Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesTM:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.

Queue 5

[edit]

Fatima Payman

[edit]

Two somewhat minor points here, I'm not even sure if they're worth raising but will do so anyway just so we can discuss.

  1. As a senator, is it correct to call Payman a "member of the Parliament of Australia"? I'm not that familiar with Australian terminology, and we don't have a senate here in the UK, but I'm wondering if usually the term "MP" (or member of parliament) is for those in the lower house, and it could possibly cause confusion to label her thus? Certainly I expected that until I clicked through and read the article.
  2. The hook and the aritcle/source don't quite match up, because the hook simply says the first member of parliament of any description, while the article and source both say the first female member of the parliament. I suppose it might be self-evident that hijab wearers are always female and I doubt there's a record of a man wearing one in the parliament... but still, thought I'd raise it anyway. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @GraziePrego, Pbritti, TarnishedPath, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Amakuru! The first question: That is the correct terminology, the Parliament encompasses both the House of Reps and the Senate. In regards to the second question, I see what you mean, it's an odd technicality. I'm fine with changing the hook to specifically say female member of parliament to match the source, but you're right that there's no instance where a man has worn one in the parliament either. GraziePrego (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be any help for the first one as someone who also doesn't know Australian terminology. As for the second one, it appears self-evident to me SL93 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and a slightly more significant issue - I'm not sure the image File:Dai Le Fatima Payman Circles (cropped).jpg is really properly licensed and free from copyright. It looks like it originates here - [1] - as a profile picture on Payman's Facebook page in June 2022... and while it does appear at the [2] page used as the image source and it's possible they had a licence to use it, I don't think we can be certain that it's legitimately "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported". More particularly, the author of the file is given as "Government of South Australia (Seniors Card)" and there doesn't seem any particular evidence that the pic in question was produced in South Australia or by that government, rather than them just reusing it. I would suggest this isn't watertight enough to use, unless someone has other evidence. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the GA reviewer History6042 to see if they have any insight about the image. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not fully sure but if it isn't then there is another image that is usable and it is File:Fatima Payman-2023.jpg. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that image would work, but I would say not for the main page. We could just switch the hook out for a later biography that is in prep. SL93 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the issues:
  1. In common usage, from my experience, in Australia we refer to them all as being members of parliament. However it is probably most technically correct to refer to her as 'Senator Fatima Payman' or 'Senator for West Australia, Fatima Payman'. See the second paragraph of Australian House of Representatives.
  2. Pbritti picked up during their review that what was stated in the sourcing and what was stated in the article were different and update the article to state that she was the first female. I guess it got overlooked by everyone in the discussion that the hook should have been updated also.
  3. Given that File:Dai Le Fatima Payman Circles.jpg (the file which File:Dai Le Fatima Payman Circles (cropped).jpg was extracted from) is taken from a government website (https://www.seniorscard.sa.gov.au/weekendplus/lifestyle/ozasia-festival-writing-and-ideas-festival) I would be relatively confident that they obtained permission from the copyright holder for modification and usage. However I couldn't be 100% certain of that. I was playing around on commons a couple of days ago and I extracted File:Fatima Payman-2023.jpg from File:Terry Young MP, Senator Fatima Payman, Senator David Fawcett, David Smith MP at Parliamentary Friends of Religious Schools and Faith Communities.jpg. That latter image originally came from Flikr and the information from Flikr lines up with the metadata from commons. Doing a reverse image search I have found small news websites using it without attributing where they got it from, but I'm pretty sure that image was lifted by those webistes from either commons or Flikr. I think we're pretty good to go with File:Fatima Payman-2023.jpg.
Please let me know if you have any other questions/concerns. TarnishedPathtalk 02:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, in regards to the question of whether to refer to her as a 'member of parliament' or a 'senator', the sources says "When Fatima Payman takes her seat in the Senate in July, she will make history as the first woman to wear a hijab in Australia’s parliament."
So given that, and that 'Australia's parliament' refers to both the lower and upper house, the hook should probably be:
"... that Fatima Payman (pictured) is the first elected woman to wear a hijab in Australia’s parliament?". TarnishedPathtalk 03:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru, is there anything else that needs to be done for this? TarnishedPathtalk 09:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morning @TarnishedPath: I think rewording it the way you suggest is a good idea, so we can go ahead with that. As for the photograph, I think we can't use the current one - at best its origin is uncertain, and I think it's fairly unlikely it was actually the Government of South Australia that took that photograph and then Payton reused the same on her Facebook page. As for File:Fatima Payman-2023.jpg, its origin is still not entirely clear - it appears on the Flickr page of a Lucy Segal, without indication of who that individual is. Most of her images seem to be of Senator Deborah O'Neill, so in the absence of other evidence it would be a reasonable assumption that she's someone legitimately taking photos around parliament and then posting them under a CC or PD licence on Flickr. However, SL93 indicated above that the second image probably isn't a suitable one for the DYK image slot, presumably as she's looking down and you can't fully see her face. I'm therefore tempted to move the hook down and swap a different image into its place. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru, I was also thinking that the new image may not be suitable for DYK because of her looking down. I see no problem with removing it from the hook and moving it down. TarnishedPathtalk 09:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shmuel Hurvits

