worn down to change my position). I would have been ok with a neutral non-negative/non-positive hook, but clearly that would not get support. We probably should not have run a hook at all on Tate.
I would support a burn clause where we simply say we won’t run a negative hook on any BLP if it’s contested at nomination. Meaning that if there are any objections to a negative hook raised in review it doesn’t run by default. Likewise, if people insist we must run a negative hook when others oppose it’s an automatic reject of the hook nom and we simply won’t run any hook. Best to err on the side of caution and only run negative hooks on BLPs when there is unanimous support. We don’t often have contentious BLPs so I don’t think this clause would impact the vast majority of BLPs at DYK.4meter4 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
That is only half the problem. If we insist on not running negative hooks, but insist on running hooks on those subjects anyway, we will force ourselves to violate neutrality. We need a way to tell nominators that their article is not suitable for DYK despite being nominally eligible, and we need to enforce this rather than softheartedly giving in every time to boring or negative hooks because we can't find a way around them but we can't get ourselves to refuse a nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I like AirshipJungleman29's suggestion of adding something like if saying something positive about [person/product/controversial current event] could reasonably be described as POV, just forget about it and move on to WP:DYKCRIT. I think it's understandable that, once an editor has put in the work to improve an article, reviewers want to find a compliant hook that showcases it. Clarifying in advance that some of these articles aren't suitable for DYK means submitters don't get an unpleasant surprise and reviewers don't have that impossible responsibility on them. hinnk (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I think softheartedly giving in every time to boring or negative hooks because we can't find a way around them but we can't get ourselves to refuse a nomination is close to one of our central problems. We do not want to explicitly refuse to run a hook or an article, because people have it in their head that any article satisfying a bunch of more or less arcane rules has a right to appear on the Main Page. My suggestion is to go back to the roots: just remove all nominations that have not been promoted after a certain time, as we did back in 2006. That way, QPQers and prep builders can collectively reject any nomination for any reason without fighting huge arguments about what is and is not boring. —Kusma (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
This. It was suggested before and remains even more relevant now. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
DYK has many issues (sensationalism, boredom from dominance by regulars and their topic areas, sloppy reviewing, understaffing) but I think avoiding controversial topics would make DYK worse without solving anything.
Any hook about Tate would have attracted controversy; we should not let fear of controversy censor our range of topics. I am actually surprised this one was attacked for being "negative about a BLP" instead of for allowing Tate to "advertise" his misogyny on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Controversy is worth considering for reasons other than fear, but I do agree that we should probably not be making a sweeping rule change based on the Andrew Tate article hook, that is prime hard cases make bad law. CMD (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. @hinnk. AirshipJungleman29, Valereee I would oppose any rule change making it harder to add a positive hook. We shouldn't enshrine the idea that saying something positive is automatically or even potentially a POV violation into DYK policy. That will cause lots of drama in normal reviews, and it could have an unintended consequence of increasing not decreasing negative hooks when it comes to BLPs. Any policy we make needs to focus on negative BLP hooks specifically, and not become an unnecessary barrier to featuring positive hooks on people.
@Narutolovehinata5 I notice your examples did not actually involve BLPs, so they aren't good examples. Making analogies to non-persons like countries isn't useful as these rules are specifically limited to living people. I also note that in my proposal I didn't outright ban negative hooks, it only made it much harder for them to go through in the narrow context of BLPs. @David Eppstein and Kusma As for "boring" hooks, that isn't the issue at hand. Don't make this conversation about something that isn't relevant to BLP policy as it applies to DYK. We aren't getting in trouble outside DYK for being boring. In comparison to the volume of hooks we receive, there are a minuscule amount of negative BLP hooks being proposed, so this issue has almost zero impact on the percentage of interesting hooks we run. Don't create a red herring.
I am saddened that editors are unwilling to do anything meaningful about the problem at hand. It looks like we will do nothing based on consensus at the moment. That in my opinion is a mistake, because frankly we aren't currently compliant with BLP policy as a project, and we are likely to end up being chastised again and may end up being the subject of an RFC or other type of review that could result in punitive consequences against the project in which we will be forced to change our rules, and not necessarily in a way that we will like. We could even see our project disappear from the main page, or be given a blanket BLP topic ban (both would be awful). It's better to do the right thing now, then to do nothing and put the project's longterm health/survival in jeopardy. This issue isn't just going to go away, and this conversation here won't make the project look good when it does come up again outside of DYK. It will only show we knew there was problem and enabled it to continue.4meter4 (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
On the contrary 4meter4, before your comment it looked like consensus was near-unanimous. Also, please note the details of WP:PINGFIX. Finally, I don't see any connection in the paragraph directed at me to what I actually said, so I won't reply to it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 I was specifically referencing your comment "if saying something positive about [person/product/controversial current event] could reasonably be described as POV, just forget about it and move on" is good with me." I think that language is problematic for the reasons I articulated above. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
4meter4, in that case, I have two points. First, please try to use the correct language so there is no confusion—"policy" should only refer to those pages defined as such, and not to a page that is essentially a WikiProject essay. Following on from this, "the idea that saying something positive is potentially a POV violation" is already enshrined in Wikipedia policy (the actual one, not the WikiProject essay). The idea that we at DYK can somehow overrule this basic standard of Wikipedia is far more likely, in my opinion, to end up in "punitive consequences against the project". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with both your comments. Where I have a problem is that I think editors are likely to take the earlier quoted text as a guide that all positive hooks are inherently bad and biased, which is not what I think you were intending to communicate. Many positive hooks are balanced and neutral when examined in light of the sources and the subject. The issue with DYK is we can only feature so much in 200 characters, so providing balance as described in the policy you linked is more often than not impossible on contentious topics. We can’t say pick a positive assessment to feature and balance it with a negative assessment in two hundred characters. We can only feature one side in a hook if there is more than one side by virtue of space.4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
"We can’t say pick a positive assessment to feature and balance it with a negative assessment in two hundred characters" that is WP:FALSEBALANCE not what our policy is. Balance for us basically just means following the sources including in proportionality, that sometimes means that 100% negative is entirely balanced and the same with 100% positive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
A positive hook in the case of Tate would have been undue. ...that a kickboxer ran a Hustler's University? to me feels like both an easter egg and whitewashing a pyramid scheme. Literally there are people who would be nauseated to click on the innocent-sounding 'kickboxer' and end up at Andrew Tate.
I'm not unwilling to do anything. The next time such a situation arises -- and maybe it won't -- I'll be arguing to reject the nomination for being something we can't in good conscience create a positive hook for. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Valereee I was referring to tightening written policy as a project, not individual choices. We need to make other editors go the same direction through updated policy language.4meter4 (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Start an RfC. I would support some neutrally-worded version of what you said below: If people think saying something nice or neutral isn't cool we just don't run it at all and reject it. Valereee (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, I would disagree about the Easter egg part. People propose this kind of hook at DYK all the time, and I'd argue that the Easter-egginess of the hook would do more to attract readers than saying "that Andrew Tate is a kickboxer who ran a hustler's university".
As for whitewashing, if the only other alternative is an unduly negative hook, I say such a DYK should probably be scrapped altogether. We really should not let this reach a situation where either of the alternatives (a negative hook or one that gives the appearance of whitewashing) will agitate readers. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
This ^ Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Easter eggs aren't the issue. It's the fact that this particular easter egg may take the reader somewhere they'd be nauseated by. I agree, we should have just scrapped the nom. Valereee (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4, in discussions about possible Andrew Tate hooks, I strongly opposed anything that would mention the crimes he is accused of, but has not been convicted of. I have also pulled hooks over BLP concerns. I am not convinced we have a general BLP problem (as opposed to a general "reviews are too superficial" problem) and the AndyTheGrump issue has not made me change my mind so far. What do you think the problem is? —Kusma (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Kusma I think we are too permissive of negative BLP hooks. The short length of a hook makes it impossible to present negative facts in context, which is required by WP:BLP policy. Given our limits on space, I think an outright universal ban on negative hooks should be implemented on all BLP nominations. That's what I would say if this went to an RFC. I proposed a more middle of the road approach above because I recognize not everyone would agree with this view.4meter4 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd support 'no negative BLP hooks'. I wouldn't support 'find something nice to say about all BLPs'. Valereee (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee That is where I am too. Tate should have not run for exactly the reason you just said. If people think saying something nice or neutral isn't cool we just don't run it at all and reject it.4meter4 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I am opposed to that as it has wide reaching implications. For example, it means Radovan Karadžić can not be featured on DYK until he dies, unless the hook omits the fact that he is a major war criminal. Stuff about BLPs that would be OK to run at ITN (say, a major war criminal is convicted at The Hague) should be OK to run at DYK. —Kusma (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
That's a fair point. It's unfortunate for us that ITN seems to have fewer haters. :D Valereee (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. The hook is essentially one sentence from the article. It is not necessarily the most important aspect of a BLP's life. There is more to Radovan Karadžić's life than his war criminal activity so there is plenty of hook fodder without dealing with the negative aspects. Nor is a neutral or positive hook about a "bad" person "whitewashing". The article would contain all the reliably sourced bad stuff and the hook isn't meant to be a summary of the article. Rlendog (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
On wikipedia neutral is not in between positive and negative, it is separate from them. Both a positive and a negative hook must be neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The difference is that DYK trivializes the subject go a greater extent than ITN. Sure, putting a war criminal being convicted next to the World Darts Championship is less than ideal, but it's a lot less diaparate in subject and tone than putting a hook about the aformentioned war criminal next to before becoming a voice actor, Kikunosuke Toya was the keyboardist of an all-male Princess Princess cover band in high school? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4: Do you have any recent examples where we have featured BLP content on DYK that could have harmed the person? (I do not think the Tate example falls in this category). Without more examples of the problem you are trying to solve, I think making additional rules is ill advised. —Kusma (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Kusma, here's a nom from yesterday:
It's a twofer: commercial product + BLP Valereee (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
No, that is not an example. It is a nomination from yesterday, not something we have featured on the Main Page. If this gets a decent review, the obvious BLP vio should be called out by the reviewer. (Seriously? rumors about people having cosmetic surgery?? the whole Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud sounds super lame, but has more than a million page views in the past four weeks, so obviously I am out of touch). —Kusma (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I would say nominations count as we are specifically looking at our procedures for reviewing hooks. I think we should compile a list of negative BLP hooks that have run and have been proposed. We should also look for hooks that have cropped up on the DYK talk page and have been contentious. We should probably create a thread on preparing for an RFC and the first step should be evidence gathering. It may be that the community decides that what we are doing is mostly working, and that nothing need change. Or it may be, that an issue will be clearly identified after we gather evidence. Either way, it would be helpful to have community input to guide what we do going forward, if only to affirm what we are doing is correct. After we gather evidence, we could take some language proposals for updating DYK procedures/guidelines. That way when the RFC begins we can have some well articulated issues and proposals.4meter4 (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that work needs to be done before any BLP rule change is proposed. (And perhaps we do not need to change our BLP rules, but just enforce them, i.e. find ways to increase review quality). —Kusma (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
When the colonists in America took up arms against the British in America they called it a war for independence. The British called it a rebellion. George Washington was a traitor and a terrorist to the British but America named streets after him. It is about perspective and many editors have none when it comes to a person with a different view than their own. Even the person who you call evil, is admired elsewhere. So in the Tate hook experience we had editors making suggestions against policy based on their political leanings or their inner moral compass. If we look at misogyny it offends the sensibilities of many editors here, yet many major religions and societies practice it. You cannot do what the media in America is doing daily: represent editorial views as fact. Saying a hook that is neutral is undue is the height of silliness and is not based on policy. We can see this same silliness playing out every day, especially here on Wikipedia where we punish or promote based on the politics of whatever editors are active when an issue arrises. We can do better without rejecting nominations. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
So Wikipedia needs no "inner moral compass"? Convicted murders, rapists or paedophiles should all be treated the same as anyone else, as they may be "admired elsewhere", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Your comment is exactly my point. Hyperbole personified. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Was your answer yes or no? Thanks. I wouldn't want to be accused of "white-Washington". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I see only two editors in this discussion who have made political arguments, you and Narutolovehinata5. Your argument in particular appears to be 95% politics and only 5% policy and guideline, its an incredibly weak argument on just its wiki grounds... Its only compelling if you attach a lot of fringe political baggage to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel that way. It is difficult for some to consider different views. For instance right now there is an image of a man in a dress on the main page. Do you think some readers may find that offensive? We force our views all the time. We promote and now we want to reject if it does not fit the narrative - whatever it is. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
In the Tate discussion many editors would not allow any neutral hook. I sympathize with 4meter4 and Airship29 who mentioned how editors can get worn down. Bruxton (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
We ran a hook that literally quoted him about himself. How is that not a neutral hook? Valereee (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, I accepted it, Like many, I found it hard to reject the person's own words. I preferred the EG hook. I am glad that we are discussing. I now see Any The Grump at ANI saying we may have missed a retraction? Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bruxton, just checking to see if maybe you have a diff or a search term that'll help me find that more easily? I've been reading there, so maybe I just missed it? Valereee (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee, see here. TSventon (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, TSventon...so in 2021 he said he was "absolutely a misogynist" and in 2022 he complained that people were digging up "old" dirt. Pretty unconvincing, but okay. A retraction's a retraction, I guess? He's no longer calling himself a misogynist. The guy was like 34 when he said he was and 35 when he called it old news. He was raised Christian, became an atheist, in early 2022 identified as Christian again and by the end of the same year had converted to Islam. The guy is, um...not maturing very fast. Sort of confirms that we just should have not accepted the nomination. :D Valereee (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
That's ITN. Different animal, for me. I think you're making an incorrect assumption that there's something inherently political about not wanting to find something nice to say about someone who calls himself a misogynist and says he moved to Romania because he wanted to live in a country "where corruption is accessible for everybody" and where people don't get charged with rape as often. If you're trying to say conservatives would admire that, I think you're not being fair to conservatives. Valereee (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah lets be clear, the vast majority of conservatives either despise or have never heard of Tate. He is not a mainstream conservative figure and e-pimping etc is incompatible with conservative values as held by most. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
While that’s very kind and polite of you to say, please add me to the list of dissenters and so-called miscreants who believe "conservative values" are entirely compatible and consistent with what Andrew Tate supports and promotes. In fact, Tate is widely considered to be a product of the alt-right echo chamber, whose set of values are mostly indistinguishable from Trumpism and the current version of the GOP. Furthermore, conservative values in the US today are highly aligned with pre-enlightenment values that oppose democracy, feminism, and progressivism, and support theocracy, patriarchy, and a return to aristocracy. I realize people may disagree with me, but I wanted to make sure my position is known. Viriditas (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
IMO thats why the distinction alt-right exists at all, if it was just mainstream conservatism we wouldn't need a different name for it. There is also something to be said for hypocrisy, just because someone holds certain values doesn't necessarily mean they live by them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I mean, pollsters and the NYT agree with you.[8] And what you said about hypocrisy is very important. But I think in terms of specific values themselves, the numbers are far different. What initially began as a "radical, obstructionist faction" has become mainstream. The NYT and other media outlets aren't quite there yet. Viriditas (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that picture forces a view on anyone, can you explain? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we've got a picture of Nemo because they won Eurovision, not because anyone wants to "force our views" on dress-wearing? DYK isn't exactly Eurovision. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: there is really no discussion possible on these issues. You said If you're trying to say conservatives would admire that. I pointed out in that thread about Tate that we put a former kidnapper on the main page but only highlighted the thing we wanted people to know. People are in an echo chamber much of the time here. We did not have to be positive about Tate, we just had to not be negative. You have stated over and over that was not possible. Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, Lightburst, long discussion, I'm not following...what have I said over and over wasn't possible?
And is the hook about Baker any less negative than the one we ran about Tate? To be clear, I don't think that was a particularly interesting hook, but it's certainly not positive. It says she was imprisoned for thirty years. The fact she was transgender was purely context (and is the part I kind of find boring...so what?) And I certainly don't admire her or want to treat her kindly simply because she's transgender. She's clearly a horrible person in many ways. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not the case, as I said at ANI. Yes, the best thing would have been not to run the hook at all, but given that we did, if we bent over backwards to find a not-negative one, given that the vast majority of reliable sources about Tate are negative (for quite obvious reasons), then we're not serving the readers anyway because we're misrepresenting the article. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Not running Tate at all was actually my preferred option and was suggested by some editors, but it was never going to reach consensus due to DYK's general reluctance to reject nominations especially if they're salvageable. Plus it would seem unfair to the nominator to not allow it to run despite their hard work, going back to the "sunk cost" mention above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Do we have a WP:DYK/null rule? If not, maybe should have one? "If all reviewing editors cannot agree to run a hook on a controversial topic, and at least one editor recommends invoking the null rule, then without 100% agreement, the hook(s) should be discarded and the nomination should be closed as not promoted." Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
That is not a good option and seems unworkable. We have editors that would kill topics. If you have been on here any length of time you will see that we are not at 100% for anything. Lightburst (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, I did stipulate controversial, and if you look at the nominations, 90% appear non-controversial. Of the controversial noms, 90% of those appear to have full agreement on the hooks that are chosen. Tate was highly controversial and did not have anything approaching consensus or agreement. A null rule would give people the ability to default to discard instead of what we have now, which is defaulting to approval (for the reasons mentioned elsewhere in this discussion). Another proposed solution is to think about implementing a temporal embargo, as there is an inverse relationship between controversy and the length of time a hook claim has been in circulation; although there are exceptions to such a thing, as the Reagan and AIDS discussion showed. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I could see needing X% support in cases of controversial nominations. Valereee (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Context is important here, I didn't propose the hook that ran. I had also long given up on the nomination and discussion, believing it was better avoided, long before the hook was approved. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
For instance right now there is an image of a man in a dress on the main page. Do you think some readers may find that offensive? We force our views all the time.
History is a great subject that more people should study. One of the first things you learn about the history of fashion is that men have been wearing dresses, skirts, and tights since the beginning of civilization. Viriditas (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't find a photo of a "man in a dress" anywhere. I see a non-binary person in a dress whose article makes no mention of them currently being a man, only that they won awards nearly a decade ago under the category "male". Or are you misgendering them? Funny, for some reason I was under the impression you had less social capital than other users and would be blocked for insulting or otherwise being rude to people, which misgendering certainly is (even if they're not a Wikipedian). Sincerely, Dilettante 16:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting. I'm sorry for the rude tone and it won't happen again
@Dilettante, this reads as angry and sarcastic. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but could you please try to edit yourself? This is a collaborative project. Valereee (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Easy. ... that the celebrity doctor Nandipha Magudumana was imprisoned and investigated for twelve crimes, including murder connected to a fugitive's prison escape? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
That one is a bad hook that should not have been posted (thank you for reporting it at ERRORS). It is already clearly prohibited by the current rules, so it is not a good example for changing the rules, it just shows that our review processes are too sloppy. At least four people failed to notice that this is an obvious BLPCRIME/DYKBLP violation. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
+1. I'm a little concerned this is even in the article, with Wikivoice saying "Nandipha Magudumana aided Thabo Bester to escape from the Mangaung Prison"...she hasn't been convicted? And also in Wikivoice that she "abandoned her family"? Ping to Dxneo. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@Dxneo, you wrote (at a user talk) I thought the DYK error on Dr Nandipha was addressed the very same day it was removed from the main page. Why is it referenced here again?; taking to that article talk. Valereee (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
On the contrary, I expect there are quite a few people who would argue this passes DYKBLP. The recent RS coverage of Dr. Magudamana is largely negative. At least for some, this means we should only run a negative hook (lest we violate the ever-unerring, ever-applicable policy known as NPOV; perish the thought of IAR), or at least that's what they said about Tate. The fact is that DYKBLP allows for far too many interpretations—some (including mine) would clearly prevent both the Tate hook and this one; some would allow both to be posted.
The BLPCRIME issue is outside the scope of this discussion, but from what I can tell, Dr. Magudamana was a public figure in South Africa prior to the criminal charges. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting. And for the second time I'm seeing what seems to be sarcasm. Maybe we should take this to your user talk. Valereee (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I've opened a section there. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Replying there. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I am a strong believer in "innocent until proved guilty", and I do not think we should ever run any hook about living people accused of crimes, and have made it very clear that such a hook would be unacceptable for Andrew Tate. The BLPCRIME policy basically tells us to include content accusing people of crimes only when it is unavoidable, and so it can't ever happen in DYK hooks. This is not even a matter of DYKBLP. —Kusma (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your work here Evrik. I want to say we did do something wrong or there would not be such consternation across the project. It is not pandering for me to say that I appreciate the editors here. I have become a better editor from my experiences in DYK and I have also been able to evaluate GAs and new articles at NPP. I think the editors here are quality and while I have had disagreements with a few I respect them. 4meter4 for instance, was right about this situation. We should be less binary in our good vs evil opinions. I am guilty of talking at people instead of to them and of this kind of rhetorical flourish. I think we make conscious choices to promote items that fit our world view and some suggestions above are to reject those that do not. I think that It was good for us to discuss the Tate nomination. I want to note that Leeky has been absent from the conversation. Leeky is a DYK regular who we often look to for guidance, yet they were the most vociferous in arguing for a negative hook here. Thanks for the discussion Valereee I feel heard and I want to say I heard you. Lightburst (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Lightburst, that's very kind, and I'm very glad you feel heard. I hope there's no question that you know I respect your input and also your point of view. Valereee (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I also oppose any form of rule or procedure change. This was a one-off rare incident and the fact that it's so rare is a good thing. It being so rare also means it's not indicative of anything other than an odd outlier that resulted in a lot of (probably unnecessary) discussion. We can and should continue to deal with any such issues on a case by case basis. None of the methods used at DYK need to be altered. SilverserenC 16:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think when we get expressions of concern from other community members, it's worth considering their point of view. We actively don't want to be or to be perceived as a walled garden. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • To my mind the issue here is not BLP. I just can't wrap my mind around how it could be that. I do, however think that sometimes, out of a desire to get as many pageviews as possible and/or an effort to be funny, DYK reviewers loose their way. I have submitted a number of DYKs myself and I get it, you want people to see your hard work, and a good hook makes that more likely, but this was entirely avoidable. Just because an article meets the basic criteria for DYK doesn't mean it has to be on the main page. This was brought up right at the begining of the initial review of the submission but apparently wasn't strongly considered. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    By the way I've closed the ANI thread as it was not going anywhere productive.
    And just to expand on my point, the main page is not a tabloid, bot sometimes the DYK hooks feel like they are slipping into clickbait territory. Case in point from yesterday:"that singer Frank Croxton performed a duet with his father for the unveiling of a monument to a Confederate States Army general?" Technically true, but somewhat deceptive as it was basically a burial marker, in a cemetery, at the gravesite of the general in his hometown, in 1895, but the way it is worded implies the imagery of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and their pushing of Confederate monuments in public places. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Some of us also follow WO and I can see this critical tidbit is from where they skewer DYK daily. The fact that you are still in there jostling around with the anti-wiki folks and then closing discussion about one of their favorite members is a travesty. Lightburst (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Everyone at ANI is ipso facto jostling around with pro-wiki folks, and I think it's fair to say ATG was one of our most controversial members yesterday. Is it a travesty that an enwikipedian closed the thread? Should only people with no involvement with both enwiki and Wikipediocracy close threads? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    One person's interesting hook is another's click-bait. --evrik (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    My point is that I don't think the purpose of DYK is for those composing the hooks to show everyone how very clever they are, nor is it to titilate. It shoudn't be, anyway. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think it was a mistake to shut down everything, @Just Step Sideways. No discussion here can result in any sanction for ATG. Valereee (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Here's just minutes ago AndyTheGrump accusing DYK of intentionally "making it harder for outsiders to participate", Just Step Sideways. Valereee (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    That no admin had issued a 24-hour block after 48 hours of discussion indicated to me that a block was not going to be forthcoming. I've not personally taken a position on whether one was warranted or not, but issuing it days after the offending remark just seemed very unlikely. And the issue under discussion was personal attacks, the link you provide doesn't seem to be directed at a specific person and is not otherwise uncivil. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    That is not a reason to shut down the entire discussion. Valereee (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Obviously I don't agree, but also this is not the subject of this discussion. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Just Step Sideways: Geez it was open less than two days. Why on earth are you closing? when I was being discussed at ANI it was open for two weeks. There was a support viote just hours ago. I feel like this was not appropriate. I also want to say that you are quite involved with ATG at WO so you are 100% the wrong person to close that discussion. Suggest you back out your close. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Guess I should've blocked him right off the bat like I almost did, instead of allowing for discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Honestly, that probably would've been better. I can't really recall another time I've seen a discusion of issuing a 24-hour block go on for two days with no admin willing to issue the block. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I'd necessarily disagree myself, with hindsight. I'd probably still consider the block improper, but it might have encouraged me to try to get a little more sleep. For the record though, I'd draw people's attention to ScottishFinnishRadish's warning on my talk page. [9] Even if anyone else is under the impression that I'm somehow getting away with my unwise comments without potential consequence, I'm most definitely not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    And yet just minutes ago you accused this entire project of intentionally "making it harder for outsiders to participate", @AndyTheGrump. I'm thinking you think you got away with something. Up until then I was in a forgiving and forgetting mindset. Valereee (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, I'd expand that comment to cover Wikipedia as a whole, so singling out DYK for it was probably unfair. If I were inclined, I could probably write a 4000-word essay on why I think Wikipedia actually needs to make things hard for outsiders to participate in order to function at all. So yes, I have negative opinions about DYK, and per my limited qualifications as a former anthropology student, I'd find it difficult to argue that such apparent obstructionism wasn't the consequence of human agency. 'Intent' is perhaps harder to pin down, so perhaps I should retract that suggestion, and instead ascribe it to an emergent property of collective behaviour, rather than to the intentions of individuals. The end result is the same though - trying to figure out who said what, and when, and how exactly collective decisions were arrived at - if they were actually arrived at at all - is nigh-on impossible to discern without reading everything three times, and hoping that one hasn't missed another discussion somewhere else that makes sense of it all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    That wasn't the only proposal in that discussion. IMO a 24-hr block is almost always silly unless it's a case of high passion edit-war that people just need to sleep on and get less crazy about. Even then I'd rather see a p-block. Valereee (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    Discussion and voting was continuous, and I have left a message on JSS talk page. The close was not appropriate and involved. I will ask for an admin review if JSS does not back it out. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As an aside, Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham has been sitting on the approved list for around a month now. The article describes the killing of a Palestinian Jewish convert by an Israeli soldier. The nomination discussion lasted two weeks, and spilled over onto this very page (link here); it resulted in the following hook: "...that David Ben Avraham was posthumously granted an Israeli residency after having been killed?" I can honestly say that I do not intend to promote this hook, because that might attach my name to a controversy caused by the presence of the article on the main page. Am I wrong to think so? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Is that a controversial hook? The subject matter of the article, by its very nature, is controversial, but that hook seems sufficiently neutral without going overboard in its wording or POV on one side or the other. SilverserenC 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't really know what is a controversial hook anymore. Personally, I wouldn't have said that the Frank Croxton hook mentioned above was anywhere close to "tabloidy", but Just Step Sideways clearly felt different. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
That nonsense came from WO. I started an AN discussion which mentions the ANI close and the banter on WO. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It's possible the long winding discussion might be a put-off, I've crossed off the old alts and restated ALT3 at the bottom of the page, which might help. CMD (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@ AirshipJungleman29 I don't think it was "tabloidy" either. I wrote the Croxton article and that hook (although it was altered slightly without my knowledge). I never made the connection in my mind to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy when writing it... I pulled the hook fact directly from the cited source, which is why the hook fact ran. It was entirely accurate, and frankly I only suggested it because of the trend at DYK to call many proposed hooks about opera/classical music boring. It seems like hooks following something personal about classical singers tend to get chosen more and pass DYK review. That's the only reason why I picked that event as a hook. This is a case where someone's own experiences reading on a particular topic has shaped their perception, expectations, and assumptions about not only the hook but also the hook's author.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
That nonsense came from WO. is a pretty funny accusation to make, as if WO is pulling my strings, when, as Lighburst is perfectly aware, I was the one who raised the point over there. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
That David Ben Avraham hook is redundant. Posthumously means after he died. If we need 'was killed' for context -- which I'm not sure we do -- then we can get rid of posthumously. Pinging Makeandtoss Valereee (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived several hours ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 7. We have a total of 231 nominations, of which 116 have been approved, a gap of 115 nominations that has increased by 10 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Han Bong-zin

I'd appreciate if another user could chime in at Template:Did you know nominations/Han Bong-zin, regarding whether the hooks are sufficiently interesting. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The hooks relating to the North Korean government/media seem interesting to me, but there seems to be a notability question separate to that. CMD (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I think I sufficiently addressed the notability question in my comment there, FWIW. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: You still need the QPQ. --evrik (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

BeanieFan has seven nominations with QPQ outstanding at WP:DYKN, a couple of which are almost a week old. I have previously suggested that they do their QPQs when nominating so that other editors don't have to ping them on every nomination, but they seem unwilling. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
QPQ added. Its not that I'm "unwilling" to do QPQs with the nominations, but more that I've got too much I've written currently to do all the QPQs immediately. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
You might try doing the opposite. I do the QPQs before any nomination, and that leaves me with too many QPQs so that when I eventually do have a nomination, I don't have your problem. If you have seven nominations with outstanding QPQs, you're holding up the reviewers, so do the QPQs before the nominations in the future. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis, Evrik, AirshipJungleman29, and Viriditas: The reviewer also questioned the reliability of the Liverpool Daily Post (see further discussion at nom). Would either of you be willing to give thoughts on whether it is reliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Done. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Unreviewed backlog mode

Over at WP:QPQ we discuss "unreviewed backlog mode." Can we create some sort of shortcut that points to that passage? --evrik (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have created a shortcut with the title "DYKUBM". If others would like to use a different shortcup, feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I will have a tallcup please. :) Bruxton (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. --evrik (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6

Two same subject matter hooks in Prep 6

I thought we may want to separate two related hooks in Prep 6 Looks like @Launchballer: added the second one with Special:Diff/1224285221 about Billie Eilish who wrote a song about lesbian sex. There was already a song about a queer anthem in the set. I know this happens when three editors build a set, so I posted it here rather than undo anything. Bruxton (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Nxdia is one of mine, so I knew she was there. WP:DYKVAR says two such hooks are allowed, so what I did was technically fine. However, with the benefit of hindsight, most of the views interested in that are probably going to go to Eilish, so I've kicked her back.--Launchballer 10:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

26 May

is Trinity Sunday this year. I created an article about a church dedicated to the Trinity, because it was a red link in a recent deaths article. It then occurred to me that it would be sort of quirky to have a DYK about it on Trinity Sunday, which is in eight days, or rather almost seven, Template:Did you know nominations/Trinitatiskirche, Wolfenbüttel. If you agree please review fast and have room for it in prep, pictured preferred because it looks unusual for a church ;) - I am not married to the hook but think it matches the unusual looks. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Evrik: You sure about that? Prep 6 is 27 May, and the request is for the 26th. (The lead hook of prep 6 is a church, and there should not be two adjacent churches in the lead slot - but there is my Boyz Unlimited hook in prep 5, which I'm happy to move.)--Launchballer 16:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Math are hard. As long as you see this request, that's what is important. :-) --evrik (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Promoted. I will say that if you're going to put 'a palace' in the hook, the article should probably include the word 'palace', which I've now added.--Launchballer 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Noted. --evrik (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

What happened to these edits?