[edit]
  • ... that the Yiddish poet Shmuel Hurvits quit his job as a teacher to become a street paver due to an ideological appreciation for manual labor?

Hi @Generalissima, Kusma, and SL93: I'm a bit concerned that not all of the components of this hook are compliant with WP:DYKHOOK, in particular the need for the whole hook to be directly covered by the article and cited as such.

Firstly, the statement that he is a poet doesn't seem to be cited - it's only mentioned without cites in the lead and the infobox, with the body not directly mentioning poetry. Secondly, the assertion "quit his job as a teacher to become a street paver" isn't directly obvious. This would suggest that when he left teaching he immediately became a street paver, while the article's text merely names paving as one of many jobs he took during the remainder of his life, not necessarily that he quit the teaching directly for that. And thirdly, the article says "paver" while the hook is more specific, saying "street paver". Appreciate this is a late spot, but hopefully the above can be resolved based on the sources, and I'll leave the hook in place for now with a view to it going live tomorrow, but if more time is needed I can push it back. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may need to be slightly improved in the article. The source says "He educated himself in both Jewish and general subjects, and began to work as a teacher. But an ideological attraction to manual labour led him to give up teaching and work at paving streets, and then to take up such occupations as carpentry, woodcarving, and printing, as well as bookkeeping and peddling. He began to publish articles and poems in the 1890s, first in Russian and Hebrew, then in Yiddish." (TWL) —Kusma (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru It's on the main page now, but I think I fixed the street paver issue. I removed the mentions of him being a poet until it can be sourced. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended poet to writer,which seems to cover all bases including his journalism.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

[edit]

Mink (manga)

[edit]
  • ... that the Japanese manga series Mink featured futuristic technology even though its creator was unfamiliar with computers?

I'm not certain the source supports "unfamiliar with computers" here... Looking at the source [3], although I don't speak Japanese, Google Translate seems to indicate that this comes from a quote by the creator herself in an interview, where she says something like "I'm not good with machines". I think that's the sort of thing a lot of people say, in a self-effacing way, to indicate that they're not tech wizards... but I wouldn't translate that to the absolute "unfamiliar with computers", or indeed the article's version of this - "having little knowledge on computers" - stated in Wikivoice as well rather than attributed as a quote from Tachikawa. @Lullabying, Gonzo fan2007, and SL93: CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant this for WT:DYK? Stephen 19:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved this for Amakuru with a reping for @Lullabying, Gonzo fan2007, and SL93: Stephen 21:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait for a response from Lullabying as an editor who has worked on many articles with Japanese language sources. I'm not entirely convinced that Google Translate is correct. SL93 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The sentence does indeed say, "I'm not good with machinery" and I can see how that might mean something else entirely. It can be changed. lullabying (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Hey there, I noticed this was promoted for DYK but I'm not sure if you saw this reply. Thanks! lullabying (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about transclusions to approved list

[edit]