Wondering what happened. I saw that edits have been suppressed? I noticed this because my own contributions showed similar. If this was private feel free to email me or ignore me. Bruxton (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering that. I guess it's in the nature of oversighted edits that you don't get to know what or why... It's a shame to lose attribution and history on such a large chunk of edits to this page, but if the functionaries feel it's necessary then so be it.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Indeed it was, and the loss of talk page history is not very important in comparison. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I was just thinking I had inadvertently done something until I saw many more edits were suppressed on WT:DYK. I was as nervous as a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. Bruxton (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Go to the first instance. That should explain it. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I've never seen anything quite like that. --evrik (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
It’s pretty common on the noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Wow, that's a huge amount. I'm trying to follow it...Barkeep49, was that your edit? Valereee (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm guessing my response is going to feel pretty unsatisfying. On a procedural matter, it's not always possible to reveal who performed specific suppression. In this case I'm ok confirming I did the suppression which happened after a user notified me. I consulted with another member of the oversight team before doing so and we both agreed suppression was appropriate. As noted suppression at noticeboards always are unfortunate and difficult when not caught ASAP given the number of edits they end up including. At least for me this did include consideration of the amount of time/edits that happened prior to suppression. Beyond this I'm not really able to say much. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
No worries, just thought such a huge suppression was worth asking about. Valereee (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

QPQ tool

This is really a quibble about a specific tool, rather than about the DYK process itself. I noticed that the QPQ tool doesn't show any DYK credits for me after February 2024.

The last nomination shown on that tool is Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Clay Frick House, which is a nomination by another user a decade ago. My nomination of the article is a DYK rerun, at Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Clay Frick House (2nd nomination). After that, it seems like none of my DYKs from March, April, or May are displayed on the tool. However, it seems that the tool works correctly for other users with nominations from the past three months.

I forgot who maintains this tool, so I'm posting here in case anyone knows who can fix it. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It also doesn't show any credits for me from before the start of this year.--Launchballer 22:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Based on the toolhub info, it is maintained by Sohom Datta (github repo) who I assume is Sohomdatta. RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Or Sohom Datta, one of the two.--Launchballer 23:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
That me. I'll take a look once I reach a compute. Sohom (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I've applied a quick fix for the issues surround the fact that it did not report credits from the last few months. (We were caching a response from 3 months ago Facepalm Facepalm) Wrt to the misattributed DYKs, I will need to take a far deeper look. Sohom (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Jonathan Stoklosa

@BeanieFan11, TonyTheTiger, and AirshipJungleman29:

The source link used to verify this hook is broken, and I could not find an archived link. Is there another source that can verify this? Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Empty queues

@DYK admins: All the queues are empty. --evrik (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Future RFC on BLPs at DYK

Hi all. I an going to request that our regular DYK promoters, reviewers, talk page discussion participants, etc. participate in collecting examples of negative hooks on BLPs that ran on the main page, were pulled from the main page, or became contentious either at Wikipedia talk:Did you know or at the nomination page. This would include rejected hooks to be fair, because we want people to see where we have succeeded in the review process as well as where we may have failed. I know that some of our active project members do not wish for an RFC, but I think it best we allow for wide community discussion on this topic to help us be more consistent in implementing WP:BLP policy at DYK. The community needs to consider the challenges of meeting BLP policy within a DYK format where we limit content expression to 200 characters or less within a single sentence. I contend that the challenges of our format make compliance with WP:BLPBALANCE difficult in a way that is unique to DYK. The current BLP policy as written is article space targeted and its application at DYK is therefore challenging to work through. For this reason we need an RFC and we need to ask the community at large the questions within this RFC.

I am doing my best here to allow for as a wide a range of opinions as possible. Any thoughts on a better way to structure this RFC are welcome, as this is not something I normally do. We may stop the RFC earlier or expand the questions of exploration depending on the WP:CONSENSUS over individual questions. The goal here is to give us a community supported process for handling BLPs with either negative and contentious content at DYK nominations that specifically looks at how BLP policy should be applied at DYK review/promotion. That should benefit the project and hopefully prevent long protracted arguments at DYK (which are often over BLP policy) and elsewhere such as ANI. If we have a better articulated process with community support this will hopefully make our lives editing at DYK easier when it comes to reviewing proposed BLP hooks and will hopefully prevent conflict at DYK review and potential drama on project pages related to the Main page.

Opening statement draft

In the past year, I have either witnessed or participated in several contentious discussions concerning Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy within hook nominations at WP:Did You Know that have arisen from hook proposals involving "negative" material about BLPs where the information could be perceived as an attack on the BLP or an attempt to smear the BLP's public image. While the vast majority of BLP nominations at DYK are non-controversial, the project does receive a small percentage of hook proposals on BLPs where the subject is presented in a negative light on an on-going periodic basis. These hooks are sometimes submitted by seasoned DYK participants, and sometimes editors new to the project.

The reactions to these various "negative hook" proposals has been inconsistent on the part of the DYK community with a wide range of expressed opinions from active editors in the project as well as a wide range of responses within DYK hook review process. Negative hooks on BLPs have sometimes been rejected as violating BLP policy using rationales from either Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions and Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, or the WP:BLP policy page itself. They also have sometimes been approved by editors, have been promoted by DYK admins to Template:Did you know/Queue, and have made it to the WP:MAIN page. These various responses have sometimes been received with community support, no comment by the community other than the reviewer, or have been heavily contested either within the individual hook review template, or at DYK's talk page. Those negative hooks which have made it to the main page have sometimes been brought to noticeboards such as WP:ERRORS and WP:ANI where responses have equally been inconsistent; including the pulling of hooks due to BLP violations, no action, etc.

It's my contention that this pattern of inconsistent response is evidence of an on-going failure of the DYK community to consistently implement BLP policy. I believe the reason for this failure is two fold. 1) The BLP guidelines in the Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions and Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines are currently poorly written, and in particular the words "unduly negative" have been interpreted as meaning the DYK community can run negative hooks on BLPs that individual editors have labeled as "bad people" because they deserve it. This has inevitably allowed for WP:POV pushing and politicization within certain hook proposals; drawing into question the integrity of the DYK platform and the encyclopedia when such hooks have successfully made it to the main page. 2) The current BLP policy page is written to address article space and does not currently address the unique format of DYK where we limit content expression to a single sentence of 200 characters or less. What is possible to do in terms of WP:BLPBALANCE within article space is not possible in a DYK hook by virtue of limited space.

The community needs to take a close look at how DYK should interpret BLP policy within the unique DYK hook format for the purposes of DYK hook review. The purpose of this RFC is to assist DYK in more consistently following BLP policy going forward by reviewing DYK's current processes and guidelines for reviewing BLP hooks; and making any necessary changes to Wikipedia:Did you know, Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, and Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions as it relates to BLPs. To help us achieve that goal, the DYK community has assisted in gathering real examples of potential BLP violating hooks that have either run on the main page successfully, been pulled from the main page after being reported to a notice board, or failed to be promoted but with contentious and sometimes lengthy discussion. Other types of evidence have also been put forward, and other kinds of potentially BLP violating hooks have been identified in the evidence gathering process besides just negative hooks. For this reason, I have crafted the RFC question process with some flexibility because there may be avenues of exploration raised by the community at this RFC that the community may wish to explore that could not have been anticipated earlier. It should be noted that the examples given are just a sampling of mainly recent examples of this problem, and this is by no means a thorough or complete presentation of all issues related to BLPs that have come up at DYK.

I want this RFC to be helpful no matter what conclusions ultimately are arrived at. I have my opinions, but they may not be the majority view, and my goal here is to make things better as a community space for DYK volunteers no matter what proposals are ultimately successful at achieving broad community support. I am hopeful we will come up with a better reviewing document for BLP hooks as a community which will prevent further incidents at WP:ERRORS and WP:ANI, and make the DYK review process less stressful for our dedicated volunteers by eliminating the need for repeating the same unproductive or contentious arguments in circles at DYK review.

RFC format: Questions and Proposals

Note 1. This is a presentation of this RFC's format, including planned guiding questions and a described process for future proposals. Please do not respond to the questions or make proposals in this space. Questions will be opened for comment one at a time, as answers to prior questions are important for informing responses to succeeding questions.
Note 2. The term "negative hook" may mean different things to different people, and individual hooks may be perceived as "negative" by a certain group of editors but not by others due to varying backgrounds among our editing volunteers. In examining policy language at WP:BLPSTYLE, a broadly construed definition of a negative hook could be any hook that may be perceived as an attack on the BLP or an attempt to malign their public image, or a hook that may be perceived as a partisan representation of the subject. These could include the use of contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision. Real examples of hooks that have been identified as negative by some editors have been gathered in the evidence section. See WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE.

RFC Questions

  • 1. Can DYK feature negative hooks on BLPs and remain in compliance with WP:BLP policy? Consider the limitations of the DYK format and the language of WP:BLP policy in your answer. If no, why? If yes, why?
If the WP:CONSENSUS is yes or no consensus we move on to the next question. If the consensus is no we skip question 2 and move to question 3.
  • 2. How can we determine when a negative hook on a BLP can and can't be used? What specific guideline(s) should DYK reviewers follow when reviewing negative hooks on BLPs? What language should we include in a guideline that assists reviewers in making decisions and prevents conflict at DYK, Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, and other project pages? Consider the limitations of the DYK hook format and the language of WP:BLP policy in your answer.
Once opinions have been gathered and summarized we move on to the next question.
Once opinions have been gathered and summarized we move to question 4
  • 4. Are there any additional questions we should consider as it relates to DYK and BLP policy before moving on to proposals?
It's possible we may need to ask a question that was not predicted at the onset of the RFC, after getting input to the first three questions. We will leave room to ask additional questions for community input if needed before moving on to proposals. We will discuss any other questions raised by the community. Once completed, we will begin accepting proposals that should come from WP:CONSENSUS input.

Proposals

  • Proposals should come out of the discussion resulting from the above questions. This RFC will not start with a set list of proposals. These should come directly from the community input to the RFC questions. Proposal submissions will be open to all contributors in the RFC after the questioning period concludes. The goal of this RFC is to improve DYK's review process as it relates to BLPs in order to assist DYK and its volunteers in being consistently compliant with WP:BLP policy and prevent conflicts at DYK review on BLPs. Once a proposal has been made we will vote and arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS on each individual proposal.

That is it folks. I am creating a sub-thread below for evidence to aid in the RFC. I am not the most knowledgable person on historic negative BLPs, so assistance from others is a must if we are going to do this RFC fairly, neutrally, and with the best possible chance at a positive outcome for DYK as a project. Thanks to everyone in advance who helps. I will also create a sub thread on any suggested changes to the RFC questions/format. I want this RFC to be helpful no matter what conclusions ultimately are arrived at. I have my opinions, but they may not be the majority view, and my goal here is to actually make things better as a community space for DYK volunteers regardless of the ultimate outcome. I am hopeful we will come up with a better reviewing document for BLP hooks which will save us all unnecessarily repeating the same unproductive or contentious arguments in circles, and will make reviewing BLP hooks less contentious and stressful for our dedicated volunteers.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions on RFC construction

Please comment on the proposed RFC structure here. Any suggestions for improvements are much appreciated. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Evidence

Please add examples below for the upcoming RFC. We need examples for the community at large to examine. The RFC can not go forward until there is a good sampling of evidence gathered.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  • NOTE Please just post links and do not editorialize or discuss examples unless for some reason they should be excluded. We need a working list, not a running commentary. Limit all examples to BLPs specifically.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Negative BLPs that were promoted to the main page without issue

Incident Year Hook/comments Discussion
Murder of Jiang Ge 2024 ... that the murder of Jiang Ge led to public debate in China over the actions of Jiang's roommate during her murder?
The living person in question is Liu Xin, mentioned in the hook and discussed at length in the article. 		Raised at ERRORS but no response: [10]
Going Infinite 2024 Hook draws attention to a negative comment made against a living person; it had to be toned down at nomination stage and again in prep. WT:DYK: [11]
Diether Dehm 2020 Two "negative" hooks were proposed, one about the BLP employing a terrorist and the other one about the BLP being a former informer of the secret police. The "terrorist" hook ran without controversy.
Hsinchu Kuang-Fu Senior High School 2024 Raised at ERRORs but alas, no pull as it was only an hour until it rolled off MP. @Theleekycauldron: said "This article looks like a straight NPOV violation to me". Therapyisgood (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Raised at ERRORs
Debbie Currie 2024 ... that Debbie Currie once worked as a lollipop lady?
whole damn thing reads like a BLP violation. "reprimanded for smoking aged 13, and had to retake all of her A-levels after being accused of cheating; she graduated with a C and two Ds, and read English and Communication" " She used an October 2009 article in the Daily Mail to announce that she had become a single mother by choice after a drunken one-night stand aged thirty, and encouraged others to have their children before finding a partner." "claimed that she had enjoyed a four-in-a-bed orgy and lost her virginity at fifteen" Therapyisgood (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I feel like this was an issue with the article rather than the nom/hook? I think DYK should have caught it. Valereee (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 		Raised at ERRORs with 4 minutes before the hooks rotated.

Negative BLPs that were pulled from the main page

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A DYK on the death of actress Gemma McCluskie, posted only three weeks after her 2012 murder: ANI thread:[12] Talk:DYK thread:[13]

I hope that it shouldn't prove necessary here to point out what WP:BLP says (and said in 2012) about taking consideration for friends and relatives etc of the recently deceased, the need to avoid tabloid-style sensationalism, and all the other obvious issues with this DYK. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure an issue from twelve years ago is relevant now? Except to show Andy's been calling people names for at least that long. Maybe we should concentrate on the past year or two? Valereee (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This is from 2012, and shows that there is a long-standing issue with AndyTheGrump. It is an inappropriate hook sensationalising a murder, not a "negative hook about a BLP". —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Attempts to stifle discussion of long-term systemic issues with DYK duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Andy, I don't think anyone would disagree these were bad. But let's focus on today's issues. Valereee (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Not without clear and unambiguous evidence that DYK has undergone systemic changes which would prevent a recurrence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
So is it your intention to bring in here as evidence every DYK you've ever objected to in the past 12+ years? Because I think your strategy would be counterproductive to fixing the problem. Something that has been pointed out to you before, including very recently. Valereee (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It is my intention to respond to the request made in this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Which means you're going to completely jam up this apparently well-intentioned RfC by someone who agrees with you. Okay. Valereee (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
That's exactly what is happening. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
If it hasn't happened in twelve years then it's not a recurring problem. This is why 12-year-old evidence sucks. Levivich (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
How about actually waiting to see what other evidence is offered before dismissing it? I am still under the impression that this request for such evidence was made in good faith, even if some would apparently prefer to exclude anything they would prefer not to get scrutiny. Let other contributors provide their own evidence. If mine is all there is (which seems unlikely) you can then argue that there isn't a systemin problem. And no, I have no intention of bringing 'every DYK I've ever objected to in the past 12+ years' here. I brought up two, because they were clearly relevant to a discussion which seems on the face of it to be focussed around adressing systemic issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion how to get people to review more properly? Your method seems to be to reduce the number of DYK volunteers by insulting them. If you want to help, please review nominations and double check prep sets. All kind of issues are occasionally caught only at the prep-to-queue stage or at ERRORS. Some of them are comparatively minor (like repeating incorrect claims about "X was the first Y to do Z" from sources), others are bad (copyvios) or really bad (accusing BLPs of crimes that they have not been convicted for). It can be exhausting to check everything, and we do not have enough admins doing it. We need more (non-admin) eyes on the prep sets and queues. Yelling at volunteers like you do has as its most likely effect a reduction in our number of capable volunteers. Please stop making DYK worse and start helping to make it better. —Kusma (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Please note that I have raised the improper hatting above, along with what appears to be a more general attempt to prevent legitimate participation in this thread at WP:ANI. [14] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Limit examples to BLP hooks only. All BLP examples, regardless how old, will be accepted. Editors are smart enough to recognize the age of the nom may impact its relevance. We don't have to trim them. All hooks not about a BLP will be hidden as above. Please avoid discussing examples unless there is a glaring problem (such as the hook isn't a BLP or the hook is not negative). Examples can be discussed at the RFC. We are just gathering evidence in list format without discussion at this time. All off-topic discussions will be swiftly archived to protect the RFC preparation process like the one above. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4, maybe put the information into a sortable table so people can at least sort by age? Valereee (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
If an editor skilled in templates wants to take that on, more power to them. I am not the best at table design.4meter4 (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I am probably the editor least skilled in templates in any discussion on this page, so if anyone wants to fix whatever I did wrong, please do. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Incident Year Hook/comments Discussion
Gemma McCluskie 2012 Concerns about recently deceased BLP violation ANI thread:[15]

Talk:DYK thread:[16]

Nandipha Magudumana 2024 ... that the celebrity doctor Nandipha Magudumana was imprisoned and investigated for twelve crimes, including murder connected to a fugitive's prison escape? ERRORS discussion: [17]

Article at the time of promotion: [18]

Angelle (singer) 2024 ... that the British entrepreneur Sarah Bennett went from being "one of the biggest flops in pop history" to appearing on the Sunday Times Rich List 2017? ERRORS discussion: [19]

Negative BLPs that were contentious at Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Incident Year Hook/comments Discussions
Andrew Tate 2024 ... that social media influencer Andrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"?
Concerns about BLP vio 		WT:DYK: [20] WT:ANI: [21]
Sarah Jane Baker 2023 ... that author Sarah Jane Baker was so desperate for gender affirming care in prison that she cut off her testicles with a razor blade? (one example of several contentious hooks on this person that were proposed) WT:DYK: [22]
Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman 2024 Pulled from queue and then rejected, in part due to BLP concerns. WT:DYK: [23]
Jews Don't Count 2023 Altered in queue, after it was argued that the original hook falsely attributed an anti-semitic POV to a living person. WT:DYK: [24]
Lil Tay 2023 Pulled from prep due to poor sourcing of negative information in the article. WT:DYK: [25]
Marvin Harrison Jr. 2023 ... that one NFL scout compared watching Marvin Harrison Jr. (pictured) to "window shopping at a Lamborghini dealership for the model that doesn't come out until next year"?
Concerns about objectifying people of colour. 		WT:DYK: [26]
Child abuse in association football 2023 Pulled from queue for various reasons, one of which was BLPCRIME concerns. WT:DYK: [27]
@Narutolovehinata5, tables are easily edited in the visual editor. Try this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know?veaction=edit WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Negative BLPs that were contentious during review but not rejected

Incident Year Hook/comments Discussion

Negative BLPs that were contentious during review and rejected

Incident Year Hook/comments Discussion

Other kinds of BLP violation concerns in DYK hooks

Incident Year Hook/comments Discussion
HorsegiirL 2024 Pulled from prep; original hook used the article subject's real name against their wishes WT:DYK: [28]
Matthew Charles Johnson 2024 Negative hook with unsourced info raised at ERRORS. ERRORS: [29]

Evidence discussion

Please do not interrupt the list with discussions in order to keep information easily readable for everyone. Any comments/disputes over listed items can be commented on here.4meter4 (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Other issues

I can't predict what other issues might come up. So I created this subsection if anybody has further comments that they want to make on this future RFC. I want this to be an RFC the whole DYK volunteer community can feel good about going into it.4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A DYK on the 'Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu' was finally pulled in prep, just before it was due to go live, back in 2013. But only after a WP:BLPN thread, and another on WP:ANI, brought the matter to the attention of the broader community, DYK regulars having entirely failed to notice the numerous issues. The DYK stated as fact that this individual had been 'cooked in a curry'. This assertion was sourced in the article to a food blog. Note that not only have there have been no convictions for this alleged murder, it has never even been determined that Marithamuthu was murdered (or, apparently, that he is even dead at all), never mind being disposed of in this bizarre manner.
BLPN thread :[30]
ANI thread:[31]
Talk DYK thread:[32]
AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Again over a decade ago. Maybe let's focus on current issues instead of playing Andy's Greatest Hits? Valereee (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
No. Not without clear and unambiguous evidence that DYK has undergone systemic changes which would prevent a recurrence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Andy, I mean this absolutely sincerely: why? If we want to fix now, let's focus on now. Valereee (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, the "let’s hold DYK hostage until it gives into our demands" tactic. I originally suspected the Tate nomination would lead to this, regardless of the hook. This tactic is popular in some sectors, and it’s the preferred strategy of conservative legal activists who have used it to try and control the Supreme Court and get them to rule in their favor by bringing artificial cases for them to rule on. Viriditas (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I go away for a few hours and it looks like a cyclone came through here. Maybe we need to close out some of these threads? There were relevant comments by others but I cannot even find them. I am seeing ATG throw a tantrum in here and at ANI. I agree with Kusma's advice in the hatted discussion Your method seems to be to reduce the number of DYK volunteers by insulting them. If you want to help, please review nominations and double check prep sets. This method of damning the volunteers and their ineptitude is not going to have the desired effect. Lightburst (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump Undoubtedly, DYK has failed in other areas on occasion, but we can not handle every issue all at once. This RFC has a very specific focus. Please keep your examples limited to the specific topic area of this RFC. We are not looking at hooks that involve people who are dead, only those who are alive because the focus of this RFC is WP:BLP policy as it relates to WP:DYK. We have to keep the RFC. focused or it won't work and will be closed without any productive work being done. We can always look at another policy area in another RFC if it is needed. At this time, BLP issues have been the most consistent point of contention within the project which is why this RFC is needed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
As I stated above, it hasn't been established that Ayakannu Marithamuthu is actually dead. And both in 2013, and now, claiming, without proper sourcing that a named individual cooked another named individual in a curry to dispose of their body is clearly and unambiguously a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
There's a consensus in this discussion to only stick to recent evidence. Since Wikipedia runs by consensus, you're beholden to it. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I see no evidence whatsoever that there has been any sort of discussion sufficient to reach such a 'consensus'. And if there has, it should probably be brought to the attention of the broader Wikipedia community, who may very well have a differing opinion as to what is or isn't relevant to a discussion on the sort of systemic issues that this thread was apparently created to tackle. If we can't discuss it here, perhaps we need to do so in an environment where certain individuals cannot reject evidence because they don't like it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks isn't conducive to an RFC. Old evidence isn't helping us. If you want to study a problem and find a potential solution, you first have to ask the right question based on a set of assumed values. The evidence cannot tell you if those values are good or bad, it can only help you arrive at a solution you already agree is useful or helpful. Old evidence doesn't get us any closer to this answer. The majority of the respondents to this discussion have asked you to provide current evidence only. I'm asking you as well. Viriditas (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This is why we can't have nice things. Valereee (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Andy, I'm trying to assume good faith, but it feels like you're torpedoing this effort, which seriously is making me wonder whether your actual intent is to prove DYK problems can't be fixed. I'm really sorry to say this. I think you're a well-intentioned editor. But it feels like...well, almost sabotage. I'm sure if anything it's subconscious, I know you'd never actually want to do that. This editor seems to be making a good-faith effort. Valereee (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I believe BLP is kind of incidental here, and not the underlying issue. DYK has three major problems:
  • QPQ reviewers sometimes do not check the article and hook for policy compliance
  • Prep builders sometimes promote the hook to prep without checking for policy compliance, assuming the QPQ reviewer did their job
  • Admins sometimes promote the prep to queue without checking for policy compliance, assuming the QPQ reviewer and prep builder have done their jobs.
When these three problems occur at the same time, errors slip through and we end up violating BLP, NPOV, copyrights or other core policies on the Main Page. Additional rules will not help as long as people skip the checks for rule compliance. —Kusma (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Everything you've said is true, but it ignores the fundamental question that has been asked in previous discussions up above, namely, are all nominations suitable for DYK? Because right now, the problem is that we default to approve, even if people don't think it should run, instead of to discard, of which there is no mechanism to facilitate such a decision other than letting it time out, which rarely happens. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I think having strict timeout rules would make it a lot easier to remove bad noms (for any reason) and would be worth trying, but I do not anticipate this to become community consensus. —Kusma (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Kusma, I'd add a fourth reason:
  • Some editors expect perfection.
A 1% rejection rate would result in one "bad" DYK hooks every ten days. A Six Sigma standard would allow one "bad" DYK hook every ten years. We probably want something in between these two, but where? And how do we make the perfectionists among us accept a level of imperfection? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@Kusma This is a good point. I created an "other kinds" section for evidence. Please add that as an example to that section. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The evidence categories seem too limited and debatable. For example, consider the case of Jimmy Carter who is remarkably still with us. In that case, several issues were raised at WP:ERRORS about a hook about him and multiple changes were made to the hook. That's often how it goes down – a discussion at WP:ERRORS and then a variety of possible outcomes. Pulling is not the only possibility. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    Here's a list of cases from my records which I'll compile as I come across them:
  1. Jimmy Carter
  2. Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales
  3. Murder of Alexis Sharkey
  4. Mick Jagger
  5. "35 people, including the President, First Lady, three senators, and a governor"
Andrew🐉(talk) 21:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
These probably belong in the tables above if we want people to consider them, rather than in "Other issues"? Valereee (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson I created an "other kinds" of BLP violations section. Please add these. If there is another section you think we should create, I am open. This structure was not intended to limit us, I was just intending to get the ball rolling. If we need to expand (provided we stay focused on BLPs) we can. Thanks for participating.4meter4 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm just getting started and gathering the raw data should come before attempts to classify it. My current impression is that examples are easy to find and so it's just a matter of looking. I looked at the current DYK set and immediately found two examples which I have reported at WP:ERRORS. What happens there is usually quite haphazard so we'll see how it goes. These fresh examples indicates that DYK is paying no particular attention to whether the topic is a BLP or MEDRS matter. As these are both quite serious, the checklist or other processing templates should highlight these aspects for special scrutiny. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
These are instructive discussions, so here is a permanent link. There seems to be no general agreement as to what constitutes a "negative hook"; any attempts to outlaw these would require more precise language than "negative". Was the Andrew Tate hook negative? Or was it allowing him to advertise his misogynist agenda? Was it both? —Kusma (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The big problem with WP:ERRORS is that it's ephemeral and doesn't maintain archives or any kind of project files. That's why I record some completed discussions in my personal archives but just those that I took an interest in.
DYK keeps archives of its discussions and trawling through those with keywords like "BLP" will probably yield many more examples. As these issues are quite subjective, it may be good for DYK to keep a list of controversial cases, like it keeps a list of hooks which did well.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The issue raised with the Tate hook wasn't initially that it was simply negative per say, but that it's a quote taken out of context or otherwise over-inflated. The wording of such has since been changed after discussion on the talk page, from quoting "absolutely a misogynist", to the widespread attribution from RS of being a self-described misogynist see diff.
It seems plausible that this wouldn't of been such an issue (or an issue at all) if non-quoted wording would of been applied. Even if would of been a clearly negative hook, it would of been a lot more due based on widespread description from RS, unlike the quote in question. The article itself doesn't paint Tate is a good light (per weight of RS), so not convinced this is good advertising for him, quite the opposite. I highly doubt that people read the wikipedia page, or even the summary, and it inspires them to become a follower or fan. It's more likely to put people off him than anything else. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor: The context doesn't make it any better. He frames sexism as a privilege for wealthy men who can't be "canceled". He goes from the quote to saying sexism is realism and attempts to provide examples of where men should not trust women, like as pilots, surgeons, to build the Suez canal, etc. He goes on to say that there is "no such thing as an independent female". He has recently described his past comments as part of a persona rather than his actual beliefs, but reliable sources quote from this interview as reflective of his positions,[33][34] call him a self-described misogynist,[35][36], and quote Joe Mulhall from Hope Not Hate that he is attempting to "totally rewrite his own history".[37][38]

The reason I upset feminists so much is because the typical feminist tactic is to cancel somebody, right, to come at somebody and call a misogynist and call them all these things and then that person loses their career or they or they're slandered. You can't slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I'm absolutely a misogynist and I have fuck you money and you can't take it away so I'll say what i want because I'm a realist and when you're a realist, you're sexist. There's no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist. If you're about to get on a plane and that plane's gonna fly through a hurricane and there's a 50 50 chance of it crashing and dying do you want a male pilot or a female pilot?
— "Andrew Tate Tells His Life Story," Jun 20, 2021, 1:26:31

Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you somewhat missed my point here. I'm not arguing that the quote is out of context, I was referencing the initial issues raised with it being used at DKY (followed by at the BLP itself). I already argued that the quote is well within context on that article talk page as referenced. My point is that it was unnecessary and short-sighted to use the quote "absolutely a misogynist" that isn't widely referenced by RS, when the description of Tate as a "self-described misogynist" is referenced by several RS, per cite bundle. Then we don't need to argue over whether a quote is out of context or not, as we're not using it anymore. Notably ATG hasn't bothered to argue against attributing Tate to being "self-described as a misogynist" as a BLP vio, which is why I believe this controversy could have potentially been avoided, even with a negative hook. Hopefully that explains things better. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I did; thanks for the explanation, Rjjiii (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Since I've been busy lately and missed the start of this fracas, I'm wondering just how much objection to this hook there was? Was it confined to the thread at AN/I initiated by ATG, or was it broader? Because if the former, I would suggest that this issue has been blown right out of proportion as the community at large appears to have greeted it with a shrug. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There was additionally this query at WP:ERRORS (basically a question about sourcing and whether Tate saying he has been quoted out of context means that any quotes of what Tate has said are unreliable). Overall, I think the community did not care much until ATG saw it as an opportunity to insult DYKers. —Kusma (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have written an opening statement draft and added it above. If anyone cares to make suggestions on needed changes or possible improvements, let me know.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I boldly added a sentence to WP:DYKBLP which I regard as spelling out what that section was unsuccessfully trying to say, but was reverted by @Theleekycauldron:. That could be a good starting point.--Launchballer 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer That new language could be a proposal to make during the RFC after the question discussions have been answered. You should present that as an idea in response to question 3. I am intentionally not making specific proposals or offering specific solutions in the opening statement. The opening statement is meant to identify and describe the problem, and set up a structure for the community to discuss the problem in order to arrive at a consensus over what may be working and what needs fixing, followed by brainstorming solutions, etc. Proposals then should come out of that discussion.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"No BLP" rule

WITHDRAWN
Withdrawn by OP.--Launchballer 08:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Adding this here for discussion because Andy and others are trying to propose it, so I'm just anticipating their future proposal. I can't say that I really oppose or support it, but I think we should start discussing it now rather than later. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
It would certainly get rid of a lot of articles about minor sportspeople or opera performers. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
While BLP-related DYKs have clearly been amongst the most problematic, I'm not sure this is necessarily the best approach. To me, the underlying systemic issues are often more to do with the 'how' than the 'what' when it comes to DYKs. The problem lies in the process, more than the subject matter. Poor sourcing, poor judgement, and what appears to be an overwhelming concern to get something on the main page at any cost - even without proper agreement as to what - can happen with any topic. So yes, BLP-related material absolutely needs to be treated with great care, and if DYK can't do that, it shouldn't be permitted to, but that won't make the remaining problems go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
One of the biggest issues with DYK has always been the reluctance to reject nominations. We really should be more willing to do so if it's for a good reason (not necessarily BLP related), but most of us do not want to hurt editor feelings, and in several instances editors are reluctant to let their hooks be rejected without a fight. Indeed in some cases, nomination pages for articles that may not have been good fit for DYK ended up being longer than the article itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
As others have said, a blanket ban on BLPs on DYK will do more harm than good. Most BLP DYKs are uncontroversial and it would be overkill to throw the baby out of the bathwater, or to do something drastic just because of a few bad apples. It would be deeply unfair to ban DYKs just because of a handful of controversial cases, especially when in these cases the issues had more to do with a lack of proper enforcement of rules rather an issue with them being BLPs themselves. Banning BLPs should be an absolute last resort, not a first resort: instead we should focus on improving enforcement or trying other proposals like automatically timing-out stuck nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • This would be a sensible option in an omnibus RfC because it seems likely that some BLP-hawks might support it. The main complication is that almost any page is within the scope of BLP – not just biographies. The page just needs to involve living people in some way to qualify. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I sincerely hope a BLP topic ban isn't proposed. That seems a disproportionate response as the vast majority of hooks on BLPs are non-controversial. My hope is to see some limits placed on DYK in recognition of the challenges of meeting WP:BLPBALANCE within the DYK hook format. My own suggestion would be banning all negative hooks on BLPs. If we don't have something nice to say on a BLP we don't run it. It's as simple as that. A DYK hook doesn't have the space for contextualizing complex topics/controversies, displaying nuance, or providing balance within a single one sentence question.4meter4 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
    I would oppose your simple suggestion "banning all negative hooks on BLPs", unless there is also wording that bans BLPs primarily focused on negative information about the subject altogether. I do not want to see us making happy feel-good hooks about bad people because hooks that more accurately represent those people are banned. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
David Eppstein You are welcome to propose that, and I can sympathize with that position. It may have been better to not run a hook on Tate for example, for that reason. That said, I'm not as concerned with presenting positive facts about people as I am negative ones because the risk of doing harm is not as high. I also have reservations about that as a policy because it provides a subjective moral judgment element into the review process. It's usually easy to identify a negative hook about a BLP, and making that call doesn't require that we evaluate whether the person is good or bad. It's harder the other way, where we have to evaluate is this a good person and do they deserve to be featured at DYK? I could see a lot of POV pushing and politics motivated decision making coming into play on this latter one, and that is concerning. I'm open to hearing more on that idea, but I have reservations on endorsing that within a DYK guideline. I would have to hear specifics on what that process would look like and how we prevent personal biases and politically motivated editors from sinking a DYK nom that probably should run. We have several editors with vehemently opposed ideas on the Palestine/Israel conflict active at DYK for example. I could see politics easily sabotaging a nom on a living Palestinian or Isaeli under that guideline in a way that wouldn't sit well with many people on both sides of that issue; particularly with the global increase in both islamaphobia and anti-semitism. I could even see someone like Minouche Shafik being labeled a "bad person" for political reasons. The potential for abuse within such a policy is pretty high which worries me. It smacks a bit too close to cancel culture which is not something I want to see endorsed at DYK. 4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The risk of doing harm to the article subject may not not high. The risk of triggering readers and of discrediting the encyclopedia as a whole is much higher. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I oppose establishing any future restrictions. The system works fine now. --evrik (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I would also oppose any kind of BLP ban, if it came to that. Yes, this would theoretically solve some of the problems mentioned above, but it would also go overboard in that a large number of non-problematic BLPs would also be rejected (essentially, throwing the baby out with the bathwater). As mentioned by Andrew Davidson, such a ban could also be interpreted very broadly, to the extent that any article that talks about any living person might be subject to restrictions.
    I'd rather we try a much less drastic solution first. For example, perhaps we could allow reviewers to more easily reject BLP-violating hooks. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to anyone closing this thread. My purpose was to investigate the window of applicable and acceptable discourse on the proposed proscriptive approach to dealing with BLP issues on DYK. This small sample of community discussion shows that the range is narrow and that contrary to the opinions of others expressed elsewhere, there is little perceived support for a "No BLP" rule. While a larger sample may show otherwise, I want to thank those who participated. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Comment: Uh, wait, bring back that proposal. I absolutely support a BLP ban at DYK. In general I think DYK has a quality issue, which includes boring, promotional, and inappropriately negative hooks about living people. I mean, the boring issue spans a lot of topics. But yes, let's ban BLPs—they are often of very low quality, and generate too many issues. Zanahary (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Zanahary, you will need to address the specific objections up above to continue the discussion. Otherwise, it’s just going around in circles. Feel free to reopen the discussion as a new community-wide RFC if you can make a proposal that takes those objections into account and counters them. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think it is worth putting up "no BLPs" as a possible option in the RfC that is being drafted. I would certainly prefer this to a possible proposal of "all BLP related hooks must promote all of the BLPs in the hook" or "no BLP related hooks may contain content that can be perceived as negative". That said, I still believe the focus on BLPs is entirely misplaced and the whole premise of this discussion is wrong. The main issues of fact checking/policy compliance and sensationalism/neutrality affect all articles, and BLPs already tend to attract more scrutiny. —Kusma (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed. Zanahary, this is the best way forward. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • That "often" and "too many" are doing a lot of heavy lifting. I'd prefer to see statistics and examples. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. DYK has quality controls on the articles it promotes, so I think it would be impossible to successfully make the argument that BLPs featured at DYK are consistently of poor quality, promotional, and use "poor sourcing". We require inline citations throughout to reliable sources per WP:Verifiability standards, no copyright infringement, a reasonable level of completeness, neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, etc. Granted, many of them may be short and not at GA or FA standard, but they do tend to be much better than articles that don't go through some sort of submission process, and are usually better than those that go through draft review. I'm concerned that the comments here seem to be motivated not from a place of helpful critique, but derision of DYK, which to my mind is not the right attitude to have going into an RFC. If your goal is to discredit, dismantle. or damage DYK (which is what it sounds like when the hard work of hundreds of volunteers are dismissed as "poor", "boring" and "promotional") then it doesn't sound like you are coming into this with the desire to work with others and be collaborative. This is counter to the stated goal of the RFC, which is to assist DYK and its editors in doing its work as it relates to BLP policy.4meter4 (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
    For the record, I do agree with Zanahary that too many hooks are boring and promotional, but given the nature of open society (surprisingly, many people have a problem with this idea, particularly in the regressive era we are in now) I expect a certain number of hooks to be boring and promotional because we are part of a democratic tradition that allows these things to exist. I don't expect that comment will go over well with many people, but there is a lot of philosophy behind it, and not enough space to go into it here. Suffice it to say that I do not personally believe things like interestingness are entirely objective, and the promotional opportunity of the DYK space is difficult to completely close to all disciplines (people will always have new music, books, films, etc.) As for inappropriately negative hooks, I agree with others that I do not see this as a concern, but I understand and acknowledge that others do. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I can definitely understand those critiques, but I don't think they are related to the current problem being examined. "Interestingness" as a concept is subjective, and it isn't an issue that is BLP specific or related in any way to BLP policy. In general I find people who complain about being bored are in that state for reasons other than the actual "interestingness" of a particular topic. For example, I find almost all sports related hooks boring because I have almost no interest in professional or college sports. I therefore am intelligent enough to recognize when reviewing a sports hook that just because I find some piece of sports trivia boring, doesn't mean that it is in fact boring to other readers. In general, people with wider interests, and more curious minds tend to find more hooks interesting, and are less likely to complain of boredom.
As for promotion, that too is a wider topic not limited to BLPs. We have notability guidelines for products like films, books, etc. which aid us in minimizing promotion, and writing content is a way appropriate for an encyclopedia. For example Madame Web (2024) is a recent film which I don't think anyone could say we are promoting given the large number of negative opinions in the criticism section. Just because something is a product doesn't mean that it isn't encyclopedic or that its content is inherently promotional. I get that the proposed limitations being placed on BLPs in terms of negative content may impact issues of promotion and that will be a point raised at the RFC. I am expecting that. I would argue though, that we have a responsibility to place negative content on BLPs in context, and with appropriate nuance, for ethical reasons enshrined in BLP policy which is something that can't be done in a 200 character hook. I would also argue that not all non-negative hooks are inherently promotional (in fact most aren't). It's a false argument to state that they are, because many interesting verifiable facts are neither positive or negative and are entirely neutral and non-promotional. 4meter4 (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I laughed out loud when you brought up Madame Web. Made it through an agonizing five minutes and then had to turn it off. Did they intentionally try to make a bad film? It sure feels like it. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Questions

Is here the appropriate place where I can have input/tips/answers about questions? I wanted to nominate pansexuality in which "Did you know... Machado de Assis, a renowned Brazilian writer, was the first to use the term omnisexual, in 1878, ten years after Karl Maria Kertbeny coined homosexual and heterosexual?"

But it passed more than 7 days it was added to the article and omnisexuality is a redirect, not the main topic, and the term was coined before pansexual, not meaning a sexual orientation in original context. --MikutoH talk! 01:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the question? --evrik (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what the question is; it's not eligible for DYK as it's not a new article. Schwede66 01:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
But don't expansions count? --MikutoH talk! 01:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, expansion counts, but it has to be 5x in the past 7 days. Unless there's something going on that's not obvious from the history, this doesn't meet that. RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The other way to qualify for DYK is to become a good article. At a quick glance, this looks like it's already pretty close to meeting the requirements so that might be a route to take. RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh thanks for the tip. I will try to improve the history section eventually. --MikutoH talk! 02:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Today's mass-hook DYK, from WP:ERRORS

(Where gatekeeper Schwede66 won't let a simple discussion play out, per NOTBURO, especially one that might actually be on the verge of reaching a compromise.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)

Endorse Schwede66's decision. WP:ERRORS says No chit-chat. Lengthy discussions should be moved to a suitable location elsewhere, such as the talk page of the relevant article or project. It's standard practice that ERRORS is intended for quickly resolving clear mistakes, not debatable potential ones. The BURO leeway was already exhausted, especially when there's precedent, right or wrong, in a "hall of fame".—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I understand the reasoning for combining blurbs like this, but I also agree with the OP that this example is excessive. The blurb is unreadably long, the syntax and punctuation is difficult to follow, and the sheer number of bold links is overwhelming. This should have been split into two or three blurbs (in different sets). It's not worth changing now, but for future related sets DYK should have a maximum of maybe 3 or 4 bold links in one blurb. Modest Genius talk 11:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    I do think we should always reduce the overall number of hooks when we run an extra-long one and not run nine overall like today. We should perhaps try to make multi-hooks that are less of a wall of bold blue text. —Kusma (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    A messy blue muddle of Bf links that ignores the DYK ethos of grab the reader at a glance. Suggest sub with something readily readable. -- Sca (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed. We're supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia, and this is not representative of our best work.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • It's an absolute abomination. It will actively drive readers away who will see a mass of bold text that makes no sense combined. It's an outrageous way of treating the punter, and as as for MOS:ACCESS, can we not do slightly more than merely play lip service to those of our readers who are partially sighted? Of course, the early 21st-C. feral fanboy's desire to cram as much as possible onto the front page for gratification is easily recognizable, but WP:NAVEL, please. ——Serial Number 54129 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    Since there's an increasing consensus that this isn't a compliant hook, perhaps we should consider paring it down to just the first entry:
    Alt ... that the 2024 inductees to the Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame includes Jonathan Stoklosa (pictured), a man with Down syndrome who has lifted 425 pounds (193 kg)?
     — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    Speaking just personally, I think that's an excellent suggestion. While the Delaware Sports Hall of Fame is clearly a most notable event for the state, I'm not even sure we'd use this kind of mass blurb for something like the Kenneddy Assassination, and all things being equal, I think the two events are on slightly different magnitudes. ——Serial Number 54129 14:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    Please no. Anything but removing the vast majority of the entries – I put too much effort into this to see it pared down like that. Would removing the amount of blue in the hook be a better solution? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    I stopped caring about your opinion when you said "feral fanboy's desire". If you have a point, please make it without personal attacks (and I don't even know who you are attacking). —Kusma (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    BeanieFan11, for the record. Serial called Beanie a "feral fanboy" whose "desire to cram as much as possible onto the front page" was "easily recognizable". I'd agree, that's a personal attack. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The tone of the complaints are needlessly hostile, but I'm not sure why WP:SEAOFBLUE should not apply to DYK. Having as many bolded links as possible in a sentence just doesn't seem like something anybody should be aiming for anywhere on any website. Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame is a hall of shame if you ask me. Levivich (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the length of the links (more than their number) is what causes the issue here. (Compare Wikipedia:Did you know/Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame for other examples). "Try to keep bolded links short in multi-article nominations" would be my suggestion for the future. —Kusma (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Will be away for some of today, but I could try to develop another version with less blue if necessary. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the folks that worked on this did manage to avoid violating the letter of SOB (after some discussion above at #Jonathan Stoklosa. In spirit, I think we all agree that tightly packed blue links are worse than well-spaced-out ones, but I see it as something that will recur in many main page sections (ITN, OTD) due to the brevity requirements. I think the value of multi-hooks—highlighting DYK-quality work without flooding the MP with closely-related items—outweighs the negatives.
I would appreciate hearing more about the accessibility concerns; I have some basic familiarity with the ways in which color and bold formatting affect accessibility, but I haven't encountered advice to avoid clusters of links. Open to changing my mind on this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers, I think the main accessibility issue is tap target size on touchscreen devices. Inline links are an exception to tap target minimum settings because they generally need to match the size of the text. If you have one link here and one link there, that usually isn't an accessibility problem because it's still difficult to tap the wrong thing. But if you slap a bunch of links (especially long ones) into the same paragraph, people with dexterity issues and related challenges cannot as easily tap the specific link they want to follow. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for responding, IF! I had been prompted to consider accessibility for the visually impaired, so I hadn't considered—and am grateful to now be considering—the issue as it pertains to fine motor skills. I would suggest that such an accessibility concern needs wider evaluation, since tightly packed links are not at all limited to multi-link DYK hooks. For examples, see the current OTD section or the lead of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, currently today's featured article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight. It'd be worthwhile to get that nuance into MOS:SEAOFBLUE. A number of times I see reverts to the effect of "it's not that much blue", the thinking being that it's purely a visual issue. —Bagumba (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I've proposed some additional language about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Multiple links and touchscreen navigation. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there other existing guidance for multiple-link hooks aside from WP:DYK200?

For articles with multiple boldlinks, text in boldlinks after the first do not count toward the limit

—Bagumba (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of hyperbole here. The multiple hook DYK is a long-standing practice. We need to step back and change the policy if people are unhappy. Right now, It's just a couple of people. --evrik (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Pointing out that the final version of the hook with more text out of the links came in at 291 prose characters with the bold links after the first excluded from the count, far more than DYK will allow. I suspect it's why the links were made so long: to get under 200 prose characters excluding bold links after the first. I think avoiding WP:SEAOFBLUE is important, because it's easier to read and to deal with; with the bolding it rather feels like one is being shouted at. Something to think about for future multi hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
If the consensus is that the main objective is to encourage content creation by offering an easier process to nominate en masse, then so be it. But let's not pretend that the average reader probably doesn't find the hooks to be long-winded and bizarre to view with their wave of bolded blue. —Bagumba (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah, very good point about that technicality, BlueMoonset. Ah well, we didn't add any real content (everything was already there), but I sure had not considered the prose count. Sorry for that. Sometimes, you can't win. Schwede66 04:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
An IAR technicality: the displayed wording remained the same, only the piping change. But just because DYK rules didnt count the text before doesn't mean the hook wasn't already equally long to the reader. —Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't mind multiple hooks, that's not really what I meant when I brought this up. It was the fact that the bold blue text was immediately noticeable and distracting the second I opened the main page. There's not a real purpose for this many links, even the nominator admits to trying to make it to the Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame. Making things ugly and inaccessible for the novelty of it is not a good practice even if it's a long-standing one. wound theology◈ 06:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The question would be how to objectively control it from becoming "ugly and inaccessible"? —Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Or whether that's a bigger problem than not having the articles at all, as I suspect would have been the case if BeanieFan declined to attempt this on the grounds of ugliness. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The whole point of the multiple hooks is to create something different, something to catch the eye. Looking at the comments above, this was successful. --evrik (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
even the nominator admits to trying to make it to the Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame. Making things ugly and inaccessible for the novelty of it is not a good practice – I never said that? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Now for the statistics: 45,000 views total, by far my best DYK viewership performance ever (and ~3 times my previous best). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    So... it's about getting a page view WP:HIGHSCORE? The reason it got 45k is because that's the sum of 9 articles. The power lifter with Down syndrome got 20k of that 45k; the other 8 got between 1 and 5k, which is average, right? Btw: if the power lifter article had his own hook, would it have gotten more than 20k? If the other 8 had their own hook, would they have received more than 1-5k each? I suppose we'll never know, but I think so; I don't think they'd have received any less than 1-5k if they were on their own.
    If the goal is to bring maximum attention to the articles, I don't think that goal was served by combining them instead of letting them have their own hooks.
    But if the goal is to make it onto a leaderboard...good job? Levivich (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Not about getting "high scores"; but it does prove that some of the statements above such as that 'no one would read past the first line' and that It will actively drive readers away who will see a mass of bold text that makes no sense combined were clearly not true. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    No it doesn't. The first link got 20k and the rest got 1-5k. That supports the argument that no one will read past the first line. The first link got almost half of the total views; the other 8 got below average or average views. Combining the hooks did not increase page views, and possibly decreased them (for 8 out of 9). Levivich (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) The first link was already the most interesting IMO; not to mention that a number of the other hooks would likely not have been featured otherwise. I don't think the alternative – having nine separate DYK hooks on similar subjects all in a short timeframe – would have been better. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Why would they likely not have been featured otherwise, and why would they have had to be run in a short timeframe? Levivich (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    What would the hooks for, e.g. Van Sickle and Levine have been? They wouldn't have to be run a short timeframe, but since they were all created at around the same time it would require intentionally waiting timespans before promoting, more work, etc. – Just having the multi-hook on the day they were inducted was a better option in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Van Sickle: DYK... that UNC's "popsicle" was a 3-time MVP? (Or: ...that UNC named its Defender of the Year award after its star "popsicle"? Or any number of variations on that theme.)
    Levine: DYK... that a "fall-down comic" won a gold medal on the balance beam? (Not currently in the article but source-able to ref 1.)
    No intentional waiting had to happen; these could have been nom's separately and the hooks added to separate preps/queues. They could have been combined into two or three multi-hook hooks (instead of one 9-hook hook). Lots of possibilities for how these could have gotten to DYK; a 9-hook hook wasn't a requirement here.
    Those two articles got like 1500 views each. I bet my hooks above would have beat that. We could test it out by IARing and running those two hooks tomorrow :-) Levivich (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    But would you be in a hall of fame ;-) —Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    "no one" is just hyperbole in this culture of trying to "win" debates. —Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think all this nattering about "the other articles deserved better" is sort of missing the point—if it hadn't been for this nomination, they wouldn't exist. Which would you rather have? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Please natter about why these articles wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for this nom, because I think that's a false choice. Levivich (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

List of pulled hooks

I think 4meter4 is right that the first step towards reform is the collection of data. One of DYK's problems, it seems to me, is that it has no institutional memory. Yesterday's errors are literally wiped from the record each morning. Any time serious concerns are raised, there's always someone to characterise the situation as a one-off event, a statistical anomaly. And it may well appear that way to each individual editor, but that's only because there are no logs kept that might provide a bigger-picture view.

As just one data point, then, I've revived a long-defunct process and created Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed/2023–24, which lists all the hooks that have been pulled from the Main Page in the past year and a half. Hopefully some among you will find it useful. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your preliminary results lend weight to Kusma's hypothesis up above, namely that BLP is incidental and not the issue. It also shows that the main problem is basic fact checking, not NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that. BLP violations are the most harmful manifestation of the problem, so I understand why some want to focus on that specifically, but the question to be asking is not what kind of hooks are appropriate, but why bad hooks get through. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
An uncomfortable part of that question is "who lets bad hooks through?", which would need to be compared to the reviewer/prep builder/promoter's overall output (looking at hooks pulled from prep or queue by admins would also be interesting and give a larger sample size). Another question to ask is what kind of error rate (and what type of errors) are acceptable. All kinds of websites, be it newspapers or encyclopaedias, get things wrong occasionally, for some value of "occasionally". —Kusma (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I saw someone somewhere on the project said that an issue they saw was that we have no coordinator; like nobody is captain of the ship so everyone is trying to steer. Another issue someone raised somewhere (sorry to many discussions going) is that we have up to 18 separate hooks promoted a day and no other other main page project does that. So many individual hooks, articles and sources to check. Also every article is from anywhere in the world and on every subject imaginable from cartoons to cartographers. At errors editors are sometimes not pinged. Errors has no archive as Sojourner in the earth has said, any errors are literally wiped from the record each morning.
Maybe we go back to 8 hooks or 7 seven. If we worry about filling empty space we could promote two image hooks? I am just highlighting a few observations that can help explain slips and maybe a way to slow us down. I have previously highlighted that we are either sprinting (two sets a day) or walking (one set a day). We never jog and the eighteen hour set idea is always waved off as not a viable option. Bruxton (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
A few observations and thoughts:
  • Even good publishers make errors. Our goal can't be zero errors, or it becomes unachievable and folks walk away.
  • A list of pulled hooks is a great idea. Is there any way we could automate that so it just happens?
  • Are DYK noms more or less likely to violate a policy or guideline? At a glance, it seems they are less likely to be bogus but more likely to be scrutinized. DYK nominations are at the very least more heavily cited than the average article. For all the problems the process may have, it would never, for example, pass the largely uncited gang articles like Simon City Royals or Spanish Cobras to the main page.
  • When building preps, I encounter approved nominations with issues. I usually leave some kind of comment and move on. Is that the norm? This seems like a great place to introduce scrutiny.
  • Template:DYK symbol list and the nomination header offers several options to tag comments ranging from approving to rejecting the hook. Could we come up with some kind of alternative to and ? These are used to indicate issues that don't fail the nomination but require work on the article or clarification. Could we have one for more serious issues () or change how is treated. I'm thinking of something that could flag major issues on a nomination that will somehow autofail it if not addressed within a week.
  • I don't think this is BLP-specific or editor-specific issue. Check out the nominations and reviews from a prolific editor who was blocked for ongoing plagiarism:[39]
Rjjiii (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I do not think a coordinator is the way to go. We need more people to take some responsibility, not a few people with more responsibility. We need better QPQ reviews, and we need to either (a) make it easy and common for prep builders to send noms back for further review and discussion or (b) automatically time out and reject hooks that multiple prep builders have not used although given the opportunity.
At all stages, it needs to be easier to reject hooks, and rejections should be more common. —Kusma (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Making it easier to reject nominations is almost a perennial proposal for DYK but it never happens because editors don't want to hurt other editors' feelings. Understandable but one can argue that this sentiment is doing more harm than good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
That is why I am advocating for time-out rules: instead of having one editor explicitly reject a nomination (at whatever stage), the DYK community would collectively reject a nom by not processing it and just waiting for it to time out. I would like for us to not spend ages arguing over questionable hooks, but have an option to give up on a nom. —Kusma (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea; if a hook nom is just not getting any attention one way or the other (beyond perhaps QPQ) then maybe that's a sign it's not meant for the main page. JoelleJay (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Kusma at the moment, the top nomination at WP:DYKNA has been sitting there for ten days; I haven't promoted it because I don't feel it meets standards, the nominator disagrees, and I think other promoters concur with me. It was nominated on February 28, and has been twice pulled from prep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Yes, that is an unreasonable amount of time for a DYK nom to linger, I have closed as rejected. I suggest to make such time outs the norm and not an exception. —Kusma (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
+1 Valereee (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

...[W]e have up to 18 separate hooks promoted a day and no other main page project does that. So many individual hooks, articles and sources to check. Also every article is from anywhere in the world and on every subject imaginable from cartoons to cartographers.

This is the Fundamental DYK Problem. Wikipedia doesn't have the human resources necessary to vet that many hooks every day in such a wide variety of topic areas. Until this problem is addressed, any other reforms are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Maybe we go back to 8 hooks or 7 seven.