I just noticed that a recent nomination is transcluding to Template talk:Did you know/Approved, even though Template:Did you know nominations/Ívar Bárðarson has the full review needed template (). What determines which noms are transcluded to which list? Rjjiii (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: taking Ívar Bárðarson as an example, it was
  • nominated on 13 January and added to unapproved page
  • marked confirmed on 15 January and would have been moved from unapproved page to approved page by bot
  • marked redirect on 16 January and needs to be moved from approved page to unapproved page by manual edits
  • I have moved the nomination from approved page to unapproved page by manual edits today 7 February TSventon (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]

WUVN

[edit]

I am missing the identification of Gene Scott as a "televangelist" in the article (it is used in the hook). Ping @Sammi Brie, @Jon698. —Kusma (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma Remedied with a small addition to the article. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. —Kusma (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemology

[edit]

The hook fact ("nobody knows anything") isn't easy to find in the article, where it is phrased as "there is no knowledge in any domain". Can this be made easier without losing accuracy or hookiness? Ping Phlsph7, Arbitrarily0. —Kusma (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma It seems to me that "nobody knows anything" is an acceptable way to phrase it as a hook. However, I guess it can just be changed to exactly what the article says. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"nobody knows anything" is a correct phrasing.
The hook could also be phrased:
  1. '... that according to one school of epistemology, nobody can know anything?' or
  2. '... that one school of epistemology denies that we can have any knowledge at all?'
TarnishedPathtalk 04:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SL93 and TarnishedPath. Both TarnishedPath's alternatives are also good. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually sure whether I should demand a change (another option would be to mention the word "skepticism"); we do not have a rule that says "it must be easy to find the hook fact in the article". I did think it was worth bringing up. —Kusma (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For academic subjects, it can be difficult to find a hook with a formulation that is both catchy and present in the article in almost the same wording. One reason is that the criteria for good hooks are quite different from the criteria for good academic explanations. The suggested alternatives would also work but as far as hookiness is concerned, I think the current formulation is better. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's leave as is then. —Kusma (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 27. We have a total of 336 nominations, of which 199 have been approved, a gap of 137 nominations that has increased by 9 over the past 6 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) 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preps need moving

[edit]

@DYK admins: We will have one queue filled in less than an hour. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Casliber and Ganesha811. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 (13 February)

[edit]

Victor Cordella

[edit]

@Epicgenius: @Bunnypranav: @Darth Stabro: The article just says "Cordella designed around twenty churches for various immigrant ethnic groups" and hints that they're all in Minnesota, but doesn't actually say so. RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom note also has a citation needed tag. SL93 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cited now. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess I'd disagree that it's just a hint. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Willow Society

[edit]

@SL93: @Crisco 1492: @Jeromi Mikhael: I'm not sure that an unattributed "probably" meets our standard for a "definite fact". RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add because I have no idea what “definite fact” was exactly referring to when it was added. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of "definite" for DYK purposes has changed over time. Originally, one interpretation means one that was properly cited and not in question (i.e. it is not likely to be challenged). The current wording over at WP:DYKG now says that it means a fact that is unlikely to change or become inaccurate during or before its DYK run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I don't see the hook becoming inaccurate for a production that happened over 100 years ago. The book reference is reliable and the author is reputable, but I'm not sure how attributing it would fix the concern. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that both interpretations are correct: it being unlikely to change, and also it not being questioned. I see though that the "probably" claim is attributed to only one writer, and I can see why the claim could be challenged. "First" hooks are usually problematic due to the level of evidence required. One possible solution could be to attribute the claim. That way, the "definite" part of the hook would be that Lin claimed that it was "probably" the first, without judging the accuracy of the actual "first" claim. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. "... that according to Theatre Studies professor Siyuan Liu, Spring Willow Society probably staged the first full-length Shakespearean play in China?" Someone would need to add the above link or a different one that mentions his career, while also adding it to the article. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tudor City

[edit]