That's still too many for the available resources, but it would be a significant step toward reducing errors, perhaps by half.
The way to fix this is to use evidence-based decision-making; i.e. objectively measure performance, and then appropriately throttle the system so the number of hooks is not more than the review system can handle. Set key performance indicators (KPIs) like "all queues and all preps should be filled at all times," and "99% WP:ERRORS-free," i.e., less than 1 out of 100 "bad" hooks get through. (Maybe shoot for 99.9%, or 1/1,000.) So cut down the number of hooks drastically to something like 5 per day and run it for two weeks or a month to make sure DYK hits those KPIs (all queues and preps filled every day; less than 1% bad hooks get through), then increase it to 6/day, then 7/day, etc., until KPIs start slipping, and then we'll know how many hooks DYK can have while still hitting its KPIs. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
According to the data above, our "pulled at ERRORS" rate is something like 5/1000. But DYK is more than its error rate; it also aims for audience engagement (can be measured by clickthrough rates) and to encourage Wikipedians to create more new articles of a minimum standard (harder to measure). —Kusma (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Good point, click thru (reader engagement) and "more first-time noms than last month" (editor engagement) could be KPIs. Levivich (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Reducing editor time wasted arguing with each other would be a better one. —Kusma (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
That would also improve if the volume did not exceed capacity as it currently does. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Considering that we only switched to nine-hook sets two months ago (i.e. before all but the top four hooks in that removed list) I highly doubt that errors would be reduced by half if we reduced the number of hooks. But that's not all, because between 26 March–15 April we were running 12-hour sets (i.e. 18 (!) hooks per day) and that period had 0 hooks pulled. That's one hell of a performance indicator. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
That's great, but it's also three weeks, which is a small sample size. When I say errors reduced by half, I'm thinking over the course of like a year. And I didn't mean WP:ERRORS, I meant all errors, including those caught at the queue, prep, and nom levels. Levivich (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Figuring out how many of those we have in a year is a rather massive research project. I am not sure it is worth any DYK volunteer time (a rather limited resource). —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not a research project at all, unless you're talking about past error rate, and past error rate data would be of little use going forward. However, tracking errors going forward, on an ongoing basis, would be a good use of time, as would reviewing the data on a regular basis, and making adjustments to the process as needed. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier to just write a monthly "error report" and scrape the data every 30 days? Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the kind of ongoing error tracking I had in mind. Levivich (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Are all the errors reported in one place? It looks like they are split between ERRORS and this talk page. Viriditas (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Idk but some (most?) errors caught by prep and queue builders are probably just dealt with on the nom pages and don't get reported anywhere else. Levivich (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
It should be expected that errors will be caught in prep, that's part of the process. But if a system is developed to track pulls from the Main Page, it should also include pulls from queue. Hooks in the queue have already been signed off by three reviewers and the rest is left to the bot, so it's a sheer fluke if someone spots an error in the queue before it hits the Main Page. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
We need more eyes on the queues. Or improve the quality and independence of the three reviews. (I would prefer a system with two thorough and dependable reviews to three sloppy ones). —Kusma (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Re: An uncomfortable part of that question is "who lets bad hooks through?" is indeed uncomfortable, but maybe it needs to be faced. I hate to do anything that makes it less appealing to do the work, and I wouldn't want to handle it in a way that shamed people, but it's actually valuable feedback to those who are letting errors through because it allows us to learn and adjust. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Wow, great work, @Sojourner in the earth, thank you for pulling that together.
Given that there were only two hooks pulled for BLP vios in nearly a year and a half, maybe a simple solution would be that all hooks with any negative content about a BLP, target or not require a discussion here plus notification of that discussion at WP:BLPN? That wouldn't seem like it would overburden anyone, and it would help alleviate non-regulars' concerns that DYK is a walled garden. Valereee (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: If we want a BLP-focussed approach, we could explicitly put a "BLP compliance check" into the nom template and force reviewers to comment on any BLP aspects, no matter whether the article is a biography or not; such a check could possibly involve BLPN if there is any doubt. I do not think "negative" is the right focus, though. Consider the very fresh I'm really excited about the opening of Tuen Ma line (nom): nothing about the hook is negative, but there is a possibility that further wide dissemination of this meme will lead to more harrassment of an autistic young man. I am mentioning this here because protecting people from unintended meme attention is part of the early history and the DNA of BLP as much as the Seigenthaler incident was: Jimbo legendarily unilaterally deleted Brian Peppers (see List of Internet phenomena if you do not know about him) back in 2006, and the real name of the Star Wars Kid was kept out of the article for many years. —Kusma (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. Valereee (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
And re: Tuen Ma. @S5A-0043, I'm kind of thinking the same as Kusma. This kid has been doxxed, had his phone number posted online, and had to shut down his Facebook. I'm a bit uncomfortable about the article, even. Valereee (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I made a comment at the nom page. Perhaps the article should just be merged into Tuen Ma line, but I do not know enough about current Hong Kong internet trends to know whether the meme is notable enough for a standalone article. —Kusma (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this is the right approach. DYK has often been criticized for excessive bureaucracy, needing to involve an entirely different board for theoretically multiple nominations a month would just add to the right approach. The issue has always been more of quality assurance and enforcement rather than our processes themselves. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
We've had two pulled in the past year and a half, and then this Tate one that wasn't pulled but started this whole discussion. Are you saying we're running multiple negative BLPs a month that aren't generating opposition? Valereee (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
No, I was thinking we can just do our regular processes. A WT:DYK discussion is sensible and probably even encouraged. Involving BLPN, especially making it mandatory, seems overkill. At most it could be considered an option but more of a case-by-case thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
We're criticized for bureaucracy, and we're criticized for lack of transparency. Personally I'd rather increase the transparency, even at the expense of more bureaucracy. Honestly we can't even get people to ping nominators when they raise a question here or make a change in prep, even though we've repeatedly begged them to do so. BEGGED. Some just won't do it, for whatever reason. Should we start nagging, to which they can respond, "I'm not actually required to do that"? Is that better than simply making a rule?
It's our regular processes that those not involved in them are criticizing. We keep saying we need to increase quality assurance and enforcement, but we repeatedly exhibit reluctance to do it because we might hurt a nominator's feelings or have people think their work reviewing/promoting has been wasted.
I think notifying BLPN of discussions of BLPs that may be of interest to them would help make our processes, which often seem opaque even to regular nominators, seem less so. It might help with the perception the project is a walled garden, which would be a positive. And it's a pretty small job to open a section at BLPN and place a link. I feel like bringing the Tate to the attention of BLPN would have prevented a lot of drama. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if it helps, but I've copied a couple of sentences from WP:DYKTRIM to Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Did you know/Preparation area.--Launchballer 17:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I've added the subpage to the archive navigation links at the top of this page.[40] If there's an issue with that, I feel fine with removing it but think we should have some clear link to this.
Regarding a way to timeout nominations, what is preferred between:
  1. All nominations time out beyond a certain limit (2 months?).
  2. Approved nominations time out beyond a certain limit if not promoted (x weeks?).
  3. Nominations time out if flagged with errors beyond a certain limit (2 weeks?).
Rjjiii (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
All three for me. —Kusma (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders oddly showing Joanne McCarthy (basketball) as lowest

Joanne McCarthy (basketball) ran on at DYK from 00:00 to 19:56, May 7, 2024 (7208 pageviews) and 20:08, May 9, 2024 to 00:00, May 10, 2024 (1777 pageviews). So in 23:48 it had 8985 pageviews. It is listed only for the second run, but as if the second run was 24 hours with some sort of adjustment making her pageviews 1303 with an average pageview of 1303/24=54.3, which is the lowest of the month at both Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly summary statistics and Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders. Can this be fixed somehow?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Moved it on pageview leaders, although I don't really understand summary statistics.--Launchballer 13:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: The bot seems to have undone our edits.--Launchballer 11:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
It looks like User:GalliumBot is run by user:theleekycauldron, who frequents this page. Hopefully, she checks in and can offer some advice.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Gyōji

@OtharLuin, Evrik, and AirshipJungleman29:

  • ... that since 2022, gyōji can be seen wearing Pokémon-inspired kimonos (example pictured) in the ring to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Pokémon Red and Blue?

The above hook implies with the phrase "since 2022" that the Gyoji are wearing the Pokemon-inspired kimonos today, in 2024. However, the article implies that the kimonos were only worn in 2022. Can this be clarified in the article, or should the word "since" in the hook be changed to "in"? Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Evrik: Can this be more explicitly stated in the article, with an accompanying source? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to have to pass this along to @OtharLuin:. --evrik (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720 and Evrik: another source by Waraku Magazine [ja]. I'm adding it to the original article. - OtharLuin (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Boyz Unlimited

@PrimalMustelid, Launchballer, and B3251: We might want to include "has been called" in the hook, but perhaps the fact that it's in quotes is good enough. Other opinions welcome. RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I say leave it out. The quotes make it quite clear it's not wikivoice and the hook is snappier without it.--Launchballer 21:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Le Touquet

@Launchballer, Szmenderowiecki, and Evrik: The article says "tens of thousands of mines", which isn't the same as "about 100,000" stated in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

fix ping RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I see about 100,000 in the lede. --evrik (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
That's because I just changed it.--Launchballer 21:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Next problem is that the statement needs a citation. RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Cited in body, last sentence of Wartime destruction.--Launchballer 22:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived several hours ago, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 13. We have a total of 218 nominations, of which 93 have been approved, a gap of 125 nominations that has increased by 10 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud

@Cadenrock1, Evrik, and PrimalMustelid:

While "Control" is the first song listed in the article, I could not find in the article where it explicitly states that it started with "Control", and the GQ source used in the DYK nomination suggests that the feud started with "Like That". Can this be clarified?

Also, the following sentence needs a citation: "It also mocks Lamar's short stature of 5 feet 5 inches (1.65 meters)." Z1720 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  • @Z1720: This is what GQ says, "but the collaborative vibes stopped a year later, after Drake was one of the many peers Kendrick named in his timeline-stopping, call-to-arms verse on Big Sean’s “Control." I think that should be good enough to let this go forward. --evrik (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The whole article is a bit of a BLP issue, full with accusations of crime and other misdeeds. —Kusma (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Kusma: and others: do you think the article should be pulled because of this concern? Z1720 (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd say it would send Errors into overdrive. Schwede66 03:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
No. It describes a messy feud. It is well-written. It's no worse than the feud itself. ;-) --evrik (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I posted a note at ERRORS, hopefully this can be resolved before it reaches the Main Page, to avoid the concerns experienced the past few days. Z1720 (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Now you're starting a beef. --evrik (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
One can only be thankful that WP wasn't around in the 90s. You'd probably have articles for every single two artists involved in the East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry, instead of just one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Given the massive page views this already has (why??), it probably makes no difference either from a "causing harm" or from an "advertising" perspective whether we run this or not. —Kusma (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The Skeptical Environmentalist

@Arcahaeoindris, Sdkb, and PrimalMustelid:

The following text in the article is a quote, but does not have a citation:

  • "Lomborg designated the report "one of the best-researched and academically most ambitious environmental policy publications," but criticized it for using short-term trends to predict disastrous consequences, in cases where long-term trends would not support the same conclusions."

Also, the following needs a citation:

  • "The charges stated that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation."

These will need to be cited before the article goes on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Joel Breman and St. Trinitatis should probably be swapped, as there are two adjacent bios in this set.--Launchballer 22:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Swapped them. Schwede66 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Elizabeth Storie

@Lijil, Discott, Sohom Datta, and AirshipJungleman29:

There are a couple sentences that need citations, which I have indicated in the article with citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Should be fixed now? Sohom (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Citation issue has been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding BBL Drizzy (BLP) (resolved)

Issue is resolved. Details at nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/BBL Drizzy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The approved hook for BBL Drizzy highlights "rumors accusing Canadian rapper Drake of receiving buttock augmentation surgery".(link) This is probably fine within the article, but as a standalone hook on the mainpage may violate WP:BLPGOSSIP. There are other aspects of the track (contest, "AI") that could be used for a hook. Pinging nominator Liance and reviewer AryKun. Rjjiii (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Lunch (song)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lunch (song)

@User:Launchballer@User:PSA@User:Prince of Erebor

Currently in prep 7. Hook doesn't appear to be neutral. If I'm reading the sources correctly Eilish is rejecting the term outing which the hook uses.©Geni (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

My reading of the sources is that Eilish is objecting to actually being outed; if she had a problem with the term, she wouldn't have used it in the Instagram post mentioned in the Background section.--Launchballer 14:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
From what I read in the source [41], she said "i like boys and girls leave me alone about it please literally who cares." so I am not sure focussing on her sexuality (instead of on the song) is appropriate for the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
"... that Billie Eilish included a song about lesbian sex on her third album?"--Launchballer 14:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Not very hooky but its really up to @User:PSA in terms of what they want to do.©Geni (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer @Kusma @Geni: ... that Billie Eilish included a song about lesbian sex on her third album after gradually becoming more public about her sapphism? PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 02:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I prefer Launchballer's version because it does not talk about Eilish's sexuality in the hook. —Kusma (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
From the gay times article "Eilish also criticised the notion that a person has to ‘come out’ as queer" I read that has Eilish rejecting the term.©Geni (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
It's more like "no one has to feel pressured to tell people theyre LGBT" to me. not necessarily a rejection of the concept PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 08:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Well perhaps. In practice Z1720 aproved the hook some time ago so its all moot at this point.©Geni (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Lunch (song)

Prep 1

Yuba County Library

@Evrik, BeanieFan11, and Bruxton: can I query the hook

I think this is misleading as, according to the source, the 1906 building was Marysville City Library when built, not Yuba County Library or Yuba County's library. Also the 1906 building has its own article, the Packard Library. TSventon (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Misleading? The Marysville Library was the organization that became the Yuba County Library, and it was housed in the building known as the Packard Library. Have any alternates? --evrik (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I would pipe to Marysville City Library rather than Yuba County's library. TSventon (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
That entity does not exist [42]. The Marysville Library was the organization that became the Yuba County Library. --evrik (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a hand with Gravity Blanket

Hi all! Ironic that I am requesting a hand with an immutable force, but alas here we are. Wondering if I could get an (anti-gravity?) hand with promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Gravity Blanket? Ideally I would want to get it up on May 31st as is discussed on the nomination page. Thank you! TheSandDoctor Talk 00:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is an appropriate special occasion request, since the date is related to Pizza Hut's founding, not Gravity Blanket itself. I've also noted this on the nomination page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Prep 2

Qin Huasun

@SL93, Toadboy123, and Launchballer: I'm having trouble seeing how this meets WP:DYKINT China vetos stuff at the UN; how is this "unusual or intriguing"? RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure. But like at least half of DYK, it's not one of my interests. SL93 (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith Prior to 2011, China's vetoes in the UNSC were rare and only four times were it used prior to the start of the 21st century. Since the mentioned vetoes were related to sending peacekeeping troops, it might be interesting as the users would look into the article to see why the peacekeeping resolutions were vetoed. Toadboy123 (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
DYKINT says "The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". If you have to know the history of how China voted historically for this to be interesting, it doesn't meet that. RoySmith (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith I can pull it for further discussion. SL93 (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
That works for me. RoySmith (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Now done. SL93 (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I tried to find an alternate hook for the article but I can't. In that case, you can terminate this hook. Toadboy123 (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Surely, there must be a hook in United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Toadboy123. Schwede66 19:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I have already closed the nom, but something like ... that the Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations Qin Huasun termed the United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade "barbarian"?--Launchballer 19:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
How about:
... that Qin Huasun criticized Taiwan's bid to join the United Nations as a "brazen attempt ... aimed at splitting a sovereign state"? although https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/240758/files/A_52_255-EN.pdf would probably be a better source for that than what's there now. RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm getting 502 on the PDF, and I'd lose "aimed" for concision.--Launchballer 21:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The link works for me. It does confirm the quote. Schwede66 00:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with dropping the "aimed". In fact, it's better that way. RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
In that case, we can bring back the nomination of the article? Toadboy123 (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Peale's Philadelphia Museum

@PrimalMustelid, TSventon, and Voorts: This is another image that doesn't work well. It's a complicated composition, dark, and low contrast, all of which makes it difficult to make out what it is. RoySmith (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Would File:Working_sketch_of_the_mastodon_rembrandt_peale_(cropped).jpg work better? TSventon (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that would be perfect! RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and put that in place. RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
And, purely accidental, but I'm amused by the juxtaposition of the Mastodon skeleton and my Tad's Steaks hook :-) RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6

Looking ahead a bit, I don't think File:Benjamin Tanner - The Burning of the Theatre in Richmond, Virginia, 1811.jpg works as a image; it's barely recognizable in small size. Is there a better image we could use? RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith I promoted it with the image, and I'm fine with it not receiving an image slot. Pinging 4meter4 as nominator. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the image works well personally.4meter4 (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I think it is rather dull/muted and busy. Bruxton (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I just noticed that there are two theatre hooks from 4meter4 in the set. That will need to be fixed. Along with two sports hooks from BeanieFan. SL93 (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Kicked both back to prep 3.--Launchballer 11:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer I'm a bit disappointed that the Richmond Theatre (Richmond, Virginia) article, which is substantial and took a tremendous amount of work to write, and is probably one of my best submissions of all time, is now buried somewhere down at the bottom where its now likely to get ignored after it was originally promoted to the featured spot. I also find the board game image to be worse than the theatre image in terms of clarity. I can't make out the image without getting my face extremely close up to my computer screen, which is not something I had to do for the theatre image. If our objections are recognizability, this image wasn't an improvement. 4meter4 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that your image is fine and easy to see with my glasses on. I mostly chose the board game image because that spot needs a non-bio image and there are very few. I would like to swap it out for the painting because I don't find it barely recognizable. I was initially fine with leaving it out just because I didn't feel like arguing over an image.SL93 (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4: Pings don't work without a signature. I can tell you that when multiple different editors are saying 'it shouldn't be in that exact slot' for multiple different reasons, then it should probably be moved. Prep 3 should probably have a bio image, so I moved the hook to the second slot anyway.--Launchballer 07:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I've swapped in a better image for the Ur board. RoySmith (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Set balance

There are currently two adjacent bios in queue 2, Peggy Pond Church and Bob Noel. This can be solved by moving Boyz Unlimited between them; two Green Bay Packers hooks in one set is technically compliant with WP:DYKVAR but I'm noting this anyway. More seriously, however, is that there are six American hooks in queue 3, in two blocks of three. Queue 1 has one American hook, two if you count "an 18th-century hymn" (the hook for which may well invoke an American president, but the poem itself was written by an English poet). One solution is to swap Giovanni Manu and North West (with a revised hook per #North West (rapper)) and Giovanni Manu with Evgeniia Subbotina and I Gusti Ngurah Jaya Negara, and then swapping Boroline with "an $8,000 antique".--Launchballer 18:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't edit sets. If I wasn't making so many unforced errors I'd run.--Launchballer 19:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Philomena Franz

@Lajmmoore, AirshipJungleman29, and Launchballer: I'm having trouble verifying the hook fact. The source talks about her various experiences, and says that she wrote an autobiography, but doesn't explicitly say that those experiences are covered in her book. It's reasonable to assume they are, but that's not what the source actually says. RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello @RoySmith - thanks for picking this up de:Zwischen Liebe und Hass describes the plot of book, and that it includes these things. Of course that can't be used as a reference to the page, but can the book itself be the reference? I left it out initially Lajmmoore (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with our sourcing rules when it comes to book plots, so I'll leave that to somebody else to answer. RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Plot sections about fiction are generally exempt from our guidelines on sourcing, but this is not the case for nonfiction books. If the hook is from the autobiography itself, I guess simply citing the book itself and the page number would be enough. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Live into 85

@AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, and Sammi Brie: The article says "sexually assaulted", which got turned into "groped" in the hook. Not quite the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Didn't think there was a difference, but the source says "groped", so I've adjusted the article.--Launchballer 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
One is a subset of the other. Thanks for the adjustment. RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, @Launchballer, @Sammi Brie, @RoySmith -- the hook is
Moone is still alive. I think we need a discussion about negative content in a BLP, here. It's in Queue 1, which is up next. Valereee (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I had a similar thought when I reviewed this, but decided it was adequately sourced so OK. However, if somebody else is also thinking it's a problem, then it's a problem and needs to get fixed or pulled. RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
... that the Hogmanay special Live into 85 was sufficiently shambolic for the BBC to promise that the following year's offering would be free from bagpipes, accordions, and kilts?
... that the Hogmanay special Live into 85 was so shambolic that it ended a 32-year tradition?--Launchballer 14:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I've swapped to P4. Valereee (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
It's in prep 2, and right now queue 1 has three adjacent bios.--Launchballer 14:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the second of those hooks works well, if anyone wants to slip it in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Note that the hook is now in a different prep area, as there was a TV hook, a film hook, and a theatre hook in prep 2.--Launchballer 15:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I've replaced with the hook suggested by Launchballer, approved by AJ29. Anyone should feel free to check my work, been a long day. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Amie Parnes

@Launchballer, Juxlos, and Pac-Man PHD: This is a WP:BLP citing tweets for biographical information. That's pretty dubious. Surely some better sources could be found? RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Both uses (birthdate and birthplace) comply with WP:ABOUTSELF.--Launchballer 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
One tweet says "There are a million of those on Calle Ocho. I was born here :)", the other, "For my covid birthday today, I’m putting on a fresh pair of pants." I don't see how those support the stated facts. RoySmith (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so I just checked the Calle Ocho tweet, and 'here' appears to be a reply to another tweet, which isn't there any more. I've taken it out. "April 15" refers to "today" on a tweet posted on 15 April, and the other source gives her age as 35 in October 2013, which is permissible per WP:CALC.--Launchballer 20:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Are we supposed to assume that "covid birthday" means "actual birthday during covid lockdowns"? It could and maybe even likely does mean that but this medium is so terse and fluid that it's hard to be sure. Also, when I view the tweet, I see its date as "5:33 AM · Apr 15, 2020". Do we know what time zone it was when it was posted? Do we know whether that's the same as the time zone shown? Do we know whether the poster thought of that time as being late at night on one day or early in the morning on the next day? That's why we need better sources for this sort of thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Or "covid birthday" could be "the anniversary of when I got covid". I see https://wikibiography.in/amie-parnes-wiki-bio/ says "15th of April 1977", as does https://www.marathi.tv/amie-parnes/. https://wikinetworth.com/politician/amie-parnes-wiki-bio-age-married-husband-education.html says April 19. I don't count any of those as WP:RS, but neither do I count guessing what some tweet really means to be a RS. I agree with David; we need better sourcing for this. RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Cut, and merged the rest of that section per WP:OVERSECTION. It won't mean "anniversary of when I got COVID" as it wasn't really a thing in April 2019.--Launchballer 21:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Olga Lander

@AirshipJungleman29, Mary Mark Ockerbloom, and Gerda Arendt: There's no reason to convert 50mm to inches; lens focal lengths are universally quoted in mm, even in technological backwaters like the US which uses freedom units. But more than that, this fails WP:DYKINT; only somebody who knows photography would understand the implications of a 50 mm lens on subject distance, and even then, I had to go on a scavenger hunt to learn that the camera she was using was 35 mm film; only with that information does the 50 mm focal length gain the required context. So, let me suggest:

  • ... that Olga Lander's camera required her to work close to the dangerous wartime subjects she photographed?

Leaving out the details about the lens makes the hook snappier, and creates some mystery to entice the reader to click though to find out what it was about the camera that imposed this requirement. And finally, as much as I hate to say this, I don't think that image works for us. Low contrast, soft focus, busy composition. The soldier might as well be wearing camouflage. In fact, I just clicked through to the full-sized image and was surprised to discover it's not "soldier", but "soldiers"; I didn't even notice in the small size that there's a second person in the photo. That doesn't detract from the importance of the photo or the photographer, but it's just not working in the format we need to present it on the main page. RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

(reviewer) For me, the hook without detail is fine. I suggested to use a picture, because - even when not perfect - it illustrates the period. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I've updated the hook text. I've been looking for a better photo to use. There's lots of good images out there but unfortunately they don't come with licenses we can use. RoySmith (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm also fine with the changes. There's a great photo of her but it's only on Russian Wikipedia, I assume due to copyright. Many thanks, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
There's a problem with the formatting on the hook now: there are two question marks, one after the original text and one after the "(example pictured)", and the first one should be deleted. RoySmith, can you fix this before midnight, when the set goes live? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for spotting that. RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
It looks good now - short hook and image - but there seems to be an extra space before the question mark. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I was actually wondering about the space, but it seems to be part of the {{-?}} template, so I assume it's intentional. RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
As WP:DYKMOS explains, we must use the spaced question mark template when this punctuation follows italic font. Schwede66 19:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm really asleep at the formatting switch today. We're not supposed to be including the apostrophe-s in the bold link, or bold it at all. Can "Olga Lander's" be changed to "Olga Lander's" so it's formatted properly? Sorry to bother you again, RoySmith. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Environmental damage in the Gaza Strip caused by the Israel–Hamas war

I don't know if it really affects DYK, but I've proposed a title change for this article RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That proposal makes sense to me. We should move it before it goes onto the main page, or afterwards, just so that we don't end up with a redirect whilst it's on the homepage. Schwede66 20:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense to me too. Lightburst (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
There isn't a rule that prohibits the main page linking to an article with a move request box at the top. It would likely be ideal to move it before the main page appearance, if only for cleanness. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Done.--Launchballer 07:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I was having a look at the herbicide sentence in the article, and that sentence ("since 2014, Palestinian farms bordering Gaza's perimeter have had crops sprayed by airborne herbicides and have been regularly cleared using bulldozers.") is an extremely close paraphrase of "Since 2014, Palestinian farmers along Gaza’s perimeter have seen their crops sprayed by airborne herbicides and regularly bulldozed" from this source cited later (ie. not for the relevant sentence) in that paragraph. Checking Earwig, it finds a 72.8% match to this Guardian article, and I do not think the Guardian copied us. Some of this is quotes, but this is also not catching the very close paraphrasing. Also concerning was the article's "Saeed Bagheri, a lecturer in international law at the University of Reading, stated "there are enough grounds to investigate the damage done to Gaza's environment"", which is closely paraphrased from the Guardian's "Saeed Bagheri, a lecturer in international law at Reading University, says that while there are disagreements about how to apply these articles, there are enough grounds to investigate the damage done to Gaza’s environment already.", but more critically invents a quote for Saeed Bagheri that is not a quote in the Guardian article. CMD (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Launchballer, you have reverted the article back to a 26 May version, removing the close paraphrase tag. Is the tag still needed? TSventon (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
My mistake, yes it is.--Launchballer 11:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The hook needs to be updated to link to Environmental damage caused by the Israel–Hamas war at some point. TSventon (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer you also moved it to the wrong title. I fixed that. And I fixed the link in the queue. RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not a good look

So, lots of times the link to a DYK article is the name of the article, and lots of times it's piped so that the visible text of the link is more intriguing, accurate, fun, useful, or whatever. So in the DYKs I'm looking at for today (March 28 2004) we've got some of each... For "...that Olga Lander's camera required..." and "...that the antiseptic cream Boroline was..." and "...that although Evgeniia Subbotina failed..." and "...that Denpasar mayor I Gusti Ngurah Jaya Negara became..." and "...that Elizabeth Storie's doctor..." the text shown is the name of the article. For "...that King Christian IX and Queen Louise of Denmark were the parents of a Danish king..." has the text ''King Christian IX and Queen Louise of Denmark were the parents" while the article linked to is titled Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark, and "...that John D. Rockefeller Jr.... secretly authorized the purchase of an $8,000 "antique"?" has the text "an $8,000 "antique"" while the article linked to is Ludwell–Paradise House. This is all fine.

But wait. We've also got an entry where the text is "that Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza has..." and the article is linked to Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war. Hmmm. These are different statements. Those other piped links are anodyne as are all our piped links I assume. This one isn't.

"Environmental impact of the Israel–Hamas war" is pretty neutral and descriptive. "systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza" isn't. "Impact" just says a thing happened, and let's let the reader drill down and make up her own mind about the event. "Systematic" implies intent (of Israel, it says so), and we don't know if the Israelies are doing this out sheer bloody-mindedness, or for military reasons, or as collatoral damage or what. And "destruction" sounds a lot more like "total eradication" than "impact" does, and apparently there are still lots of trees and farms in Gaza. This does not feel NPOV. We wouldn't use "...Allies' systemic destruction of Dresden..." for Bombing of Dresden in a DYK and so forth.

OK, mistake, hey mistake are going to happen.You guys work hard, for free, and have to work fast too. We all get that.

But why was this mistake made on this topic specifically? Do I have to say? It's not a good look. In addition to leading the reader which is never good, we wouldn't want people to say that we're picking on any countries in particular because then then they might say insulting things about us. Which is bad, if they're accurate.

You're good guys, and sorry to rant and maybe I'm overexcited about it, but this stuff just frosts me. A whole lot of people read the Wikipedia, and trust it to give the straight deal on recent events (maybe naively, but like it or not they do), and so we do affect the real world, and every drip-drip of this kind of stuff is going to contribute to lowering the turnout in Ann Arbor etc. and so we have a good chance to lose Michigan (and similar for other states), and that might end up badly for a lot of people. Including the Palestinians. Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Because no-one wants to reject a nomination, everyone was worn down, and this was a massive improvement on the hooks suggested by the nominator. Although, on the specific point you raise about "systematic", that was directly taken from the sources and does reflect intent. CMD (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The article does describe systematic agricultural destruction and intentional targeting, cited to reliable sources, so I'm not persuaded by OP's characterization of the hook that there's a severe problem here, or for that matter a severe problem somehow distinctive to this mistake made on this topic that makes for such a not a good look. (What topic? Forensic agriculture? Probably not. Does OP mean the military action that an international court considers plausibly in violation of the Genocide Convention?) In any case, turnout in Ann Arbor (electorally?) is not Wikipedia's or DYK's prerogative. We share to readers new and/or recently GA/FA-status promoted content on the project. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

We wouldn't use "...Allies' systemic destruction of Dresden..." for Bombing of Dresden in a DYK ...

Why not? That's what happened. And Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza is also what happened. Read the article, read the sources, or just look at the before and after satellite photos. The Gaza ecocide really happened. And you're right, it's not a good look... for Israel. But it's a fine look for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is doing what it's supposed to be doing: educating readers. Levivich (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
On a technical point the sources do not describe "trees" as a systematic target, so that should not have gotten into the hook, but they do describe it for farmland and other kinds of agriculture. I will raise this at ERRORS. CMD (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This whole DYK nomination was rather POINTY. --evrik (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
And the article remains extremely plagiarisy, but those are distinct questions to the use of "systematic" in the hook. CMD (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should contentious topics be ineligible for Did You Know?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Contentious topics are constrained and tagged per WP:CTOPICS. They are, by definition, controversial and so will generate additional contention and work at DYK compared to ordinary topics. The editing restrictions applied to these topics also tends to make resolution of disputes difficult, protracted and slow. As DYK is oversubscribed, it may not need this aggravation. The question is whether we should add a rule to WP:DYKCRIT making contentious topics ineligible for DYK?

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There should be discussion before an RfC, and I feel confident it would quickly find that we should not ban all DYK hooks from India. CMD (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This follows the recent extensive discussions here and at ANI. Looking for the most recent hook from India, this seems to be Asha Sobhana. That's not tagged as a contentious topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)
I don't recall in those extensive discussions someone proposing the idea that all articles falling under CTOPICS should be banned, let along there being specific discussion on that question. There has been a suggestion to restrict BLPs, but that is only one of the many CTOPICS. CMD (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Just to emphasise what I said below, any editor is free to add {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} to Talk:Asha Sobhana if they so desire. I mean I could do it right now. I'm not going to in part since some may argue it's WP:POINT. I'd disagree on that since it's not disruptive to do so considering the DYK has already run and there's no harm in having the notice there; but it also doesn't seem to be that important to have a notice so better to just tell and don't show. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
We have lots of BLPs about sportmen and women like this. If such a template is added, at what point are constraints like 1RR and ECP activated? And at what point do you have to notify editors per the awareness clause? As this stuff seems quite bitey, it's good to understand it. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This is unclear. Are you talking about "controversial topics" or about Wikipedia:Contentious topics? I definitely oppose any restriction on "controversial topics" because almost anything can be controversial (for example, anything with shock value or involving sex or crime or religion). —Kusma (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This is clearly not ready for RfC, so I have removed the RfC tag. —Kusma (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I thought it was quite clear that this meant those topics which are formally tagged as CT per WP:CTOP. I have revised the text to make this clearer. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Just for clarity, you are aware that anyone is free to tag any article where CT applies with the Template:Contentious topics/talk notice? There is no "formal" process for doing so, the only thing that really matter is whether CT applies so it can be done to any BLP to give one example. Normally this is no big deal since CT applies regardless of the notice, but your proposal makes it a big deal. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The specific example which sparked this was Killing of David Ben Avraham -- someone said they wouldn't promote this to DYK because touching it was too dangerous. The talk page for that has an {{ARBPIA}} template which says: "The contentious topics procedure applies to this article." and goes on to explain that WP:ECP and WP:1RR applies. It's this level of CT that I intended to cover. It's news to me that any BLP at all can be tagged in this draconian way and that bit of WP:CREEP seems to have happened at the end of 2022. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Looking at talk:Andrew Tate, as that's been the main bone of contention lately, it has a {{controversial}} template which just seems mildly informational and a {{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} which is the full monty. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Biographies of living people are a contentious topic — are we really going to ban these from DYK? Multiple contentious topics are completely fine to be shown at DYK, we can't just ban all of them out of nowhere. Skyshiftertalk 12:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Contentious topics include all biographies of living people, India, Pakistan, Iranian politics, Sri Lanka, anything related to post-1992 US politics, COVID-19, Eastern Europe, gender and sexuality and climate change. Disallowing so many large content areas is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. —Kusma (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
No, BLPs are not all contentious topics -- they are a different class of topic per WP:BLP. Excluding all BLPs would be a much bigger deal. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
You are aware that "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles are designated as a contentious topic." (Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons)? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This seems to be an example of why you really need to workshop before starting an RfC. It sounds like the OP is proposing that any article where the talk page is tagged with {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} or {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is forbidden from DYK but this has been very poorly explained.

More importantly, I'd note that anyone is free to place the first template on any page it applies, so anyone can place it on a BLP talk page for example. Normally this is no big deal unless editors are confused how CT works. The presence or absence of the talk notice doesn't affect whether CT applies. However under this proposal any editor can place the CT notice on a talk page where it would apply and ban it from DYK.

So suddenly the presence of the notice becomes potentially a big deal leading to WP:gaming concerns and a likelihood of editors being dragged to ANI over concerns they're adding CT notices just to ban something from DYK. I'm not sure the wisdom of such a proposal, DYK is already controversial enough on the administrative noticeboards.

At the very least IMO, this proposal should require the notice is present before it's proposed for DYK.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That is not a good solution either: new articles could still be nominated before anyone has had the chance to add a CT notice. The presence or absence of the CT notice at the time of nomination has very little to do with the contentiousness of the actual article and DYK hook. —Kusma (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is certainly true that CT's are more difficult to write about, which often means they involve more work to process at DYK (see Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war for another recent example). But that's not a reason to blanket ban them from DYK. RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I suppose there could be some way of flagging CTOP entries for review, but let's face it the vast majority of hooks related to CTOPs are completely unremarkable (especially as, technically, all BLPs fall under that flag). And, as we saw with Tate, most controversial issues arrive here anyway for discussion. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Absolutely not. This is too large a category to exclude. Toa Nidhiki05 13:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: as long as the article is in good shape (which includes a neutral point of view) and the proposed hook is not a contentious or controversial claim, a contentious topic article should be an article like any other for the DYK process (and for all article-related processes such as AFC, PR, GAN, FAC, etc; for that matter). Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose and suggest a snow close - The proposal is simply too broad. Now I know we just had a few discussions about contentious topics on DYK, including one that's ongoing, but I am not convinced that a blanket ban is the solution. It should probably be a case-by-case thing. Plus, having blanket bans would be unfair to editors who worked hard to bring the article to a good state if not create it, only to be told their efforts cannot be incentivized just because of the subject matter. There are times when precisely due to an article's subject it's not a good fit for DYK, but they are the exception and not the rule and we shouldn't have any strict rules about them. I know this discussion has only been up for a few hours but I would suggest closing this as soon as possible as this simply will not go anywhere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Queue 3

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan

@Keivan.f, MSincccc, and Evrik:

Earwig came back with a high match with [43]. The site says it was published in 2021 and there is a lot of exact matches for sentences in the Wikipedia article. I also noticed that the GA reviewer, MSincccc, is the one who approved the hook, which is not allowed per WP:DYKRR. Z1720 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  • I searched through archived versions of the website with archive.org, and I believe that Bollywoodfever is pulling from Wikipedia because various text appears in the Wikipedia article before its inclusion in the article: while the source says it was published in 2021, it is being continuously updated without the site noting the changes at the top. My concern with DYKRR still stands. Z1720 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Z1720: That website appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Earwig cannot distinguish between a legit source and a mere copy and this is not the first time this issue has popped up; I have talked to the admins about this, and they advised me to contact the bot operator, which I might do. With regards to the DYK, even though I have contributed to multiple GAs this was the first time that I actually put one up for a DYK nomination. I'm not entirely familiar with the process and I certainly did not ask the GA reviewer to approve it. If there is a way to add it back to the unapproved nominations list for review again, please bring it up. Like I'm not sure what the solution is. Has this happened before? Keivan.fTalk 03:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this has happened before, but if anyone can do another check of the DYK hook, and indicate their check below, I don't think we will need to re-add this to the unapproved list. Z1720 (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720, Keivan.f: Consider adding {{Backwardscopy}} to the talk page to note that it's not WP with the copyvio. —Bagumba (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Keivan.fTalk 20:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Sunlight before signing

@GobsPint, 4meter4, and Evrik:

There are two tags in the article: one for excessive citations and one to provide examples for the sentence with excessive citations. These need to be resolved before it goes on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: The issue has been addressed. --evrik (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

North West (rapper)

@Launchballer, Thriley, and Evrik:

  • ... that North West was originally going to be called Kaidence?

The source says that Kim Kardashian, North West's mother, preferred the name Kaidence, but the source does not say that this name was decided upon, then changed later. Are there any sources that verify that this name was decided upon, instead of just considered? If not, I think the phrasing of this hook will need to be changed. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

... that North West was nearly called Kaidence?--Launchballer 00:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
This hook needs to be updated as the article has been moved.--Launchballer 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the redirect in the queue. Z1720 (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer, Thriley, and Z1720:

I suggest the above hook. --evrik (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

North West's what?--Launchballer 07:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't say this was, but I can also suggest ... that the then-10-year-old North West debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 in February 2024?--Launchballer 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
... that a 10-year-old debuted at 30 on the Hot 100? Levivich (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the first alt presented above makes fun of a potential name: I find it interesting but not negative that Kim wanted to continue the K-starting names. However, the alt hook is also acceptable and if others prefer that one we can use it instead. Z1720 (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
My preference is the 'nearly' hook.--Launchballer 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that a child was almost given a different name is interesting at all. Isn't a 10-year-old debuting in the top 30 way more unusual? Zanahary (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Lock's Quest

@GraziePrego, ResonantDistortion, and Evrik:

I added two "citation needed" tags in the "Gameplay" section of the article. These should be resolved before it goes on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Would they not come under WP:PLOTSOURCE?--Launchballer 11:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Gameplay refers to how the game functions, or how the player interacts with the game, which to my understanding does not fall under WP:PLOTSOURCE. I also checked two recent video game featured articles: OneShot and BioShock 2, and they required citations for the gameplay section, but not the plot. Z1720 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Citations added. GraziePrego (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Samuel Kummer

In Queue 2:

No, he didn't. He chose - as the proposed hook said - Music by Bach, Brahms, Reger, Vierne and himself. We are talking about a programmatic choice of a person who recently died, and I feel that shortening it distorts it, by placing too much emphasis on "himself" and omitting his interest in those less known. Do you understand? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve seen this kind of issue come up many times before. In one particular review, I made a similar decision due to length and relevance. I can see arguments for doing it this way from both sides, so it really comes down to editorial style and preference. I suspect this response will make you angry, Gerda, but I did want to make the comment. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm [unusually ;)?] quite sympathetic to your hooks, Gerda, but this change seems good. The shortness doesn't detract from his career, and I don't see any undue emphasis on himself - in my view, the hook really communicates, "he played a range, running the full gamut from Bach to himself" (who readers have presumably not heard of), which is respectful. I'm usually quite irritated by changes to hooks that shorten them, especially when it detracts from their lifelong trajectories or achievements, but this is good IMO. Urve (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I hear you two, but don't quite understand. The names are all short, we'd have room for five easily. If we really think it's too long, let's take Brahms (who is not known as a composer of organ music, therefore informative), Vierne (standing for all the French literature he was particularly good at, and of course for Vierne specifically whose complete works he wanted to record) and himself. Telling people that an organist will play Bach is like saying the sky is blue, - it's the others that tell his personal focus, instead of some "full gamut". - We recently had a hook with five composers, and all five received views above 1k. Readers are perhaps more open and interested than we assume. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Too late now, but do you understand that you cut out the two most interesting and unusual composers that would have portrayed him as broad-minded and international instead of only mainstream and only German? To arrive at a line that - on my display - showed only the word "himself". Not without irony. Can we be fairer to a person who sadly died prematurely next time, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you about this hook Zanahary (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Lie Kiat Teng

@AirshipJungleman29, Crisco 1492, and -Soman: This isn't strictly a DYK problem, but there's a bunch of CS1 errors in the references that should get fixed. See Category:CS1 maint: ref duplicates default. RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soman: Fixed ping.--Launchballer 20:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Fixed article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Democratic Yemeni Union of Peasants

@AirshipJungleman29, Soman, and Evrik: the article says "imprisoned", the hook says "arrested". I'm not sure those are the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok for me to change to "imprisoned" in the hook. --Soman (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay by me. --evrik (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, as I look at this closer, I'm not convinced this is cited to a WP:RS. https://m.adnlng.info/news/103013 is in arabic, which I can't read, but the google translation of the text at the bottom of the page is "All rights reserved to [Aden Ling] ©2024 Development and hosting" which sounds like some personal blog. And (again, via google translate), the text is written in first person: "My acquaintance with this activist dates back to my youth..." RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Jarrett Kingston

@AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, and BeanieFan11: the hook is so similar to Travis Glover currently in Queue 2, I thought I had done this one already and had to go hunting to find where I had seen it before. Do we really want to be running two hooks so similar to each other a few days apart? RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't review this hook, @SL93: did (all I did was fix an error and flag a lack of QPQ). There is also a Green Bay Packers hook in queue 3 (which itself has six American hooks, I flagged this already at #Set balance). Nothing wrong with special-interestism, but these should probably be staggered a bit more.--Launchballer 20:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
And on that note, I see we've also got two football hooks in this set. One Canadian, the other American, but I suspect that's a distinction which will be lost on most readers. RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed the hook, but I don't go hunting for similar hooks before I review. That would be on the promoter. SL93 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
We always have a superfluity of North American sports hooks floating around, most of which are on the NFL, and quite a few of those in turn are related to the Green Bay team. We just have a couple of dedicated editors in that topic area—same reason as why a rather high proportion of sets feature Indonesian politicians. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems there's a bunch of my football hooks currently in the queue (mainly because I had written ~20 articles for the NFL Draft in a short timespan) – we could swap it out with one of the football hooks being featured at a later date if we want to space it out from Glover (e.g. swap it with one in Prep 6, 7, 2, 3 or 5). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Three American sports hooks on DYK right now

We currently have two NFL-related hooks and one MLS-related hook on DYK right now. That's three American sports-related hooks on the main page. That seems to go against WP:DYKVAR, which says to avoid more than two hooks about the same or similar topic per set. Can one of the hooks (probably one of the two NFL ones) be swapped out to a later set? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I flagged this above at #Set balance and at #Jarrett Kingston. There are a total of six American hooks on the main page, my suggestion remains to swap North West and Giovanni Manu. Prep 6 has two American hook and Aurora Rodrigues and Elizabeth Yeampierre check out and could be swapped, I can rearrange the set myself.--Launchballer 01:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

69?

69 is a nice number, I know. But could that perhaps be beyond the realm of Wikipedia's main purpose? Josethewikier (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Josethewikier I think we all know what 69 means. It does not surprise me to see these sort of things on the main page. It is rather tame in comparison to other hook we have run. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia's purpose is to share the information of the world, so this is within our purpose. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Although "that 69 is odious and pernicious" would have been quirkier, and I should have proposed it instead of promoting the "nice" hook.--Launchballer 00:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
right, that makes sense! Josethewikier (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 20. We have a total of 221 nominations, of which 110 have been approved, a gap of 111 nominations that has decreased by 14 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Antimonumento 5J

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Antimonumento 5J)

The use of the word commemorate seems odd here... in my experience, this is generally used for remembering something in a positive light... This gives the definition as "to remember officially and give respect to a great person or event..." or "to show honor to the memory of an important person or event in a special way". Police repression doesn't seem like the sort of thing you respect and honor. Probably need to come up with some other wording... Pinging nom/reviewer/promoter: @Tbhotch, Soman, and Launchballer:  — Amakuru (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, the wording isn't ideal, it is more an issue of commemorating the victims here. Could we do "commemorate victims of police repression" instead? --Soman (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I've updated the hook in the queue. RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all, sounds OK now. I suppose the monument wasn't primarily for the "commemoration" in fact, it was mainly as a protest... but meh, it's good enough for me if it's good enough for you.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Then maybe we want "... was installed on 5 June 2023 to protest police repression ..."? RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
That sounds good to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Soman are you OK with my proposed "... was installed on 5 June 2023 to protest police repression ..." wording? RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Sure, "... was installed on 5 June 2023 to protest police repression ..." wording is good with me. --Soman (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I went to make this change and realized that gave us "protest police repression during the 2020 protests" which just sounds silly. I'm going to leave it as it is now. RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Lin Yu-tang (long jumper)

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Lin Yu-tang (long jumper))

The article doesn't seem to say anything about the shoes being "broken"... it merely says that "his secret is bringing two pairs of running spikes to each meet, so that he can switch between them in between jumps". Also, if the article says "running spikes" I'd have thought the hook should, rather than "running shoes". Make the match, one way or the other. As an aside to that, I'm not sure why this fact and the bit about him qualifying for the Olympics is in "Personal life"... isn't that just part of his career? @Habst, Toadboy123, and Launchballer:  — Amakuru (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru, thanks for the feedback. I updated the article so it now uses the phrase "running shoes" and mentions that he used his second pair to replace broken shoes. I also moved the two "personal life" bits you mentioned into the Career section. --Habst (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Friendly Father

Proposal withdrawn. Yue🌙 03:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I just realised that Father's Day coincides with the potential timeframe of this hook being promoted, if no issues arise. I am requesting that this hook be held in the special occasion holding area for Father's Day, if other DYK contributors are in agreement. Yue🌙 01:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Which of the 32 different dates that we have for Father's Day do you think we should pick? I don't think this is a goer. Schwede66 02:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
The third Sunday in June is Father's Day for many countries, but seeing that Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June will not mention it either, I withdraw my proposal. Yue🌙 03:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Queue 2

Shouldn't this queue has a person for the picture? --evrik (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Tad's Steaks

@RoySmith, Epicgenius, and Bruxton:

There's a passage that is missing a citation, which I have indicated with a "citation needed" tag. This will need to be resolved before it goes on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Fixed. RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I knew you would! Bruxton (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Laura Veale

@Launchballer, Storye book, and Silverseren: As with most "first" hooks, I'm dubious. I'm not convinced a plaque from a historical society is a WP:RS. We should be saying "said to be", or "claimed to be" or something like that. In any case, the plaque says "first Yorkshire woman", which got turned into "first Yorkshire-born woman", which isn't the same thing; "Yorkshire woman" can also be used to describe somebody who has lived in an area for a long time without necessarily having been born there. I don't have access to the Neesam book. RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The traditional meaning in Yorkshire, of "Yorkshire woman" is Yorkshire-born woman". Yorkshire has always been a parochial area with its own identity, and during previous generations being born there was part of the identity. Even these days - I have lived there and contributed locally for over a quarter of a century, but am still considered an outsider (and consider myself so), because I came from Kent. The Yorkshire dialect is not just an individual sound. Like all dialects and languages, it is a way of thinking. If I understand correctly, that way of thinking used to affect the Yorkshire cricket teams during previous generations (though probably no longer), in that you once had to be born in Yorkshire to play for Yorkshire. Malcolm Neesam, a traditional Yorkshireman, wrote the text on that brown plaque, and Yorkshire-born is what he meant, for sure. Veale was not the first qualified woman doctor to practice in Yorkshire - but it is agreed by local historians that she was the first Yorkshire-born woman to do so. I have checked thoroughly with Harrogate Civic Society, and they all agree with that, strongly. Storye book (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
"I talked to somebody who said it's true" isn't a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I think its fine either way. --evrik (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
That isn't an RS either. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The question appears to be about how to interpret the meaning of "first Yorkshire woman" in content provided by a historical society. Asking experts in local history and the Harrogate Civic Society—those who would know about Yorkshire—how to interpret this text (does Yorkshire mean 'Yorkshire-born' or 'lived in Yorkshire') in order to answer a question raised on a talk page seems to be what WP:OR's explicit exception for talk page discussion is meant for. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Re "Veale was not the first qualified woman doctor to practice in Yorkshire": So she's not the first female doctor in Yorkshire. And the source definitely isn't good enough to state that she is the first female doctor born in Yorkshire, because the language is too ambiguous. That goes beyond the problem that sources for such hooks often get it wrong by overlooking someone else with a stronger claim. Are we confident that they went through all the birth records of all the female physicians in the UK (or the crown colonies, or the world), checking whether maybe one of them was born in Yorkshire, or did they only find a listing of female physicians in Yorkshire, check through which of them were actually born in Yorkshire, and when finding one said "she's the one"? I don't think this hook is rescuable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I've replaced this with another English biography hook by Story book from Prep 7. People can sort out the problems with this one on the nomination page. RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Fourth All-Russian Congress of the Party of Left Socialist-Revolutionaries (internationalists)

"With the main leader of the party Spiridonova imprisoned at the Kremlin it fell on Kamkov, Karelin and Proshian to represent the Central Committee in bearing responsibility for the July debacle at the 4th party congress.[1][10] [...] Spiridonova addressed the gathering through a letter which self-critically reviewed the actions of the Central Committee.[1]" --Soman (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks. The hook said "jail", so that's what I searched for and found "The main leader of the party Maria Spiridonova was in jail at the time, but addressed the gathering by a written letter." RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Need help with a nomination after an article title change

I just noticed that someone moved the title of a nominated article from The Blue Angels (2024) to The Blue Angels (film). I guess the title is better, but now I am unsure how to fix the nomination. Bruxton (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 15:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Appreciated. Mandarax. Not sure why my own effort to change the nom was inadequate but it seems fixed now. Bruxton (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
My hooks are weak sauce - can anyone help with ideas? Template:Did you know nominations/The Blue Angels (2024). Bruxton (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I also started work on this Brian Kesselring who was prominent in the movie. Bruxton (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Our friend Cielquiparle helped with hooks for the The Blue Angels (2024). And the Brian Kesselring, I am just not inspired to nominate. Bruxton (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Quirky slot {{DYKsmirk}}

For promotors reviewers and nominators. In January 2023 RoySmith created a tag we could use to identify possible quirky hooks. I had forgotten about it until now. It is {{DYKsmirk}} and it renders like this: This might make a good quirky hook.(?).
It may be helpful for promotors to consider nominations that are tagged. Bruxton (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The cool kids write it as {{DYKsmirk}}. Also, the history says Tamzin created it :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)
Oh thanks for the correction - my mistake on attribution. I think you proposed it RS? But thanks Tamzin! Bruxton (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
evrik Because it renders as "quirky hook" I used to go to the approved page and search "quirky". That way I could easily locate any hook that someone thought could be considered for the slot. Bruxton (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
We should probably do one for {{DYKGBP}} :-) RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith Try as I might, I am unable to figure out DYKGBP. Help! Bruxton (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Green Bay Packers RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
D'oh! Bruxton (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Please, no. --evrik (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6 (nom) BLP/neg concern

I think we need a new hook for this one:

How about something like:

ALT1: ... that starting at age 16, Brad Banducci was named top sewing machine salesperson three years in a row?

I can't get to the article to verify, AGFing that, but it would be nice to clarify...I assum it means he was his company's top sewing machine salesperson?

Pinging GMH Melbourne, Silver seren, Launchballer. Valereee (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy with that. GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Fine by me, might be worth adding 'future Woolworths CEO' or somesuch.--Launchballer 11:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I've replaced, used 'future Woolworths CEO'. Thanks, all! Valereee (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 4

Here We Go... Again

This seems to breach WP:DYKFICTION - I don't think we should assume that the lyrics of the song really pertain to The Weeknd as a real-life person, or that there's any evidence he actually can achieve the feats mentioned above As such, this is "bounded only by human creativity, making possible all manner of hooks that would be interesting if they were real" and therefore not really eligible for DYK. Probably it should be reopened and a new hook found, but posting here in case I'm barking up the wrong tree. @AskeeaeWiki, PrimalMustelid, Tails Wx, and Launchballer: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm fine with restarting in favor of a new hook. Would mentioning Beach Boy member Bruce Johnston's involvement in the song's creation be fine? I'll wait for the others' opinions. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 20:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I had nothing to do with that hook, although I did wonder about that myself. I'd move away from names-based hooks altogether.--Launchballer 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I think reopening the DYK nomination and creating a new hook would be ok! And AskeeaeWiki, I don't know for sure if mentioning the Beach Boy member would be interesting; though we'll find out once the hook is re-created. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx 03:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I’ll add that Neve Campbell might not appreciate that lyric. Zanahary (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
+1. Why would we even consider using this quote in a hook? Valereee (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
And in fact Campbell's reaction was a complete diss: ‘Wait, which weekend? Last weekend?’ hahahahaha. Now that's a hook.
  • ... that Neve Campbell's reaction to The Weeknd's claim he could make his lover "scream like Neve Campbell" was, "Wait, which weekend? Last weekend"?
Valereee (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I've tried to return this to Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created/expanded_on_May_9 for a new hook/new review, but it doesn't want to transclue...what am I doing wrong? Valereee (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
You haven't reopened the nom, so it won't appear. I've fixed this.--Launchballer 18:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Launchballer! Valereee (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

BLP discussion/Barron Trump

So, the Barron Trump hook got pulled because it was AfD'd, but the reason it was nominated was discussion at WP:BLPN#Barron Trump and Talk:Barron Trump#This whole article is written like some sort of joke, which includes valid concern over the article itself, which was stuffed full of iffy content. Here is the diff of the version that ran vs the current version with much of the problematic content pulled out, and I have to agree the article should have raised red flags here long before it ever got anywhere near the main page, and it didn't. Valereee (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Does DYK have any guidance to reviewers about notability checks? —Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
We do not, but the concern for me was more that red flags should have been raised over all the negative stuff in the article that was really about his father, not about him. Valereee (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
We do, articles with questionable notability deserve {{notability}}, which is a disqualifier per WP:DYKCOMPLETE. I suggest adding a line to WP:DYKRI.--Launchballer 11:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
We do say no tags, but we don't call out notability expressly. We also don't call out BLP violations expressly. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Given that the AfD was not WP:SNOW closed as a delete or redirect, I don't think it's egregious that such a long bio with many footnotes not from Daily Mail-like sources wasn't challeged at the DYK review. —Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer instructions does mention "BLP-compliant" but maybe this needs its own line.--Launchballer 11:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I think we're talking two different issues here; the notability question, and the original concern of BLP vios that led to the AfD. I'm much more concerned that we ran an article that was full of negative stuff about his father that was only tangentially related to the article subject. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the DYK process went fine. In fact the nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Barron Trump, should go into a holding area until the dust settles. Chances are that the text will survive AfD. --evrik (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what solution could be added here. DYK is a mostly single reviewer process that mostly focuses on the hook, and it sounds like the issues in question were unrelated to the hook. On the wider bias point, that is bias in the line of what I would expect the bias of en.wiki to point to, and those are the biases that are both less likely to be picked up and harder to deal with. CMD (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
We could demand a more explicit BLP compliance check to ensure reviewers do not just look at the hook. You know, replace "new enough, long enough, not copyvio" by "new enough, long enough, not copyvio, no potential BLP issues". It would help if we could guide QPQ reviewers to open a thread here (or at BLPN) if there is any doubt about BLP compliance of either hook or article, so any such issues could be caught and discussed much earlier than the point when admins promote prep to queue. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I would support that. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The DYK process went fine? It was on the main page for like 23 hours before it was pulled. Which leads me to why would we put it into a holding area for re-running? It had nearly the entire day. Valereee (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely agree that the nomination should remain closed if it ran for nearly an entire day before being pulled. The fact that it's currently at AfD is irrelevant. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a case of running something up the flagpole, you see who salutes and you see who shoots. Sometimes the issues we debate here won't become apparent until something goes before the broader audience.--evrik (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC on DYK and BLP policy

It is clear that the DYK community is divided on this question. Several editors suggested that negative hooks hooks should not be banned, and negative hooks about individuals primarily known for negative reasons are not undue and in fact meet WP:NPOV. On the other hand, others argued that such hooks are still harmful regardless of the person's background and that such hooks still fail BLP. No clear consensus emerged from the discussion and editors generally agreed on little. This closure does not preclude a future discussion regarding how to handle BLPs on DYK or even if there is an issue involved, but this particular discussion appears to have run its course. I understand I participated in the discussion in a limited capacity (although I did not directly vote on the questions), which would technically make me involved. However, with a clear lack of consensus and seeing no other outcome with the discussion, I decided to re-implement AirshipJungleman29's closure per WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1. Can WP:DYK feature negative content on WP:Biographies of Living People on the WP:MAIN page and remain in compliance with BLP policy? Consider the limitations of the DYK format in its section on the main page (see Wikipedia:Did you know, Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, and Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions for more information on DYK). Consider the language of WP:BLP policy in your answer. If no, why? If yes, why?4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: "A "Did you know" (DYK) item on the main page of Wikipedia is called a "hook" and in this RFC, "hook" refers to the text portion of that item"

Opening Statement

Background on inconsistent application of BLP policy at DYK

In the past year, I have either witnessed or participated in several contentious discussions concerning Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy within hook nominations at WP:Did You Know that have arisen from hook proposals involving "negative" material about BLPs where the information could be perceived as an attack on the BLP or an attempt to smear the BLP's public image. While the vast majority of BLP nominations at DYK are non-controversial, the project does receive a small percentage of hook proposals on BLPs where the subject is presented in a negative light on an on-going periodic basis. These hooks are sometimes submitted by seasoned DYK participants, and sometimes editors new to the project.