@SL93:@Epicgenius: There's a substantial amount of copying (beyond just WP:CLOP) from tudorcitygreens.org/history and s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/1579.pdf. That needs to get fixed. I also note that Wolverine X-eye who did the DYK review has recently been banned for abuses of the WP:GAN review process, so I'd say this review is suspect as well and somebody should probably give it an extra look. RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well ping GA reviewer Kusma as well. SL93 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I overlooked this; the copyvio is not Epicgenius' fault, but was present before he started on the article. —Kusma (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about this. I'll take a look; I thought I got rid of the close paraphrasing, but apparently not. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith and @Kusma, my deepest apologies for overlooking the copyvios that were in the article. I have remediated these copyright violations, but there are some proper names (e.g. "Church of the Covenant") and common phrases (e.g. "Second and Third Avenues") that cannot be easily rephrased. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I was kind of surprised to see this sort of problem pop out from one of your nominations, and I'm relieved to hear your explanation for what happened. Looks better now.
I've been by Tudor City many times but never inside. It looks like an amazing place to live, even more so given its location. RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

Paris, Linn County, Kansas

[edit]

@Aneirinn, Tenpop421, and Bunnypranav: I don't see where "first county seat" - or indeed any of the lede - is cited.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is cited now. Aneirinn (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me.--Launchballer 14:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Américo Ramos

[edit]

@BeanieFan11, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, and SL93: The hook is cited to Xinhua, for which WP:RSP recommends extreme caution for "extraordinary claims on [...] biographies of living people". For a three-day resignation, I'd like to see a better source.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Jones (curler)

[edit]

@Sims2aholic8, Allthegoldmedals, and HickoryOughtShirt?4: I added several {{cn}} tags; these will need to be resolved before showtime.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deval Masjid

[edit]

@DYK admins: @AmateurHi$torian: suggested at the nom that this be semi-protected while on the main page. Probably not necessary, but opening this to the floor just in case.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The selected hook ("that the Deval Masjid was formerly a temple?") is lacking in context. I would suggest semi-protecting and going with AmateurHi$torian's ALT1: ... that the Deval Mosque was formerly a Hindu temple? Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I asked around the functionary cabal to get some input on the protection question. The gist is that WP:CT/IPA applies here, which gives admins a lot of latitude in response to disruptive editing, but there wasn't any enthusiasm for preemptive protection. WP:PREEMPTIVE talks more about this. I've put this on my watchlist, and presumably other editors will do so as well, so at least we'll have lots of eyes on it to catch any problems quickly. Reverting should be our tool of choice, with semi-protection being brought into play only if there's a demonstrated need. RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, changed "originally" to "formerly" in both hooks as the article states that it may originally have been a Buddhist or Jain temple. Gatoclass (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the hook to ALT1.--Launchballer 14:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Demurenko

[edit]

This is a first hook, and so I'm opening this to the floor for extra scrutiny.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks fine, but the hook fact that he is the only Russian officer to graduate from the US Army college is evidently sourced to a 2009 article, and history shows a hook fact based on an outdated source is liable to getting pulled. So the hook would either have to be modified or a new hook found - but the nominator said that if he can't have that hook fact, he wants to withdraw the nom, so I think to respect the nominator's wishes the hook would have to be pulled unless he wants to change his mind. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator said that they would withdraw the nomination if they couldn't find another source confirming that fact, rather than if they can't get that specific hook fact. @Romanov loyalist: Would you be open to a completely different angle running instead of the currently-promoted angle? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I preemptively changed it to 'first'.--Launchballer 14:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we could leave the hook with the change to "first" if that is alright. Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stride (bus rapid transit)

[edit]

The reviewer has since been blocked (see #Tudor City). Looks good to me, but let's open this one up just in case.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight Chicken

[edit]

@Jolielover and Miminity: This needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done jolielover♥talk 03:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me.--Launchballer 03:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Missinaibi_Lake

[edit]

@SL93: @GraziePrego: @P199:

diagram of winning shot
diagram of winning shot

This hook doesn't have a great image, especially at the small size required of the main page. One possibility might be using a deep crop of just one portion. I tried that with the thing that looks like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The result was certainly more visible, but totally missed the point of showing the drawings. I'm thinking we should shuffle hooks around and use a different one for the image. Looking at the other hooks in this set, File:Joneswinningshot.PNG from Jennifer Jones (curler) would be a good replacement. RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is subjective. IMO, the image quality is more than adequate, even at a smaller size, considering that the pictograms are faded as it is. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Migrant Operations Center

[edit]

I thought it might be a good idea to get some more input on this nomination. IMO it's an important topic that merits a run, the problem being that, because the idea appears to have been pretty much universally panned in reliable sources, it's difficult to come up with a hook that is strictly neutral. At one point I did attempt to write a hook balancing the view of Scaramucci with that of Hegseth, but one then runs into an issue of WP:UNDUE because Hegseth is hardly an independent source and no other reliable source advocating for the idea has been found.

The original proposed hook was:

- which is certainly attention-grabbing but also arguably an extreme view. I think the best I can do without completely neutering the hook, which would also be problematic, would be to tone it down, with something like:

  • ALT1: ... that Donald Trump's proposed expansion of Guantanamo Migrant Operations Center to house undocumented immigrants has been questioned on legal, logistical and humanitarian grounds? Gatoclass (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I said my piece in the nomination page already, but I have a feeling that it would be for the best to pass on the nomination. US politics is a contentious topic, and trying to balance "pretty much universally panned" and "strictly neutral" is a fool's errand, once we've tried in the past and just led to more trouble. I also have concerns that running the hook would essentially be DYK making a political stand, which isn't the project's purpose, although my main concern really is the article/hook treatment itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If something is "universally panned" in reliable sources then it doesn't violate neutrality for the article to reflect that. "Neutrality" does not mean equal time and space for both sides.
The issue here is not so much the article, which appears to accurately reflect the views in reliable sources, but rather how to interpret and apply the DYK hook neutrality clause for an article of this type. When reliable sources are sounding warnings about potential human rights violations, I think it would make Wikipedia look pretty silly to be running a hook that avoids the issue altogether. At the same time, I agree that the original hook is too strongly worded, which is why I suggested the more temperately-worded hook above. Gatoclass (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another argument against the article/hook/nomination is that, at this point, anything Trump says is going to be controversial. Whatever he says is no longer "interesting" for DYK purposes given the saturation. It would be like having a hook about Nazis and anti-Semitism. It's a "well duh" thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we shouldn't cover anything that he does? That sounds to me like censorship. I also disagree that the things he is prone to doing fall into the "well duh" category. He gets constant headlines because his actions and proposed actions are anything but "well duh". Gatoclass (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but such an argument would open DYK (fairly or unfairly) to accusations of Trump bashing. If we're gonna run a hook just because people here don't like Trump (or really any politician for that matter), that's not a good look for us. It's not censorship, it's maintaining DYK's impartiality. It's kind of the same reason why the various abortion hooks also give me pause. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why I challenged the original hook - because it looked too one-sided.
It's not about "Trump bashing", it's that I regard some human rights issues as too important to be shunted aside in pursuit of absolute conformity to some guideline. But if the consensus is otherwise, so be it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't want a repeat of the Andrew Tate case, which got DYK into a lot of trouble a while back. I was actually against running the hook (and IIRC the article) back then, but consensus was to run. And look what happened afterwards. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to read all the threads relating to the Tate hook, but it looks to me as if there was strong support for it and just one or two opponents generating most of the heat. Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the flak came from mostly outside DYK from what I recall, so that was what I was referring to. DYK wanted the hook and got it, but there was (to put it bluntly) a bit of a shitstorm about it afterwards. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both ALT0 and ALT1 are commentary on the subject, so of course they're going to raise eyebrows. Just run a non-commentary hook. CMD (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the primary author of the article, I am fine with either. Another suggestion if that is too political is just something like ""Did you know that the GMOC started primarily as a place to hold Haitians and Cubans migrants picked up at sea?" Remember (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is uninteresting and not in the least pertinent to the reason it is currently attracting interest. Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite interesting. I suspect most would not know there is a separate detention facility at all. CMD (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1275019698"