The reactions to these various "negative hook" proposals has been inconsistent on the part of the DYK community with a wide range of expressed opinions from active editors in the project as well as a wide range of responses within DYK hook review process. Negative hooks on BLPs have sometimes been rejected as violating BLP policy using rationales from either Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions and Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, or the WP:BLP policy page itself. They also have sometimes been approved by editors, have been promoted by DYK admins to Template:Did you know/Queue, and have made it to the WP:MAIN page. These various responses have sometimes been received with community support, no comment by the community other than the reviewer, or have been heavily contested either within the individual hook review template, or at DYK's talk page. Those negative hooks which have made it to the main page have sometimes been brought to noticeboards such as WP:ERRORS and WP:ANI where responses have equally been inconsistent; including the pulling of hooks due to BLP violations, no action, etc.4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Reasons for inconsistent pattern

It's my contention that this pattern of inconsistent response is evidence of an on-going failure of the DYK community to consistently implement BLP policy. I believe the reason for this failure is two fold. 1) The BLP guidelines in the Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions and Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines are currently poorly written, and in particular the words "unduly negative" have been interpreted as meaning the DYK community can run negative hooks on BLPs that individual editors have labeled as "bad people" because they deserve it. This has inevitably allowed for WP:POV pushing and politicization within certain hook proposals; drawing into question the integrity of the DYK platform and the encyclopedia when such hooks have successfully made it to the main page. 2) The current BLP policy page is written to address article space and does not currently address the unique format of DYK where we limit content expression to a single sentence of 200 characters or less. What is possible to do in terms of WP:BLPBALANCE within article space is not possible in a DYK hook by virtue of limited space.4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Why community action is needed

The community needs to take a close look at how DYK should interpret BLP policy within the unique DYK hook format for the purposes of DYK hook review. The purpose of this RFC is to assist DYK in more consistently following BLP policy going forward by reviewing DYK's current processes and guidelines for reviewing BLP hooks; and making any necessary changes to Wikipedia:Did you know, Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, and Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions as it relates to BLPs. To help us achieve that goal, the DYK community has assisted in gathering real examples of potential BLP violating hooks that have either run on the main page successfully, been pulled from the main page after being reported to a notice board, or failed to be promoted but with contentious and sometimes lengthy discussion. Other types of evidence have also been put forward, and other kinds of potentially BLP violating hooks have been identified in the evidence gathering process besides just negative hooks. For this reason, I have crafted the RFC question process with some flexibility because there may be avenues of exploration raised by the community at this RFC that the community may wish to explore that could not have been anticipated earlier. It should be noted that the examples given are just a sampling of mainly recent examples of this problem, and this is by no means a thorough or complete presentation of all issues related to BLPs that have come up at DYK.

I want this RFC to be helpful no matter what conclusions ultimately are arrived at. I have my opinions, but they may not be the majority view, and my goal here is to make things better as a community space for DYK volunteers no matter what proposals are ultimately successful at achieving broad community support. I am hopeful we will come up with a better reviewing document for BLP hooks as a community which will prevent further incidents at WP:ERRORS and WP:ANI, and make the DYK review process less stressful for our dedicated volunteers by eliminating the need for repeating the same unproductive or contentious arguments in circles at DYK review.4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC format: Questions and Proposals

Note 1. This is a presentation of this RFC's format, including planned guiding questions and a described process for future proposals. Please do not respond to the questions or make proposals in this space. Questions will be opened for comment one at a time, as answers to prior questions are important for informing responses to succeeding questions.
Note 2. The term "negative hook" may mean different things to different people, and individual hooks may be perceived as "negative" by a certain group of editors but not by others due to varying backgrounds among our editing volunteers. In examining policy language at WP:BLPSTYLE, a broadly construed definition of a negative hook could be any hook that may be perceived as an attack on the BLP or an attempt to malign their public image, or a hook that may be perceived as a partisan representation of the subject. These could include the use of contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision. Real examples of hooks that have been identified as negative by some editors have been gathered in the evidence section. See WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE.

RFC Questions

  • 1. Can DYK feature negative hooks on BLPs and remain in compliance with WP:BLP policy? Consider the limitations of the DYK format and the language of WP:BLP policy in your answer. If no, why? If yes, why?
If the WP:CONSENSUS is yes or no consensus we move on to the next question. If the consensus is no we skip question 2 and move to question 3.
  • 2. How can we determine when a negative hook on a BLP can and can't be used? What specific guideline(s) should DYK reviewers follow when reviewing negative hooks on BLPs? What language should we include in a guideline that assists reviewers in making decisions and prevents conflict at DYK, Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, and other project pages? Consider the limitations of the DYK hook format and the language of WP:BLP policy in your answer.
Once opinions have been gathered and summarized we move on to the next question.
Once opinions have been gathered and summarized we move to question 4
  • 4. Are there any additional questions we should consider as it relates to DYK and BLP policy before moving on to proposals?
It's possible we may need to ask a question that was not predicted at the onset of the RFC, after getting input to the first three questions. We will leave room to ask additional questions for community input if needed before moving on to proposals. We will discuss any other questions raised by the community. Once completed, we will begin accepting proposals that should come from WP:CONSENSUS input.

Proposals

  • Proposals should come out of the discussion resulting from the above questions. This RFC will not start with a set list of proposals. These should come directly from the community input to the RFC questions. Proposal submissions will be open to all contributors in the RFC after the questioning period concludes. The goal of this RFC is to improve DYK's review process as it relates to BLPs in order to assist DYK and its volunteers in being consistently compliant with WP:BLP policy and prevent conflicts at DYK review on BLPs. Once a proposal has been made we will vote and arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS on each individual proposal.

Evidence

This evidence was initially gathered by the wiki community in a discussion preparing for this RFC. If new evidence is found, please add it to the tables.

Negative BLPs that were promoted to the main page without issue

Incident Year Hook/comments Discussion
Murder of Jiang Ge 2024 ... that the murder of Jiang Ge led to public debate in China over the actions of Jiang's roommate during her murder?
The living person in question is Liu Xin, mentioned in the hook and discussed at length in the article. 		Raised at ERRORS but no response: [44]
Going Infinite 2024 Hook draws attention to a negative comment made against a living person; it had to be toned down at nomination stage and again in prep. WT:DYK: [45]
Diether Dehm 2020 Two "negative" hooks were proposed, one about the BLP employing a terrorist and the other one about the BLP being a former informer of the secret police. The "terrorist" hook ran without controversy.
Hsinchu Kuang-Fu Senior High School 2024 Raised at ERRORs but alas, no pull as it was only an hour until it rolled off MP. @Theleekycauldron: said "This article looks like a straight NPOV violation to me". Therapyisgood (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC) Raised at ERRORs
Debbie Currie 2024 ... that Debbie Currie once worked as a lollipop lady?
whole damn thing reads like a BLP violation. "reprimanded for smoking aged 13, and had to retake all of her A-levels after being accused of cheating; she graduated with a C and two Ds, and read English and Communication" " She used an October 2009 article in the Daily Mail to announce that she had become a single mother by choice after a drunken one-night stand aged thirty, and encouraged others to have their children before finding a partner." "claimed that she had enjoyed a four-in-a-bed orgy and lost her virginity at fifteen" Therapyisgood (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I feel like this was an issue with the article rather than the nom/hook? I think DYK should have caught it. Valereee (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC) 		Raised at ERRORs with 4 minutes before the hooks rotated.

Negative BLPs that were pulled from the main page

Incident Year Hook/comments Discussion
Gemma McCluskie 2012 Concerns about recently deceased BLP violation ANI thread:[46]

Talk:DYK thread:[47]

Nandipha Magudumana 2024 ... that the celebrity doctor Nandipha Magudumana was imprisoned and investigated for twelve crimes, including murder connected to a fugitive's prison escape? ERRORS discussion: [48]

Article at the time of promotion: [49]

Angelle (singer) 2024 ... that the British entrepreneur Sarah Bennett went from being "one of the biggest flops in pop history" to appearing on the Sunday Times Rich List 2017? ERRORS discussion: [50]

Negative BLPs that were contentious at Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Incident Year Hook/comments Discussions
Andrew Tate 2024 ... that social media influencer Andrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"?
Concerns about BLP vio 		WT:DYK: [51] WT:ANI: [52]
Sarah Jane Baker 2023 ... that author Sarah Jane Baker was so desperate for gender affirming care in prison that she cut off her testicles with a razor blade? (one example of several contentious hooks on this person that were proposed) WT:DYK: [53]
Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman 2024 Pulled from queue and then rejected, in part due to BLP concerns. WT:DYK: [54]
Jews Don't Count 2023 Altered in queue, after it was argued that the original hook falsely attributed an anti-semitic POV to a living person. WT:DYK: [55]
Lil Tay 2023 Pulled from prep due to poor sourcing of negative information in the article. WT:DYK: [56]
Marvin Harrison Jr. 2023 ... that one NFL scout compared watching Marvin Harrison Jr. (pictured) to "window shopping at a Lamborghini dealership for the model that doesn't come out until next year"?
Concerns about objectifying people of colour. 		WT:DYK: [57]
Child abuse in association football 2023 Pulled from queue for various reasons, one of which was BLPCRIME concerns. WT:DYK: [58]
Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham 2024 There was a contentious discussion on the DYK talk page. That link should be added. Please assist.
Template:Did you know nominations/Hal Malchow 2024 Concerns raised over BLP/BPD hook being negative WT:DYK: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 198#Hal Malchow

Other kinds of BLP violation concerns in DYK hooks

Incident Year Hook/comments Discussion
HorsegiirL 2024 Pulled from prep; original hook used the article subject's real name against their wishes WT:DYK: [59]
Matthew Charles Johnson 2024 Negative hook with unsourced info raised at ERRORS. [60]
4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC Discussion Questions

Question 1 is now open for comment.4meter4 (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Question 2 is now open per discussion below. I will leave question 1 open as well in case new participants wish to continue to comment.4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Question 3 is now open.4meter4 (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Question 4 is now open.4meter4 (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Question 1

Can DYK feature negative hooks on BLPs and remain in compliance with WP:BLP policy? Consider the limitations of the DYK format and the language of WP:BLP policy in your answer. If no, why? If yes, why?

  • No. We have the responsibility to present negative information on BLPs ethically, and with more care than what is required on other topics. WP:BLPBALANCE requires that we present negative information in context, with nuance, and with care. That is not something that is possible to do within a 200 character single sentence. We have other options in what content to feature. Most BLPs have at least one interesting non-negative/ non-positive fact that we can feature that is entirely neutral. Concerns of neutrality are mostly spurious for this reason with only rare exceptions. Those that are rare, should simply be rejected from being featured, because the tendency is to promote negative hooks from personal bias rather than measured neutral intent.4meter4 (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes. We need to get BLP right, but prohibiting "negative hooks" impacts neutrality. The "unduly negative" of the current rules is the right balance between neutrality and not causing harm. This RfC totally misses the mark in terms of the actual BLP problems we have at DYK: many of the biggest problems are not related to "negative hooks" (see "lollipop lady" above, or "HorsegiirL"). —Kusma (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No. While having some trivia on the main page through DYK is a good idea, not every topic can be featured in such a way, and people primarily known for negative events shouldn't be featured on the main page. If it's impossible to find a positive/neutral hook, or if having one impacts neutrality, the BLP shouldn't be on the main page at all. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    I believe WP:ITN should be allowed to report on convictions of war criminals. (And so should DYK and TFA). —Kusma (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    ITN is different. We have no control over the news, which we should report as-is even if it is terrible, but we have complete control over what we put in DYK. Toadspike [Talk] 18:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • No. 4Meter4 covers what I consider the strongest argument above, which I'm not going to pointlessly reiterate. Additionally, the lead of BLP has the sentence Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. I fail to see how "Did you know so-and-so is a misogynist?" is not titillating in the extreme.
While it is true that the principles upon which [NPOV] is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus, the due/undue argument is facile since not every word of NPOV is applicable. The first sentence of DUE reads Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. DYK does not do this; ITN does not do this; OTD does not do this; POTD does not do this; even FAC does not do this. The policy does not read "neutrality requires that mainspace pages when combine with all pages they link to represent ..." A moment's consideration suggests two possibilities: A) the entire main page as we know it should be radically redefined in scope B) not every word of NPOV, including much or the entirety of DUE, applies to the main page. I'd prefer the latter approach.
As to Kusma's war criminal point, I'm afraid that's just a fundamental disagreement over the nature of DYK since I believe war criminals should never be on DYK. I'm aware neither side will be convinced on that issue so I won't argue ny point. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Dilettante and Kusma I would argue that the potential for problems at DYK is greater than at TFA or ITN. TFA has lots more space to present negative facts in context given it has an entire paragraph to introduce its topic. ITN pulls its content directly from global news headlines. An ITN report isn't going to broadcast negative content that isn't already widely distributed. Both of those allow for WP:BLPBALANCE compliance, at least in some measure . There is no such guiding force applicable to DYK, and because we feature trivia, not all of the negative content is necessarily widely known or distributed. This increases the risk of harm in a way unique to DYK as compared to other sections of the WP:MAIN page. There is a proven track record of abuse at DYK as evidenced by multiple ANI and ERROR reports. You don't see that happening at TFA or ITN to the extent it happens at DYK for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The existing rules say that all the negative content must be DUE, in particular it should not be trivia that has not been widely distributed. The vast majority of problematic content referred to above was against the existing rules. If we want to prevent bad hooks from coming to the Main Page, we do not need to ban one more class of potentially bad hooks, we need to get to a point where reviewers stop approving bad hooks (and unsuitable articles). Fix DYK's actual problems, don't just outlaw "hooks about BLP that potentially could be read as negative", i.e. anything involving sexuality or religion or stupidity or politicians changing their opinion or football players missing a penalty. An extremely wide class of hooks. —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
That's a pipe dream Kusma. There are experienced editors at DYK that actively argue for inappropriate hooks, and I don't see that changing. Politics and activist paradigms inevitably allow for partisan behavior which leads to abuse of the DYK format. The current system isn't working, and the DYK community has repeatedly shown poor editorial judgement and that it can't be trusted to know when and when not to promote negative hooks. We can't just blame reviewers either, because reviewing admins have to move hooks into queues after they have been reviewed and double check it was a proper review, and we do have editors who look over the content in queues while they sit in them. It's time to acknowledge, that the DYK format and review process is not suited for presenting negative content on BLPs.4meter4 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
That is incorrect: there are experienced editors at DYK that actively argue for hooks that you find inappropriate. There is no general and neutral definition of "inappropriate hook". If we prohibit any hooks that someone finds inappropriate (your proposal's vague definition of "negative hook" indicates that you might go in that direction) then anyone can censor any hook involving any BLP for any reason. —Kusma (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
See the evidence section. I was referencing specifically hooks pulled after being taken to WP:ERRORS and WP:ANI, a small sampling of which are provided above for your convenience. I had nothing to do with determining whether they were "inappropriate". A working definition for negative hook was already given above that was pulled almost verbatim out of WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSTYLE (basically copy pasted). Your bad faith accusations are baseless. 4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes No to unduly negative hooks, but I don't see how every hook about a BLP that is even slightly negative violates BLP. Obviously we don't want to put libel or slander on the main page, and we do not want tabloid-like speculation on the main page either, but "negative hook" is way too broad to outright ban. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    I will also agree with Kiana that some of the examples listed are not issues with negative facts being used as hooks, and are therefore not relevant to the question at hand. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes (Coming from WP:RFC/A) - Sometimes the WP:NPOV option is a negative option. Wikipedia prides itself on reporting only what others say. The WP:BLP policy itself says: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. I do not see a major distinction between the main page and an article's text that would bypass this. Sometimes, what is notable about a BLP is negative. Sometimes, what is most interesting about a BLP is negative. Note that I'm not disputing the DYK may have gone over the line sometimes... but a blanket ban, a categorical denial of the ability to use negative material when the negative material is well sourced, given WP:DUE weight, and the most notable thing about an article's subject... that just seems like it's against the core of what wikipedia is. Fieari (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, but only in unusual cases and I would suggest a discussion before using them. The problem here is "negative" has a massive range of values, from mentioning someone's criminality all the way across to highlighting a famous mistake made by a sportsperson during a game. The former is clearly problematic, the latter may well not be. Or, to take an example from above, highlighting something negative in someone's life but also mentioning how they turned the problem around or became successful later. Black Kite (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes as "negativity" is not clearly defined. Many articles are created on the basis of the misbehavior of the subject. If they are found to be acceptable as BLPs, they should not be excluded a priori from DYK.--Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • This is a bit fuzzy as it depends on what a "negative hook" is, but in spirit No. DYK hooks cannot follow WP:NPOV in the same way articles can. They are 200 characters, and the format is not designed to be something needing balance. They should in spirit, but the ways we balance articles are often unavailable. Furthermore, DYK hooks can never be modified once concluded, they appear on the main page and then live on the talkpage forever. Hooks should be handled with caution, WP:BLP ones especially so, and DYK should go further than articles in being careful. I disagree with those who say presenting something banal or mildly positive about an individual people consider negative is whitewashing, but even taking that as the case, trying to find the right "negative" things to say is not a great solution. CMD (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes First of all, "negative" is a sloppy and vague term, as already pointed out. The examples above include a misogynist self-describing as such, a bland hook to an arguably sensationalist article, and the story of a career turn-around... I'm tempted to say that these examples define "negative" so badly that this is a bad RfC. But, people are already talking, so: Sometimes a fact about a person will be "negative" in a way that admits no qualification, and that fact will be interesting enough for a DYK hook. The idea that "balance" can't be fit into 200 characters presumes that NPOV is about saying a positive thing for every negative thing, which it isn't. I agree with Fieari's comment above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No, but with some very narrow exceptions, since "negative" is overly broad, and encompasses some noncontroversial nonperjorative types of hooks. I believe you have to answer in your own mind question 2 before answering question 1, which is how I arrived at no. How can we establish a rule that addresses potential negative hooks? So much judgment must be exercised regarding whether the lack of context inherent in a hook renders the negative hook problematic that I cannot see any potential for a bright-line rule. However, there are minor "negative" hooks that no one would object to. For example, mentioning that someone is an orphan could be seen as negative but not perjorative. I would change the prohibition from "negative" to "including content that could diminish the subject's reputation." — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No. At least, not until it can be demonstrated that the broader issues with regard to DYK content have been properly dealt with. In my opinion, the ongoing problems that are evident are more due to process, and to questionable judgement resulting from the pressures the process entails, than to specific subject matter, but given the potential damage 'negative BLP' content can cause, this seems a sensible precaution, as a starting point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Probably? - Way too much introductory RfC material. To the point, however, "negative" is just too broad. If a claim is in the article and there's consensus it meets BLP in the article, that's what matters. If that consensus is unclear, put a hold on the nomination until it's resolved. If the hook includes a BLP claim that misrepresents the article, that's already a problem for DYK. If the hook includes a BLP claim that's unduly negative given the context of the article (extracting the only line of criticism in an otherwise neutral, descriptive article), IIRC that's also something covered by existing DYK guidelines. I don't see a need for a blanket rule like this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No This comes down to politics and culture wars. We have to have the no-neg-rule simply because editors and politics of those editors change. We can certainly find something interesting to "hook" readers without going negative. Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, and it's a pretty clear interpretation of policy that sometimes running a positive hook would be an NPOV violation. If you don't see how that could be the case, consider the hook "... that Harvey Weinstein was one of the most thanked people in Academy Award speeches for thirty years and holds seven Tony Awards?". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
    Just because we don't run a negative hook doesn't mean we have to run a positive hook. We have the option of not running a hook at all. – Teratix ₵ 05:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    It wouldn't be an "option", it would be a discussion (potentially contentious), which would require elements to determine why it would not be run. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    By "option", I mean "something within our power to do". – Teratix ₵ 07:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    Assuming that's true, it would not be a NPOV violation. It could be read as a "positive" hook, and we'd probably change the wording a bit, but at the same time it reads as what I'd expect to find in one of the many news pieces throwing critical shade on the various awards bodies and their relationship to Weinstein/the studios. A quick look finds for example "In fact, the producer elicited more gratitude on the stage of the Academy Awards than any deity". If there is no agreement on this, then as Teratix mentions rejecting nominations remains an option. CMD (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes - it's not a violation of BLP to call somebody a "terrorist" if reliable sources do so, and there is nothing wrong with that reflecting on the main page. GiantSnowman 11:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No neutrality is a pillar (WP:5P2) in main space and it is even more important when we select a <200 character hook to say something about a person. We do not have to highlight the positive but we do have to be neutral. We all have COIs based on our disparate backgrounds and interests. As 4meter4 said above we have to be careful because, tendency is to promote negative hooks from personal bias. edit:also just read CMD's rationale and I very much agree.Bruxton (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes "Andrew Tate self-identifies as a misogynist" is neutral. It's his whole shtick. NPOV doesn't mean we can't show the negative, it means we have to present it in a balanced way in accordance with sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes. BLP does not disallow us from describing negative information about living people, as long as it is properly sourced. DYK is not subject to any exceptional requirement on this issue coming from BLP; it is the same as the rest of the encyclopedia in this regard. The internal DYK rules do have a separate requirement to avoid unduly negative hooks, but that word unduly is important; it is a nod to WP:NPOV. Symmetrically, NPOV does require us to use negative hooks, or not to have a hook at all, in situations where anything but negativity would be undue. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Mild no. The question of whether content is BLP-compliant in an article where it is contextualized and balanced with other content is different from the question of whether that same content is compliant when it is featured on the Main Page with no context at all. Compliance with WP:NPOV and particularly WP:DUE is virtually impossible in a DYK hook, which raises grave concerns with respect to WP:BLP's directive to employ the greatest care and attention to [...] neutrality[.] I recognize the concern that focusing on negative BLP hooks also risks NPOV -- and for my part I would not restrict my position to negative hooks. At the very least, the same concerns apply to promotional hooks (if any). And at the risk of jumping ahead in the agenda, I would question whether it's particularly wise to feature BLP content in DYK at all. BLPs are an inevitable and sometimes necessary product of our encyclopedic mission, but it seems unlikely that we really need or want to incentivize their creation, or that they are likely to showcase the kind of content that makes DYK a benefit to the main page. (Bot-summoned.) -- Visviva (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes - some material is inherently negative but that does not mean that we should censor them. Say we had a DYK on a recently created article, e.g. Killing of Roger Fortson. Fortson is recently deceased, and the police officer that killed him is, as far as I know, still a living person. A negative hook will very likely ensue, with either information that portrays Fortson or the police officer in a negative manner. Does that mean that we cannot feature the article at DYK had it been nominated early enough? I think not. Or how about South Africa's genocide case against Israel that did make it to DYK? The material in the article is likely to portray either some living South Africans, or some living Israelis, or maybe the judges, lawyers negatively. starship.paint (RUN) 08:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    Do the headlines in that article's references contain negative statements about a living person? Many newspapers acknowledge that readers stop at the headline and will offer a descriptor rather than a name. That's where they get "Florida Man threw live gator in Wendy's drive-thru window, police say"[61] with the full name pushed down into the actual article. In the article you mention, the BBC source headline is "US airman shot and killed by police in Florida".[62] Couldn't a hook be piped as something like, "... that Florida police shot a US airman six times in his own home?" If that's a "negative hook on a BLP", then I'd say yes it is compliant with WP:BLP. Rjjiii (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No. Going out of our way to get negative content so prominently displayed isn't NPOV, it's POV pushing. Featuring negative content about living people on the main page is incompatible with our BLP policy, not to mention simply unethical. I'd go even farther to say that DYK shouldn't feature anything contentious or charged. That's just not appropriate for the main page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes. We should not be using the exceptions to make a rule. The vast majority of hooks, "work". --evrik (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes as already the statement in the hook has to be verified, and in the article, which has to comply with policies. So it would mean that the hook also complies with BLP policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
    A statement might be neutrally weighted when given as part of a 2000-word article but become undue in a 200-character hook. – Teratix ₵ 05:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No, because the policy on biographies of living persons is a non-negotiable policy, and Did You Know is a nice-to-have. We have seen that negative hooks inevitably result in conflict. While it probably is possible to develop a policy within the policy as to when negative hooks are consistent with BLP policy, that will be too difficult to be worth the effort. We cannot risk compliance with BLP policy in order to enhance the optional feature of DYK. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    • It appears that there is likely to be No Consensus on whether negative BLP hooks are sometimes allowed, and then we will get into the weeds of Question 2, which we will not be able to resolve, because the simple answer is to Just Say No to Question 1. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, this can follow the neutral point of view in some instances. We allow leeway so hooks can be interesting, but they should not fundamentally misrepresent the topics they are about, which can sometimes be entirely negative facts about living persons. Theleekycauldron and starship.paint make good points. Note that it is possible for other sections of the main page to include negative information about living people, such as In the News (I was thinking about politicians but the current ITN has a blurb mentioning a sportsperson's loss) or Today's Featured Article (it would be wrong for a blurb of a controversial figure to be a hagiography). — Bilorv (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No Dilettante's comment and 4meter4's reply speak to my concerns. DYK is unique in that it is not intended to summarize the article/topic. It incentivizes the most interesting details from an article, which often means presenting information from BLPs with very little context. The Andrew Tate or Matthew Charles Johnson hooks are good examples where effort gets placed on finding something interesting to say about these people (an edgy interview quote, behavior during a trial), while excluding some of the most relevant information about why these people are notable (charges of "rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women"; "convictions ranging from burglary, armed robbery, serious violent offences, and murder"). The idea that DYK would run a positive hook about Harvey Weinstein suggests to me that the community's will to exercise good judgment in deciding which topics are suitable for this type of treatment has atrophied under the current guidelines. hinnk (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes. The current wording, "unduly negative", is overly-broad and prone to an argument saying it's possible someone will perceive it as something negative. I experienced this with my hook of Hal Malchow, where I suggested a hook (ALT1) that was written as quirky and non-negative, but others disagreed. We should act with the presumption that our readers are intelligent enough to know that a single-sentence blurb is not the entire character of a person. To repeat what QuicoleJR said above, I don't see how every hook about a BLP that is even slightly negative violates BLP, and especially when well-sourced. SWinxy (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
    Important context: ALT1, in this case, was ... that Hal Malchow was detained in a Lima, Peru, airport because he was accused of smuggling cocaine in his arm cast?. Malchow was never charged, let alone trialled, let alone convicted for this accusation and it has nothing to do with the reasons he's notable. Honestly, even mentioning it in the article is verging on a WP:BLPCRIME violation.
    It's honestly alarming you think that highlighting an unsubstantiated accusation of drug trafficking is "quirky and non-negative" and that you repeatedly doubled down on the nomination when other editors pointed out the problems with this. I don't think you're competent to be commenting on questions of BLP policy. – Teratix ₵ 04:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No. DYK hooks, by their nature, don't present a neutral overview of the subject but pull isolated facts out of context to pique people's interest. So for a negative BLP hook to be acceptable, the isolated fact it highlights would have to miraculously accord with how we would neutrally describe the subject in a balanced overview with full context. Not completely impossible, but because DYK process has strong incentives to sensationalise and quickly promote hooks I don't trust it to reliably make these judgements. The Tate hook is the only one of those examples which even gets close, but, as others have pointed out, it omits mention of his serious criminal charges in favour of highlighting an edgy self-description. – Teratix ₵ 04:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes Fully concur with @Theleekycauldron. The emphasis here is that negative DYKs are a problem, but very few are considering the opposite: we could equally argue that overly positive, hagiogrpahic, trivial BLP DYKs are a problem; these potentially create equally undue characterisations of the subject. The implication of "no" here is less concerned with overall neutrality, but rather with only one side of the neutrality spectrum. There is somewhat of an inherent tension between the purpose of a DYK hook (clickbait?) and writing an NPOV encyclopaedic article. As long as DYK exists I cannot see this tension (positive and negative) being fully mitigated; completely ruling out "negatives" only deals with one part of the problem. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    This is a non sequitur and closers should give it no weight. Whether overly positive BLP hooks are a problem has no bearing on whether negative BLP hooks are a problem. – Teratix ₵ 07:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    This misrepresents my intervention, I did not state "overly positive BLP hooks are a problem", you've missed the point of argument from counterfactual. Claiming NPOV as a reason to curtail "negative" hooks is arbitrary, all BLP hooks are (potentially) problematic from an UNDUE perspective. I'm not arguing that there is no problem whatsover with negative hooks, just that I cannot see how the proposal resolves the problem of DYK mischaracterising subjects in some fashion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    I cannot see how the proposal resolves the problem of DYK mischaracterising subjects in some fashion It does not need to and was never intended to do so. It is specifically intended to deal with mischaracterisations arising from negative BLP hooks – the most damaging kind – not every sort of mischaracterisation. – Teratix ₵ 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    "negative BLP hooks – the most damaging kind" that's an assertion based on anecodote, without even picking apart the notion of damage (damage is done not just to a BLP subject). I can think of damaging positive hooks, as the Theleekycauldron's Weinstein example demonstrates. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    Can you think of any damaging positive hooks we've actually run (as opposed to hypotheticals)?Sincerely, Dilettante Sincerely, Dilettante 16:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Dilettante today's DYK has "... that 69 is "nice"?" - so we've put school/frat boy innuendo on the front page. I can make a strong case that damages Wikipedia's reputation. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    That's not exactly germane to a conversation on BLPs, but I suppose it's my fault for failing to clarify my request. I'd argur literal libel is more damaging than puerile humor, but to each their own. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    Libel isn't allowed under the current guidelines/policies; we're discussing what is allowed at present. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Mu, but closer to No but on different grounds. Invoking BLP is overkill here. We can and do present negative information on BLPs when sufficiently well-sourced in articles. However, the front page is not an article. It has its own rules and responsibilities. We already have lots of DYK-specific rules; clarifying and strengthening the existing discouragement of hooks that "unduly focus on negative aspects of living people" is something we can do just because it's a good idea. It's better to play it safe for reputation-affecting items on the front page, not necessarily because it's a BLP violation, but just as a common courtesy and "mood" deal - DYK should be fun facts, not a crime blotter or the like. (This would allow the occasional "fun" negative hook that isn't meant particularly hostilely, but get rid of more of the weak "here's a criminal" hooks.) SnowFire (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes Without an equal prohibition on positive hooks, this makes little to no sense. Toa Nidhiki05 18:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No There are further issues with controversial issues on DYK. Some editors seem to think that everything that meets the basic criteria should be included in DYK, but DYK is not a good/featured article listing. The short one line sentence poses serious issues when dealing with BLP and contentious issues. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • No, I don’t think Wikipedia should be showcasing articles by publishing hooks (by nature condensed, out of context, and with a tendency to sensationalise) saying something negative about a living person. The main page gets 4,5 - 5 million pageviews per day. It is impossible to know how many people read some of the hooks without clicking the link to the article for further context, but it’s quite obvious that such readers exist (myself for example). I’m with SnowFire: we should play it safe. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes. 'Unduly negative' together with the BLP rules seem about the right balance to me. If someone has been convicted, then I certainly think that we can mention the conviction in DYK. If someone has just been accused and they deny it, usually that is not responsible to mention without more context than we can include in DYK. Also I worry what harmless things could be interpreted by some editors as "negative". JMCHutchinson (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes as long as the hook is properly vetted and supported by reliable sources, I see no compelling reason to prohibit negative hooks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, with care. It should certainly not be for the purpose of sensationalizing something relatively minor ("Did you know that John Doe was arrested for DUI last week?" is obviously inappropriate, even if it's true), but if done appropriately, something potentially "negative" could still be valid. The world is not all rainbows and unicorns, and we present the bad along with the good. Also, what is "negative" is inherently subjective—I would consider it bad to be a neo-Nazi or a misogynist, but some people proudly identify as those things. If they do, would it be "negative" to reflect that on DYK? Rather, what we need is a firm rule that any BLP hook on DYK, whether it's considered "negative" or not, should be well cited to highly reliable sources in the article, should not "imply by omission" things which are not so cited in the article, and should not be needlessly sensationalistic. If a "negative" hook can meet those criteria, then so it does. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • No. There is no space in a short DYK to provide a balanced NPOV – there is space for one fact only. DYK reviewers have always been unable to enforce policy consistently. We need to draw a clear red line that DYK hooks cannot cross, so that reviewers can easily point to this consensus when rejecting bad hooks. Toadspike [Talk] 08:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Maybe BLP is bilateral: strong sourcing is required both for content that can be interpreted negatively and positively. Disallowing negative DYKs on BLPs but allowing positive ones disrupts this balance. While I can agree with some arguments made by No !voters, I would go further and say that 1) it is impossible to follow NPOV in 200 characters—the hook automatically does not present the subject and/or fact in appropriate context, and often highlights negative or positive aspects 2) if we are going to ban negative BLP hooks, all BLP hooks should be banned. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Question 2

How can we determine when a negative hook on a BLP can and can't be used? What specific guideline(s) should DYK reviewers follow when reviewing negative hooks on BLPs? What language should we include in a guideline that assists reviewers in making decisions and prevents conflict at DYK, Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors, and other project pages? Consider the limitations of the DYK hook format and the language of WP:BLP policy in your answer.

  • Comment I do not see enough support for this RFC at Question 1 to proceed further. I say we close this RFC now. --evrik (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm going to break several thoughts into separate bullet points in case there is consensus for one idea but not another. Rjjiii (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Negative accusations against living persons cannot go into a hook (WP:SUSPECT & WP:BLPGOSSIP). Rjjiii (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Negative and subjective evaluations of living persons cannot go into a hook. A standalone hook cannot meet WP:BLPBALANCE, which requires that we, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". Rjjiii (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    I can agree with this, but one of the biggest arguments regarding this whole topic is "what counts as disproportionate balance"? In the case of the Andrew Tate hook, the argument in favor of the hook that eventually ran was that Tate is largely known for negative reasons, and so the hook also has to be negative. A positive or even neutral hook about it would be "disproportionate" or "unbalanced". That is a sentiment I personally disagreed with but was ultimately the prevailing one, so that has to be kept in mind when discussing whether or not such hooks should even be allowed in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • A negative hook about an individual not known for the fact in the hook, should pipe their name to best meet WP:BLPNAME. For example, use "... that Florida police shot a US airman six times in his own home?" instead of "... that Florida police deputy Joe Bloggs shot Roger Fortson six times in his own home?". This is in line with newspaper headline standards based on the understanding that some people do not read past the headline: "Headlines should include people's names only if they are highly recognizable by most readers.".[63] Rjjiii (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Again, wrong question. Many "negative" BLP hooks are fine, while "positive" hooks can cause harm to BLPs. We should avoid harm, respect privacy where appropriate (i.e. where the people affected by the hook are not public figures like, say, Andrew Tate), and generally be careful, independent of whether people think something is is "negative". My detailed comments were moved; they show areas where we need to be careful with BLPs to avoid causing harm. —Kusma (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This is a red herring. We have no evidence that positive hooks have been pulled from the WP:MAIN page for BLP violations, been brought to a notice board such as WP:ANI or WP:ERRORS, or have been promoted to the queue after a contentious discussion. While theoretically a positive hook could be a POV problem, in practice there aren’t any real systemic problems with positive hooks at DYK. There is a systemic problem with negative hooks with supporting evidence.4meter4 (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a "red herring", and it is the focus on "negative hooks" instead of on BLP issues. Running the Tuen Ma hook could cause harm to a BLP, running the Andrew Tate hooks caused contentious discussions inside the Wikipedia community but no actual harm to a BLP. The last thing we need is a rule that limits BLP attention to "negative hooks". —Kusma (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
None of that is actual evidence of a problem with promoting inappropriate positive hooks. It looks like you are handling the Tuen Ma Line hook review which proves my point. There are no systemic problems with positive hooks and BLP violations at DYK. Nobody is going to be convinced positive hooks are an issue without having multiple pieces of significant supporting evidence such as hooks being pulled from the main page or a report at ERRORS or ANI. I’m not going to discuss this with you further. If you aren’t going to engage productively with question 2 and are going to continue to make arguments not based in any meaningful evidence there’s no point in discussing with you further in this thread.4meter4 (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
There are no systemic problems with positive hooks and BLP violations at DYK
Not sure that is true. Please remember the negativity bias, This could simply be a matter of cognitive bias, as we may simply be ignoring problems with positive hooks because they don't pose immediate red flags. Meta-ironically, the voting pattern bias comes into effect in this very RfC. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that there is a negativity bias. I've never seen a positive hook on a BLP cause protracted arguments at DYK. Nor have I ever seen a positive hook pulled from the main page or brought to ERRORS or ANI. Meanwhile, we have lots of evidence demonstrating those exact issues with negative hooks on a repeating basis. The evidence just isn't there to demonstrate positive hooks are an actual problem. For someone who accused me of offering a "solution in search of problem", I find it highly ironic that you are arguing for a problem with no supporting evidence, and willfully ignoring a problem with supporting evidence.4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This sounds like an argument from ignorance to me. We don't see systemic problems with positive hooks because of the negativity bias. The positive hook bias may be there, but we are just not aware of it. I have as much supporting evidence for this as you do. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with your premise. Positive hooks by their nature have a much smaller chance of violating BLP policy, and as a result are statistically less likely to cause harm or violate policies. This is particularly true because we require the use of independent secondary sources, encyclopedic tone, and we require a balance of POV with DUE weight. In most cases POV issues get sorted appropriately in review and without much fuss. In short, our review system on positive hooks at DYK is working well and there aren't any systemic issues. Arguing that there is a proportional issue, just isn't based in reality, and frankly insisting that it is makes your bias plain to anyone who is objective on this topic. If you can't accept evidence that is right in front of you there is no chance of working with you productively on this issue.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
If we are defaulting to writing positive hooks about BLPs, that’s automatically a NPOV violation. Nobody has even bothered to examine this issue, yet you discard it as immaterial because it doesn’t violate BLP. Sounds like you are preferring one policy over another, when they should have equal weight, hence the importance of avoiding unduly negative hooks. This is the kind of thing Conservapedia is famous for, except in their formulation, an editor is never allowed to say anything negative about the idea of conservatism (if you don’t believe that’s true, then have a look at the site). If we can’t say anything negative about a BLP, that’s a violation of NPOV. I don’t see how you can get around that. The negativity bias here refers to the idea that negative hooks are perceived as a problem, hence they are getting more attention, while the positive hooks go unremarked, partly because they don’t violate BLP as you say, but might still violate NPOV. There’s no way around this, which is why the proposal is so bad. But it does work for Conservapedia, so there’s that. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not a violation of NPOV; NPOV applies to articles (encyclopaedic content). BLP applies to every page on en.wiki, up to and including talkpages. Hooks are not articles, and cannot be expected to "proportionately" cover the topic. Not a single hook does this, whether positive, negative, or some other tive. CMD (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Question 2 is specifically about determining how we can feature negative hooks without violating BLP policy. Work productively and we may be able to continue featuring negative hooks, but with some defined limitations to prevent BLP violations.4meter4 (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Your claim is flat out wrong. Even our DYK guidelines say the hook must adopt NPOV. The more important thing is that your claim basically undermines the intent and spirit of our policies, all of which interact with each other as parts in a working whole. If you and others have this unusual and erroneous interpretation, you may want to start by reviewing DYK guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The DYK guidelines explicitly mention the issue I raise, "a sentence that might be due weight in the article can become undue if used in the hook". The policy and the spirit of all the guidelines and policies remain completely intact and if the main page is handled differently to articles, where we regularly make different considerations to the article space regarding issues like sourcing strictness and censorship. There are currently 3 BLPs on the main page (depending on how you determine recently dead), "... that Richard Osman, who wrote "the biggest thing in fiction since Harry Potter", lost confidence in his writing ability after his experience with Boyz Unlimited?", "... that Green Bay Packers player Travis Glover started at three separate positions along the offensive line during his college football career?", "... that for his first recital as the organist of the restored Frauenkirche in Dresden, Samuel Kummer chose music by Bach, Brahms, and himself?". None of these proportionately represent all significant views that have been published on these topics, which is the letter of NPOV. They are as far as I can tell broadly positive, with even a hooky promotional edge, but I don't read any as significantly violating the spirit of NPOV and/or BLP. The dichotomy of negative/positive is at any rate a false one, we usually have a range of hook options, and avoiding potential BLP issues does not force us towards the binary of having to violate WP:PROMO. CMD (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
No. This is some kind of weird, post-truth revisionism with the purpose of gaming the original intent and spirit of the policies. I wasn’t aware that people actually do this, but here we are. The guideline says "Hooks must adopt a neutral point of view". That’s pretty clear to me. You then selectively quote the following material which applies to BLP and NPOV, based on whether a hook about living people is used in an undue manner. Sorry, but words have meaning. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
And the proposal would not stop hooks from keeping a neutral view, but speaking of post-truth revisionism, the proposal in question was compared to Conservapedia above. CMD (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Improperly posed question presupposing in its wording that we must add something to the wording of the DYK rules. We do not need to do any such thing. We can already use WP:NPOV to decide this. The DYK rules already contain the word "unduly" pointing to this. Continuing to railroad this multipart RFC through is a mistake. Stop now. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    +1 Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think pretty much this. Every page in mainspace must comply with NPOV, and every page on Wikipedia period must comply with BLP. The main page is in mainspace, so it must comply with both. If any content on it does not comply with one or both of those, it must be edited to comply with them or removed. If it does, it is then a matter of editorial discretion whether to include it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I want to thank Rjjiii and Seraphimblade for productively answered this question. Unfortunately the majority of comments in this section have not actually engaged with the question in good faith, and if I don't see some productive movement here in the next couple days, I think we may need to close this question. The RFC as it stands, has successfully identified two opposing camps on a contentious issue, but unfortunately coming to a meeting of the minds, which was my original hope, does not currently seem possible among this RFC's participants unless something changes soon. Unfortunately it's hard to gage what the majority of people are truly thinking about policy language at DYK because of the lack of good willed engagement here. I would point out, that a calm and respectful answer that affirms the language/process currently in place is a perfectly acceptable answer. The question is neutrally worded, so if an editor believes that changes aren't needed that is a perfectly valid answer to this question. Likewise, any thoughts that differ are also valid. Please try and keep comments question targeted rather than diverting the conversation onto other topics. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
    If there ends up being no consensus to change the criteria, you might still find consensus to change the process. I was not around then, but I believe several aspects of the current DYK process are responses plagiarism from about a decade ago. Rjjiii (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Question 3

3. Are there changes that DYK should make to Wikipedia:Did you know, Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, and Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions as it relates to BLPs?

  • Comment. I would like to see language reflecting the current conversation, something to the effect that negative hooks on BLPs at WP:DYK are controversial and do not have wide community support. If it is possible to not use a negative hook on a BLP, then the nominator should make every effort to not propose a negative hook. Only in cases where the preponderance of sources on a person are negative should a negative hook on a BLP be considered. I'd further like to add a mandatory Wikipedia talk:Did you know discussion on all negative BLP hooks. They should not be allowed to be approved by a single reviewing editor but must go through a wider community vetting with a communal vote to approve. This should prevent errors and provide a greater degree of checks and balance on negative BLP hooks. 4meter4 (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Question 4

4. Are there any additional questions we should consider as it relates to DYK and BLP policy before moving on to proposals?

Other comments

4meter4, this RfC will not transclude properly, since it lacks a "brief, neutral statement" preceding the first signature. Since your intention is that only Q1 be open for comment right now, perhaps you could simply ask Q1 right under the rfc tag and follow it with your sig? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

How do I fix this?4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers Did I fix it?4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Yep. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Is Question 1 really the right question? There are two separate issues here: do negative statements violate BLP, and should DYK feature negative statements about living people. There are many good reasons to answer no to both issues. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it is the right question. Negative statements on BLPs don't violate BLP policy in article space when they follow WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSTYLE. I contend that its inherently impossible to follow BLPBALANCE in a one sentence 200 character question statement on the WP:MAIN page. There's no room for context or nuance on complex content in a DYK hook, or presenting differing opinions together, etc. Not everyone reading a hook will go to the article, so whatever we present in that one DYK sentence must be balanced on its own. We could always ask a follow up question, should DYK feature negative hooks on BLPs? if you still think its needed.-4meter4 (talk)

(invited by the bot) The way this is worded, you really need people with "behind the scenes" DYK experience/expertise to understand and participate rather than the general net cast by the RFC bot. Starting with the whole RFC being about "hooks" without explaining what a "hook" (in DYK) is. But the RFC creator did a very thorough job of researching and presenting this to people who already have "behind the scenes" DYK experience/expertise. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@North8000#top Do you have a suggestion for making this better for the average editor? Should I modify the open statement is some fashion?4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm a dummy on DYK so you asked the perfect person.  :-) I'll work on an answer. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I tweaked it a bit. Did that help?4meter4 (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4: I second North8000's query... what is a hook. Perhaps provide a definition for it the first time you use it, or a wikilink to where it is defined (for those of us who arrive here by other means, for me was WP:BIOGRAPHY, and who don't know anything about DYK process).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4: Well, I went and learned what a "hook" is and now it looks simple to fix. Just add this sentence at the beginning of the RFC. "A "Did you know" (DYK) item on the main page of Wikipedia is called a "hook" and in this RFC, "hook" refers to the text portion of that item" North8000 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 I did put a draft forward for public review prior to making this RFC. I even asked for input at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Nobody complained. This is a complex issue. It needed explaining.4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
No one complained that they didn't know what a "hook" was, yet you were happy to tweak that. Anyway, it's your RfC—if it's too complex to get wide community input, so be it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK is inherently different than articles in many ways. It is inherently very short and so can't be expected to be coverage of anything much less balanced coverage. It's designed to be a lesser known fact which is the opposite of balanced coverage. It's selected to have "surprise" value, again the opposite of balanced coverage. It is material which is already in the article and presumably BLP compliant and so perhaps BLP compliance is not the best way to frame the discussion. It also elevates the factoid to immensely higher visibility. From being buried in the body of one of millions of articles to being on the main page of Wikipedia. IMO DYK can and should set it's own higher standard regarding negativity due to the above factors that are unique to DYK.North8000 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think some responders have misinterpreted the question. The question was specifically targeted at hook content, not article content. Article space, as long as it is policy compliant with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, can absolutely contain negative content on BLPs, and in doing so it should not impact its ability to be featured at DYK. The question here is whether we can cherry pick a negative fact on a BLP out of the article and feature it as a stand alone fact within a hook where that fact is no longer placed inside the context of a bigger picture of the subject. Can this really be considered compliant with WP:BLPBALANCE? It's telling that most yes voters failed to engage with parts of the question, specifically considering the DYK hook format. There seems to be a general view among the yes voters that if the article is balanced the hook may do whatever it wants. I think this is a fundamental overstep and is ill considered. Remember, many readers of DYK will not click on the article to read the negative fact in context. For this reason, I contend the hook itself must be balanced on its own to be policy compliant.4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    That is exactly why we have a "not unduly negative" rule. —Kusma (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    Remember, many readers of DYK will not click on the article to read the negative fact in context
    Not sure that is remotely true. As the reader, I will always read the hook in context. That's the entire reason I'm clicking on them. And all of these comments should be moved to the comment section below. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    "many readers" != "you in particular". – Teratix ₵ 05:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Viriditas You can't read a hook in context unless you go to the article page. If you look at page viewing statistics, there is a wide discrepancy in page views from hook to hook which shows not every hook gets as many readers going to the article page. It's common for people to read through the hooks on the MAIN page and only go to the one or two article pages that are of interest to the reader and leave the rest alone. Some people may not go to any articles after viewing the main page. We know that from page viewing stats.4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Today, we ran a clear BLP violation. [64] Matthew Charles Johnson and his co-accused hurled abuse at the judge and threw human excrement at a member of the jury. There was no source provided supporting the claim that Johnson threw excrement. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    That hook was factually incorrect, but not actually nearly as negative as the article overall. A failure of fact checking more than one of adherence to the BLP policy. —Kusma (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not presenting it as concrete evidence that negative hooks should be banned, but it is relevant to a discussion on pulled BLP hooks with negative info in that it provides an additional datum on what kind of hooks tend to be problematic, and for what reason. It may be interpreted in favor of either a yes or no !vote, or as of minor significance either way. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    The subject farted into a microphone and his co-defendant threw excrement. If that's your best argument for negative hooks being banned, then we should probably close this discussion at this point. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not presenting it as concrete evidence that negative hooks should be banned, but it is relevant to a discussion on pulled BLP hooks with negative info in that it provides an additional datum on what kind of hooks tend to be problematic, and for what reason. It may be interpreted in favor of either a yes or no !vote, or as of minor significance either way.
    Thankfully it's not my best argument, nor even an argument at all. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    The hook writer failed to note the subject farted into a microphone and accidentally attributed the excrement throwing to both of them instead of one. This is hardly a major problem. The hook writer messed up and needs to write carefully in the future. This does not say anything about problems with negative hooks or BLP application. My opinion only, of course. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments on proceeding to Question 2

Are Questions 1 and 2 out of order?

A quick review of the responses to Question 1 makes me think that Question 1 and Question 2 are being considered in the wrong order. Question 1 asks whether DYK can feature negative hooks and remain in compliance with BLP policy. Question 2 will be asked if there is a Yes consensus on Question 1, or if Question 1 has No Consensus, and is: How can we determine when a negative hook on a BLP can and can't be used?. I voted No on Question 1 because I do not think that there will be agreement on Question 2. Question 1 is a Yes-No question, but Question 2 may require lengthy discussion to formulate the rules.

When I voted No, it appeared that No Consensus would be a likely final result, in which case we would move on to Question 2. It still appears that No Consensus is a likely final result. In that case, we will move on to Question 2. What happens if Question 2 results in several versions of negative BLP rules, none of which has consensus? Then we are right back where we started, with no rule against negative BLPs, except that we know that we don't know what negative hooks are permitted.

In my opinion, it would have been better to try to agree on a proposed rule for negative hooks before voting on whether negative hooks are sometimes permitted. However, since we are here, I suggest that we start the discussion of Question 2 in parallel with Question 1. If we can't agree on Question 2, then it might be a good idea to leave Question 1 open so that people know that a Yes vote means a vote on something undefined. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we have firmly established a no consensus on Question 1. I'll leave it open in case people still want to comment on Question 1. I agree that we can move on to Question 2. It's a bit late to complain about order now that so much input has happened. The questioning process was open for input at a pre-RFC discussion for about a week. It is what it is. 4meter4 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment from evrik
Comment I do not see enough support for this RFC at Question 1 to proceed further. I say we close this RFC now. --evrik (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@evrik That suggestion is a terrible idea. This was the question to ask if there was no consensus at Question 1 as outlined in the RFC plan. The fact that there is no consensus at Question 1 indicates the use of negative hooks at DYK is controversial and does not have firm community support. In order to continue to allow negative hooks on the main page we need to create some guidelines that does have broad community support. The attempt to shut community discussion down is not helpful. We need to solve this on-going community problem, and it is a problem with about half the people saying we shouldn't be promoting negative hooks. I further note, that at the WP:ANI discussion there was a mention of taking this to WP:ARBCOM. If we close this now and shut down necessary community input, I would support going forward with an ARBCOM investigation of DYK and allow them to set community policy for us.4meter4 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I do think there is room for productive discussion about how to best deal with BLP issues at DYK. I wish that you would drop the focus on "negative" so we can try to find ways to give more guidance on how to deal with (or at the very least raise awareness of) other BLP-related problems like Template:Did you know nominations/Lunch (song) (perhaps unwanted focus on the BLP's sexuality) or Template:Did you know nominations/I'm really excited about the opening of Tuen Ma line (possibly unwanted attention on a vulnerable person who has been subject to abuse after a viral video). The question should not be so much "is this hook negative?" but more "would posting this hook harm an identified living person?", something where the answer does depend on how public the person in question is and how widely the information is already known (WP:BLPPUBLIC). General classes of BLP hooks that I think should usually not be posted include anything involving rumours (Template:Did you know nominations/BBL Drizzy) or accusing living people of crimes they have not been convicted for (Template:Did you know nominations/Hal Malchow). All of these are recent discussions where at least some people are trying to do the right thing, but better guidance could be helpful for everyone (and certainly more eyes and a generally more cautious approach would be beneficial). —Kusma (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Kusma The RFC is what it is. It was formed during a pre-RFC discussion that was open to community input and comment. I'm not going to go in and change the RFC's structure or questions after having gone through a community vetting period. That will only increase invalidity of the RFC. There's some room for further questions built in. Raise them when we get to that part in the RFC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
To me and others, it has the appearance of a solution in search of problem. Others have already pointed out that in spite of its minor issues due to reviewer deficits, DYK is operating at peak efficiency and accuracy. For some reason, a certain segment of Wikipedia doesn’t want to acknowledge this. For all of its flaws, people are doing a great job. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
That’s a red herring. The issue here isn’t about accuracy or efficiency, but repeated BLP violations; a few of which had wide community input at DYK but ended in a bad choice on the part of the DYK community. (Such as the Tate hook) 4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I don’t see the Tate hook as a violation, nor do a lot of other editors. But assuming what you say is true for the sake of the argument, given how many hooks we publish and how many are problematic, what you’re describing is a drop in the bucket. While it would be nice to have statistics, it looks like DYK is doing a good job. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
You don't need to continue making your case in side threads. The Tate hook was widely condemned at the WP:ANI discussion by commenting admins, and many editors expressed regret in the related DYK talk page. Additionally, I personally have no interest in making this discussion into a broader case against DYK. As you know, I regularly contribute to DYK and am a constructive member of the DYK editing team. This discussion is not intended to become a broad attack on the project, which is something you seem to be attempting to allege. This RFC is meant to deal with a real and continuing problem within the project that happens in a limited context of hook submissions. It's specific, but it matters. I care about DYK and I want it to contine doing what it does well but also improve where it can work better. This is one of those places where DYK must do better. I find it distressing when the project does something I perceive to be genuinely unethical and against WP:BLP policy. The fact that nearly half of the people in response to question 1 also have similar views, should indicate that there is a problem. Good policies don't have such a wide range of discrepancy in an RFC. If you can't see the other side and that we are genuinely acting in good faith and with what is intended to be in DYK's and wikipedia's best interests than there's nothing I can do about that.4meter4 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your dedication, but I also continue to disagree that the Tate hook was "widely condemned". Well meaning and intentioned editors can often have vastly different perceptions of an elephant in a dark room. Enjoy your day or night. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
One interesting thing I noticed about the RfC is that there's an overlap between those who saw the Tate hook as unproblematic and those who think negative hooks should be allowed (and vice-versa). The opinions are so polarized that it's clear that there really isn't any consensus here on how to handle things. Even DYK itself is divided and finding a solution is not easy. What's clear is that I disagree that "DYK is doing a good job" in this case, because if it was, it wouldn't have ended up on ANI and we wouldn't have this RFC in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Understood, and even though you and I aren’t often on the same page, I want to tell you that I truly appreciate your clear and direct communication. Earlier in the overall discussion (perhaps on ANI, or here, I can’t recall), someone mentioned metrics or at least the impression of them. What percentage of DYK hooks have historically been a problem? It looks like it’s far less than 1%. Why isn’t this a sign that DYK is doing a good job? It’s an incredible achievement. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Most DYK hooks aren't problematic at all, and when problems are found, they're usually fixable things like factual errors, sourcing problems, or unclear wording. Rejecting nominations outright is relatively rare (and is something I and some editors wish wasn't the case if only to prevent noms from dragging out). It's one of the reasons why I'm so opposed to a blanket ban on BLPs on DYK. It would do more harm than good and most BLP issues can be resolved by our existing system. The issue has always been more to do with enforcement and quality checking rather than something wrong with BLP DYKs itself. With the Tate case, the main issue was simply the community could not agree on whether or not the hook was appropriate or even if the article should run at all. With the benefit of hindsight, just rejecting the nomination completely due to a lack of consensus probably would have been the best option; it wasn't an unreasonable one anyway, and I think a large part of what happened was due to reviewers being unwilling to say no due to fear of backlash (a fear that is to be fair not unfounded). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood the parameters of this RFC. I think that this is a solution in search of a problem. Really, we need to strengthern the DYK policies, but I'm not sure this is the vehicle to do so. --evrik (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Closing the RFC

The RFC must be closed neutrally and by a non-involved party. It must also give a detailed summary of the discussion for the benefit of future conversations. I am going to open up questions 3 and 4. It may not go anywhere, but lets give it a few days. 4meter4 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about review

Ornithoptera created Bjarne Store-Jakobsen which is slotted into Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1 with the hook

I created Esther Tailfeathers, and suggested we combine the hooks into one with two targets:

Would anyone object if Ornithoptera does that review, to move it along a little quicker? They know the sources and the content, but had zero to do with the writing of the article. Valereee (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure this was best practice. I've left a comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Esther Tailfeathers. (No need to reopen Template:Did you know nominations/Bjarne Store-Jakobsen, and courtesy ping to promoter AirshipJungleman29. regarding potential hook change) CMD (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it would probably be best if the nomination was re-reviewed by an uninvolved editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I've pulled Bjarne from prep. Discussion can continue at Esther's nomination.--Launchballer 09:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
CMD and AJ29, no worries, that was why I brought it here to begin with, wanted to make sure we were at minimum being transparent, I've marked it as needing a second reviewer. Thanks, Launchballer, that gives us some time to go through the normal process. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed, see nom page. CMD (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Travis Glover

The hook has already run on DYK so this is somewhat of a moot point, but how does this hook meet WP:DYKINT? It is a very specialist hook and quite reliant on American football knowledge, and if you aren't familiar with American football positions and terminologies, the hook may not be as obvious or interesting. I'm not saying the hook fact itself wasn't unsuitable but there was probably a better way to word this. Pinging nominator Gonzo fan2007, article creator BeanieFan11, reviewer 4meter4 and promoter Launchballer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't have trouble understanding it, and I don't pay any attention to American football. My knowledge on the sport is close to nothing.4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if it's interesting, but it's clear he played 3 positions in a sport. Whether that's because he's good at them all or because he didn't really have a purpose is less clear. Unfortunately the article does not provide commentary either way, nor any indication if this is different to the norm. If anything, I'm not sure how the hook interacts with WP:DYKHOOKCITE as it seems to be combining different sources, but counting is not usually considered OR. CMD (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why this constantly keeps coming up. Interesting to a broad audience applies to the 400 million fans of American football/NFL in the world. You know what I don't find interesting??? "That 69 is nice". How is it interesting that a child was going to have a different name?? ("that North West was originally going to be called Kaidence"). Or "that Lock's Quest was said to feature "some of the best original music in a DS game"?" What broad audience finds the music in a video game as some of the best? DYK does not have to be interesting to everyone. Half the DYKs on the main page I could give zero crap about, find full-blown disinteresting, etc and I don't come complaining to the talk page about every one of them. Could it have been worded better? IDK, propose a different wording if you want. Starting (not just playing) three different positions along the offensive line is an interesting fact to almost any AF/NFL fan, it shows versatility and productivity. Also, literally the English couldn't get simpler. There is no jargon or terminology here, and the only possible concern is linked (offensive line). This isn't Simple English Wikipedia. We can assume that the average read understands standard English words. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
We need you to cool it Zanahary (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder Zanahary. No cursing. Responding to the points brought up. No personal attacks. But yeah, I guess I'll take a chill pill. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
So many BLP hooks are extremely boring facts about pretty obscure people. I notice articles about sportspeople are particularly productive in terms of bad hooks. I’m not trying to be an ass, but I think we need to be more strict about the “interesting” criterion. Zanahary (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Part of my "frustration" is the continual needling by some DYK regulars on WP:DYKINT regarding American football topics, likely because of a lack of interest, knowledge or understanding of the sport. However, I often stress that a worldwide audience of 400 million for AmerFoot is significant, especially considering the sport's higher interest from English-speaking language countries (and this being the English Wikipedia). I'll also note that AmerFoot is currently going through a significant expansion internationally through the NFL International Series, so this isn't an American-only topic anymore. WP:DYKINT says The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. This language is clearly ambiguous and provides a lot of room for interpretation, taking into account differences between populations and interests, and obviously provides room for hooks that have a general interest, but not a universal interest. I just wish that every other AmerFoot hook that comes to DYK doesn't get this type of discussion, while other topics with much smaller or less general interest from the population have much less scrutiny. It's just frustrating and tiring. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
It isn't an anti-American football bias specifically. Similar things have also been said about basketball hooks, and basketball is more popular internationally than American football. Even soccer hooks have had the occasional pushback, so the concerns about sports hooks being too specialist aren't an American football thing. For what it's worth, I'm familiar enough with American football to get the idea of the hook, but not everyone worldwide will get it. Even within America, not everyone is an American football fan outside of the Super Bowl. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I guess you haven't been paying attention to the bi-weekly "mind-numbingly boring opera hook" discussions, like the one we had for a DYK that ran on the same day as Glover... And maybe it feels like AF DYKs get dragged more than other topics because, unlike every other topic, AF subjects run at DYK practically every other day? Between May 25 and May 31 we had three hooks on specifically gridiron offense players on NFC North teams! JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think its all that specialist. All you really need to understand to get the hook is the idea of 'positions' in sports, and I'd say that probably the vast majority of people do; e.g. I don't know a ton about the terminology for ice hockey, but I could understand it if someone said that "so-and-so ice hockey player played at three different positions'. Also, I'd think that him not only playing, but starting at each of the positions adds interest. I've had more 'interesting' hooks before, but I'd still say it clears the bar of 'interesting-ness' considering what we generally post. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not a big sports fan, but I know that at least in some sports, it's common for players to play different positions. I've always assumed that while the center has certain unique skills, the other linemen were pretty much interchangeable. RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not think these hooks a are too "specialist". I enjoy learning about all subjects so I often click through the links of hooks that I am not sure of and I learn. I think many people have a fundamental understanding of sports, and they would likely understand that starting "at three separate positions" means someone is pretty good at the sport. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree—as someone who has the barest understanding of American sports, I'm fairly certain that as long as you understand "positions" and "offensive" can be used in a sporting context, you should be able to understand a) what the hook is saying and b) that it's a bit unusual. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
as long as you understand "positions" and "offensive" can be used in a sporting context, you should be able to understand ... that it's a bit unusual. Really? I would guess most readers would not be at all surprised to hear that many offensive positions are interchangeable in a sport they're not super familiar with. A lot of sports do not make that big a distinction between positions, especially at lower levels (keeping in mind that basically only two countries even have college sports, so outside of NA readers will have very little appreciation for college feats of any kind), even in American football (e.g. the QB on my high school's team was also the kicker, probably because he was a ballerina), and it's definitely not unheard of at the professional level either. Utility players are pretty common in the most popular sport in the world -- our category has over 800 members -- and that's mostly only including players switching between offense and defense! Some of the most famous NBA players in recent history are combo guards, and in the MLB it is rarer for a team not to have someone who can play multiple positions. Utility players aren't that uncommon in gridiron either, and according to this NYT article, most American football fans apparently don't think it's that difficult for pros to switch along the O-line.
And anyway shouldn't DYKINT be aiming higher than "a bit unusual", especially when the mild unusualness is not even obvious to most readers? JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I don't understand quite a lot of what you just wrote, but for me, a person with "no special knowledge or interest" in the topic, it is intriguing. Not "jump out of my bath yelling" intriguing, but the sort that makes me raise my eyebrows and nod my head. Thus, fine by me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I think we are just trying to feature new and good content, so aiming higher with hooks is not as important. We look for what might get folks to read the article and some of us think maybe this hook will. I appreciate you POV though. Lightburst (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
If the sources themselves don't find his switching along the O-line unusual enough to discuss beyond mentioning that he "has experience at both tackle and guard", why should WP? I should note also that the first source lists 25 other players in his draft class alone with "experience at both left and right tackle" or "both center and guard" or "had double-digit starts at both guard spots" or "played at a high level at both tackle and guard" or "logged snaps at every offensive line position ... except center" or "logged snaps at all five positions in college", and that's just for starters who played multiple games in multiple positions on the O-line, I'm not even including defensive line or other offense players, or all the players with descriptors like "[had] a few snaps at center and right guard, but [almost all] of his college snaps came at left guard" or "practiced at center and right guard". For several players the source even lists playing only one O-line position as a weakness.
Also, 3/6 days last week had hooks on NFL offense players from the same division in the same conference... If we're constantly going to inundate DYK with American football hooks, shouldn't readers unfamiliar with the subject at least be able to recognize why the hook is interesting without having to click through to the article, let alone have to additionally follow each of the links on football positions within the article so they can figure out for themselves why it would be unusual for someone to go from right to left tackle (because certainly neither the article nor its sources explains this)? JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
If the sources themselves don't find...unusual enough to discuss beyond mentioning...why should WP?: That's a slippery slope. A lot of DYK hooks just randomly quote snippets without the source expounding on the quote or even then source of the quote.—Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The hooks certainly, but it was disappointing when I clicked through and it was not explained in the article either. CMD (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Nor is it in many other hooks. We can use this hook as an example for improvement, but it's not the exception.—Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
As an example, we are currently running a hook with a quote from a satirical magazine, unattributed in the hook, and no evidence in the body that the quote is at all notable or even mentioned outside of the primary source itself. I'm all for expecting more substance in hooks, but let's not apply this only to American football hooks. —Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Heh. I was rather proud of that hook :-) RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Sorry, I didn't mean it to be personal. That is a fairly standard hook. My point was that a different standard was being proposed for Glover, which can be fine if we are going to be consistent across the board. —Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm just saying that given we're running NFL player hooks 2+ times a week maybe we ought to make sure that they're more than vaguely unusual and that at least the sources explain what is interesting so that readers who know nothing about football are actually rewarded for clicking through. JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that a fact’s interestingness can/should be determined by editors, not sources. Zanahary (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you, it's totally not interesting. I'm not raising my eyebrows either. Zanahary (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Making hooks more accessible for the unfamiliar

I’m wondering what other editors’ thoughts are on making it a standard to explain proper nouns in hooks, either directly or through context. So, for instance, a hook could say "…that a Dutch filmmaker was circumcised so he could pass as Muslim and film The Great Mecca Feast?" instead of "…that George Krugers was circumcised so he could pass as Muslim and film The Great Mecca Feast?" The revised book doesn’t need to explain or pipe the film title because it’s clear now from the description of Kruger that it’s a film the Dutch filmmaker shot.

These explanations could be piped like the above example or in-text, like "…that Cambodian musician Sinn Sisamouth…"

I just think this sort of hook makes more sense in the format that starts with "Did You Know… ?". Like, Did You Know that Samantha Clams was fifth defensive neuter-agent in Harriett’s Cookie Scramble? Uhm, no, I didn’t know that. I don’t know what these things are.

What do we think? Zanahary (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I can see deferring to the nominator's discretion whether name-dropping will draw the type of interest they are seeking. —Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7 (nom)

Not sure whether this is exactly "negative", but it certainly feels at least a little embarrassing to me, and from the discussion at the nom, it looks like you have to go into a stats database (Elite Prospects) being used as the source and figure it out for yourself, rather than that factoid being sourced to someone actually discussing it in a RS?

I would suggest maybe

ALT1: ... that when Georgi Romanov and his wife lived in Yekaterinburg, she was a food blogger?

Pinging Blaylockjam10, Bruxton, AirshipJungleman29. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the negativity nor the problem with using a stats database, and the proposed ALT is nowhere near meeting WP:DYKINT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the original hook isn't exactly a BLP case. Indeed, the hook is actually interesting even for a non-sports fan, which can't be said for some of our other recent sports hooks. I would suggest however clarifying "shootout loss" in the hook for the benefit of non-ice hockey fans. The new hook might have potential if it is specified that Romanov is an ice hockey player, but otherwise the original hook is still better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I've asked for clarification at the article for how/why this happened. Valereee (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: "A goaltender receives a loss if he is on the ice when the opposing team scores the game-winning goal." – Romanov made his only appearance in a shootout (which is not timed, thus 'zero minutes') and the other team scored the game-winning shot during the shootout. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11, THANK YOU. Lol, I was like...whaaaa? So this is not something anyone would be embarrassed about? Valereee (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Hmmmm... well, I've never been a follower of hockey so I can't say with certainty – but it doesn't strike me as something overly negative... BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: Here are details from a nhl.com source in the article.

He also played in one Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) game this season, with his lone appearance coming for Avtomobilist Yekaterinburg in the shootout portion of a 4-5 shootout loss to Barys Astana on Dec. 24, 2022. He saved three of four (75%) shootout attempts.

Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
That source helps a lot, for me. I assume it would clarify the article's hook sentence for many. Valereee (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I think this is a good example why "negative hook involving a BLP" is a too wide category to be outlawed. Anyway, I think we could just as well state this without the loss:
The "credited with zero minutes" would benefit from better sourcing. —Kusma (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
+1. Valereee (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
But this is not interesting, especially not to anyone uninterested in hockey. Zanahary (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I too did not see this as a negative blp hook. I was very interested in figuring out how it happened but never once had a negative thought about the player. Bruxton (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't sports, so I'll take your word for it that playing zero minutes all season and still recording a loss is not embarrassing. :D Valereee (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Negative? I thought this was interesting. --evrik (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Again, I don't sports, but negative doesn't mean uninteresting. And unless this is something so common that no one who does sports has any questions, then are we sure Elite Prospects didn't make a mistake? Valereee (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Unrelated to the actual nom, the proposed ALT1 focusing on his wife seems inappropriate to me. We would (I hope) find it sexist and wrong to have a hook on an independently notable woman that focuses only on what her husband did, so the reverse should also be wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Fair point. Valereee (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't see this as negative? Statistics from reliable databases are usable as sources as far as I'm aware? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Porting my comments from related notice at WP:BLPN: I'm having trouble verifying the claim within the source provided. I checked the article, and it appears to be the only one supporting "zero minutes" and "no minutes." Could someone please point out what part of the ref offered actually says this? My next question is whether this wikivoice statement isn't original research or perhaps synthesis (I haven't looked at all other sources in the article for this to be synth, but it happens). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I always feel that when contested, any fact sourced to a primary source database should be verifiable as well via a secondary source. Otherwise, we have Wikipedia editors mining stats databases for factoids they personally find interesting. —Bagumba (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I've marked the entry in the prep rather than pulling because we have three days and that prep also has an empty slot, so I figure it isn't getting moved to queue anytime soon, but if someone else wants to just pull, feel free. @Blaylockjam10, this is going to need a new hook. Valereee (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The source says 1 game played, a record of 0-0-1 (a loss) and the TOI (time on ice) is 0:00, why should this need a new hook? @Valereee:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Here are details from a nhl.com source in the article.

He also played in one Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) game this season, with his lone appearance coming for Avtomobilist Yekaterinburg in the shootout portion of a 4-5 shootout loss to Barys Astana on Dec. 24, 2022. He saved three of four (75%) shootout attempts.

Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a clever hook. I do not even care for hockey. Lightburst (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Ōsakishimojima

@Launchballer, Jpatokal, and Schwede66: I'm concerned about WP:CLOP vs mlit.go.jp/tagengo-db/common/001565298.pdf. For example:

a secret agreement between the provinces of Chōshū and Geishū to ally against the Tokugawa shogunate, was signed at Mitarai on November 26, 1867 and became a key event in the fall of the shogunate
a secret agreement between the provinces of Chōshū and Geishū to form an alliance against the shogunate. This treaty was an important step in the fall of the shogunate

See the Earwig report. There's nothing here that can't be fixed with a bit of copyediting, but it should be taken care of before it hits the main page. RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that saw me scratching my head; given the Earwig report, that really stood out. How could I possibly have missed that? Looking at the article's history, the editor did a significant expansion after my initial review. They introduced the CLOP in that process and I didn't do a further Earwig check; hence I didn't spot that. My apologies. It's good that we have these re-review processes in place. Thanks for catching this, RoySmith. Schwede66 20:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The quoted text is from the website of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, which (like most Japanese government agencies) grants a CC BY license to all their content. Anyone may freely use the information published on the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism website (hereinafter referred to as "content"), including copying, public transmission, translation, transformation and other adaptations, in accordance with 1) to 7) below. ... These Terms of Use are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (the copyright license conditions set out at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.ja ; hereafter referred to as "CC BY"). Content to which these Terms of Use apply can also be used in accordance with CC BY. https://www.mlit.go.jp/link.html Jpatokal (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
It's great that it's CC-BY-4.0, but you still need to comply with the terms of the license which include the obligation to 1) provide attribution and 2) "you must indicate if you modified the material and retain an indication of previous modifications". I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I would think you could comply with #1 by importing the text verbatim and putting "copied from <source URL>, CC-BY-4.0" as an edit comment, and then comply with #2 making another edit to modify the text, with a similarly descriptive edit comment. Given that wasn't done, then I'd say second best would be to add a note to the talk page. RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Or, even simpler, just quote it verbatim and cite the source as you would any other quotation. RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
The normal way to deal with #1 above is to add a CC-BY 4.0 template to the reference. I've done that for you. Schwede66 03:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Great Genna Martyrdom

I want hazard duty pay for having been forced to read some of the descriptions in this. RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

A "straightforward policy of elimination of Christians that had a dramatic impact on Nagasaki Christian community" you say. CMD (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Too much football

We've got one NFL hook in Queue 5 and more NFL on deck in Prep 6, Prep 1, Prep 2, and Prep 3. Maybe we want to dial that down a bit? RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This happens, and I love football, but yeah we can spread it around. Some mandatory reporting has happened for NFL so folks are starting to pay attention to their favorite teams. I am having a great time traveling! I am going to go see the California sequoias this weekend. I hope you and everyone else has a great weekend! Lightburst (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

  • St. Anne's Church, Moxi (nom) looks clear to me! wild story. non-English citations accepted in good faith. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Mercantile Library Company (Philadelphia) (nom) nifty piece of Americana! AdoTang, bit jumpy about the use of this orgblog and the fact that the hook citation is in a picture caption. Anything more solid? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    Fixed the hook sourcing, but the orgblog is still there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    pulled due to this and another unreliable source, unfortunately. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Mary Ann Wells (nom) solid shortbio. @Xoak and SL93: my interpretation of WP:WEASEL, per Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed, would be that the source saying was soon considered most influential ballet teacher of Pacific Northwest is not a clear case of attribution to any institution, person, or group thereof. Given that this is, like, a three-sentence source that cites no sources and has this weasel problem, I can't really justify relying on it for such an extraordinary claim. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron, and @SL93 okay. Let's just rephrase it to "an influential" in lieu of the most influential. I think that'll solve it. I've edited the article accordingly. Or we could with the ALT2. Btw, that dictionary was written by a panel of subject experts and authoritative figures. They did not pass on adjectives willy-nilly but with careful consideration. They did not cite sources for short biographies, and I feel it was redundant in this instance for the highlighted adjective.
    However, they are themselves the ones who are largely cited in more modern dictionaries, such as Britannica and Encyclopedia.com. Since the material is in public domain, tons of their biographies are duplicated as is in reputable dictionaries with attribution. That also speaks for their credibility. X (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Xoak: The source doesn't say "an influential" or "the most influential", is the problem. A source is only as reliable as the information it is aggregating, and in this case, we have no idea who considers Wells to be "an influential" or "the most influential", so we have no idea how reliable the claim is. If the source simply said "Wells was the most influential ballet teacher in the Pacific Northwest", then we'd have something to talk about, but "Wells was considered the most influential ballet teacher in the Pacific Northwest" (emph. added) is a sourcing problem. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron let's move on from this hook and modify it as suggested, or let's go for ALT2 (which I also mentioned in the nom). The reviewer and promoter didn't have issues with them. And I appreciate your keen eye. But I'm really occupied in IRL rn so can't communicate back and forth much. Let's go with ALT2.
    Have a good one. X (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    I guess just go with ALT2. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Xoak and SL93: I've swapped in ALT2, with some modifications for brevity and source–text integrity. good to go! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    pulled at ERRORS. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Ryoko Kui (nom) my friend has vowed to get me into Dungeon Meshi, so this is a nice first step lol! looks good (equivocating on the difference between fan art and playable portraits), non-English citations accepted in good faith. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Silence Is Loud (nom) pulled on sourcing questions. I must say, I find jungle to be a really interesting genre – had no idea it existed, will have to explore more! really interesting concept. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Eurovision Song Contest 1974 (nom) awesome to have a GA on this! Eurovision never grabbed me, but some of my friends (and one of my professors this year) cared rabidly and so I hear a ton about it by proxy. Looks good to go, offline/non-English citations accepted in good faith. I've also shortened the hook substantially (cc Sims2aholic8). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Georgi Romanov (nom) pulled on sourcing issues. Sports articles can be trouble, because sources can tend to be all stats, particularly when they're by the team/statblocks/wire services – but I never got an answer to why he was credited with no playtime! Can't walk me to the brink with a good hook and not give me the answer :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This one's still in the queue and should be pulled. I'll get to my Silence Is Loud hook later.--Launchballer 10:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I already explained that above – he only played as part of the shootout portion – which wasn't timed (thus no official playing time). I disagree that this should have been pulled. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Pulled. BeanieFan11, the pull doesn't have anything to do with that part of the hook – see nomination page for explanation :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

Suicide of Fat Cat (nom)

After I uncovered WP:NONENGPLAG-type close paraphrasing at a different nomination, I was asked to check this one for similar issues. I have indeed found issues, such as the first paragraph of the "Background" section not being fully verified by the sources, and what looks like close paraphasing of a direct translation later on (the sentences beginning "Furthermore, ChaPanda and Wallace announced..."). These were the first issues I checked, and this sensitive article obviously falls under BLP; I do not have time to investigate further, but if more issues are uncovered, I would recommend pulling. Pinging nominator TheGreatPeng, reviewer Nineteen Ninety-Four guy and queuer TheSandDoctor (I promoted). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer here. I rescind my AGF review of this nomination, having found some closely paraphrased texts as well as blatantly copied ones from the source upon a Google Translate comparison between source text and article text:
Background
  • Close paraphrasing detected at content supported by cite#8
Aftermath and Reactions
  • Fourth paragraph copy-pasted from citations 12 and 18
  • Seventh paragraph closely paraphrased from cite#3
  • Last sentence of ninth paragraph closely paraphrased from cite#21
  • All but first sentence of fifth paragraph closely paraphrased from cite#20

There could be more. On top of that, the article also fails to mention the fact that Fat Cat was reportedly frugal and a vegetarian, contrary to reports that he had given a large sum of money to his "wife" and his supporters claim that he would have loved McDs takeouts ordered in his memory. In any case, article should definitely be pulled from Queue due to blatant copyvio. I should have known better. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Before making any assumptions about the article, please check the Chinese Wikipedia first. Also, review the earlier version of the article, which was a translation of the Chinese Wikipedia article. I have already tagged on Talk:Suicide of Fat Cat. If the information matches the content from the source, please conduct an analysis on the Chinese Wikipedia first. I am new to Wikipedia and am learning. I never realized that translating content from the source or the Chinese Wikipedia could be a policy violation. It’s hard to understand how translation can vary when using Yandex or Microsoft translation tools instead of Google Translate. The policy seems to be like trying to copyright the wind. TheGreatPeng (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy Please stop harboring personal resentment toward me after I disagreed with the hook you chose for the DYK of Fat Cat. You are the only reviewer for that DYK, and you made more changes to the article than I did as the creator. After I disagreed with you, you started to bite me on every one of my articles. I’m a newbie; please don’t bite me, and I’m not infected with rabies. It seems like you just want to target Chinese editors first and ignore the truth. Let me point out: He mentioned that the whole Background section contains 'close paraphrasing detected at content supported by cite #8.' However, cite #8 is a mirror of English Wikipedia and was reported on May 11, after the Wikipedia article was created. You can compare the two versions easily by the timestamps see. Additionally, many Chinese sources are mirrors of the Chinese Wikipedia, so the majority of Chinese text matches the content from Chinese Wikipedia. Please conduct an honest research. Thank you for taking many of your time to find mistakes in me to discredit me. TheGreatPeng (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    TheGreatPeng, is Suicide of Fat Cat currently cited to sources that mirror the Wikipedia article? Rjjiii (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    I added this English reference as an extra because an IP editor said the article was not sufficiently established for notability. Since then, I have added all the references I found online or through Google News. Please see the talk page and article's history. I also disagree with the claim that the 'fourth paragraph is copy-pasted from citations 12 and 18.' I will return with the facts, but now I have to go to my class. See you. TheGreatPeng (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    That makes sense. I ask because it's against WP:CIRCULAR to cite Wikipedia or to cite websites mirroring Wikipedia. Mirrors aren't accepted as reliable secondary sources. Thanks for translating an article over. It does seem like it needs some cleanup. The other Wikipedias have less strict standards for sourcing. It is likely related to size since the English Wikipedia had less strict standards when it was smaller. Rjjiii (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    And other language Wikipedias cannot be assumed to be correct and blindly translated into English. Also at WP:CIRCULAR:

    Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source.

    Content must be verifiable. —Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    Please strike your personal attacks against Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, TheGreatPeng. Your claim that they have "started to bite you on every one of your articles" is demonstrably false (source). WP:BITE is not a get-out-of-jail-free card: when you get things wrong, especially when they are serious, you are expected to take the criticism on board, not rant that "it seems like you just want to target Chinese editors first and ignore the truth". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not making a personal attack on Nineteen Ninety-Four. Thinking I was a target is a personal attack? How? If is not targeting Chinese editors, it nice, but the "ignoring the truth" is real, and he made a false accusation by not knowing some references are mirror sources. Before accusing others, he should do proper research first. I'm not trying to get a get-out-of-jail-free card. I said you guys are bullying new editors by overweighing and puzzling me with many Wikipedia policies. I'm still learning and don't think one-sided. TheGreatPeng (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I've pulled this. I'm looking for a replacement. RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I've also tagged the article with the relevant templates in light of these developments. I'm almost certain the bulk of it was generated through machine translation. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Thanks for following up and tagging. And regarding, "should have known better", I don't know about that. Looking into this is a lot, especially since it's two different versions of the article each with their own timeline. I had intended to promote the piped-link hook, and am just getting off without blame here because I instead, did nothing. Rjjiii (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I read through the article and left brief comments on the talk page. I would like to ask DYK to close this as not promoted and to refrain from running any hook at this time. The article is a complete mess and should not be on the front page. It would have to be completely rewritten, and that’s clearly not going to happen. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    I've looked closer and rejected the nomination. Many thanks for the comments above. Viriditas, do I need to mark the nom as rejected or do I leave that for someone else? I think most of my early reviews were for OGs that had easy-to-pass articles, so I am currently a bit clueless, Rjjiii (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
    As you were the one who added the reject tick, a different editor will need to close it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

ZX Spectrum

@Jaguar, Panamitsu, and AirshipJungleman29:

The following sentence needs a citation: "The ZX Spectrum did not include a built-in computer monitor, and was instead intended to be connected to the customer's television set." Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Just want to point out this is likely already sourced in the article and amounts to a blue sky statement. In 1982, connecting to a television was standard. The TRS-80 Color Computer was released two years earlier than the Spectrum, and everyone who had it hooked it up to their color TV. It was a big deal and a huge game changer for young hobbyists. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
As someone who's younger than the Spectrum and only knows about it through retro YouTubers, it might be obvious to people of a certain generation but not younger ones (I'm from a generation that's surprised that the Spectrum used cassettes, for example). I don't think a citation would hurt here even if it was obvious. It shouldn't hold back the nomination but still.
While I'm here, I have to say that I'm not exactly a fan of the hook, albeit no to the extent that I would suggest that the hook needs to be pulled and replaced. If you're from Europe and were a big computer fan in the 1980s the hook is kind of a "duh", but maybe a different hook about the Spectrum could work here too? Something surprising about it rather than simply its biggest claim to fame. If no change to the hook is done I wouldn't mind, but I wonder if other possible hooks could also be suggested that might be more surprising. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Z1720 How would you feel about just removing that sentence? The later sourced sentence "Video output is channelled through an RF modulator, intended for use with contemporary television sets, to provide a simple colour graphic display." verifies that it ran through a television set. SL93 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@SL93: I'm fine with removing it. Z1720 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Done. SL93 (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

  • Giving the hooks a triple check is something that has always been done, but I think we should do it in the prep set. --evrik (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    this is mainly for me to be transparent about checking queues and pulling people in to address issues as I go; if people want to help me out, they're more than welcome to :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    I generally move to queue before checking, to signal to other admins that I've started a particular set. Helps prevent wasting time on the same set. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: When promoting queue 2, you moved a bunch of hooks to queue 7. Do these need to be filled with other hooks? If so, can you fill them up? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand tlc is supposed to be studying for finals. Valereee (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: Do you know why the hooks were moved? Should they be moved back or new ones be selected? Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Striking moved back, they were already on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
If I'm following correctly, they were moved to Q7 to replace hooks that had been pulled for issues brought up here or at ERRORS, can't remember which. Valereee (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Since the set is less than 24 hours before going to the Main Page, I have pulled hooks from other preps to fill in the gaps. Prep setters are encouraged to fill in the gaps I have created in those preps. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Southern chivalry

@Orchastrattor, Generalissima, and AirshipJungleman29:

  • The following sentence needs a citation: "The Ku Klux Klan would also make frequent use of terms like "Knight" or "Empire" in their internal vocabulary and hierarchy." Z1720 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Z1720 I added a citation for it. Searching the citation with CTRL+F reveals their usages of "Knight" and "Empire". SL93 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hae Nang Maew

@Willuconquer, Munfarid1, and SL93:

The last part of this sentence is uncited, and is grammatically incorrect: "Villages in Tamnak Tham Subdistrict, Nong Muang Khai District, Phrae Province make fake cats from bamboo frame and coconut husks named "Nong Saifon".[9] Hello Kitty[10] or Doraemon[11] dummies have also been used as replacements." This should be fixed before it goes on the Main Page.

I am also concerned about close paraphrasing with [65], can someone take a look and make edits to fix this? Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 I fixed the close paraphrasing. The sources were after Hello Kitty and Doraemon so I moved them. I reworded the sentence. SL93 (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_199&oldid=1229524460"