Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to
Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the
queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
DYK queue status
Current time: 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 6 hours ago() |
Did you know? | |
---|---|
Introduction and rules | |
Introduction | WP:DYK |
General discussion | WT:DYK |
Guidelines | WP:DYKCRIT |
Reviewer instructions | WP:DYKRI |
Nominations | |
Nominate an article | WP:DYKCNN |
Awaiting approval | WP:DYKN |
Approved | WP:DYKNA |
April 1 hooks | WP:DYKAPRIL |
Preparation | |
Preps and queues | T:DYK/Q |
Prepper instructions | WP:DYKPBI |
Admin instructions | WP:DYKAI |
Main Page errors | WP:ERRORS |
History | |
Statistics | WP:DYKSTATS |
Archived sets | WP:DYKA |
Just for fun | |
Monthly wraps | WP:DYKW |
Awards | WP:DYKAWARDS |
Userboxes | WP:DYKUBX |
Hall of Fame | WP:DYK/HoF |
List of users ... | |
... by nominations | WP:DYKNC |
... by promotions | WP:DYKPC |
Administrative | |
Scripts and bots | WP:DYKSB |
On the Main Page | |
WP:Errors | WP:Errors |
To ping the DYK admins | {{ DYK admins}} |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
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)
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)
( 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)
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.
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 Questions
Proposals
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)
Please comment on the proposed RFC structure here. Any suggestions for improvements are much appreciated. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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: [1] |
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: [2] |
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. |
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: [3] Talk:DYK thread: [4] 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)
|
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)
Incident | Year | Hook/comments | Discussion |
---|---|---|---|
Gemma McCluskie | 2012 | Concerns about recently deceased BLP violation | ANI thread:
[6]
Talk:DYK thread: [7] |
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:
[8]
Article at the time of promotion: [9] |
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: [10] |
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: [11] WT:ANI: [12] |
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: [13] |
Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman | 2024 | Pulled from queue and then rejected, in part due to BLP concerns. | WT:DYK: [14] |
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: [15] |
Lil Tay | 2023 | Pulled from prep due to poor sourcing of negative information in the article. | WT:DYK: [16] |
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: [17] |
Child abuse in association football | 2023 | Pulled from queue for various reasons, one of which was BLPCRIME concerns. | WT:DYK: [18] |
Incident | Year | Hook/comments | Discussion |
---|---|---|---|
Incident | Year | Hook/comments | Discussion |
---|---|---|---|
Incident | Year | Hook/comments | Discussion |
---|---|---|---|
HorsegiirL | 2024 | Pulled from prep; original hook used the article subject's real name against their wishes | WT:DYK: [19] |
Matthew Charles Johnson | 2024 | Negative hook with unsourced info raised at ERRORS. | ERRORS: [20] |
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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 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)
...[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.
Maybe we go back to 8 hooks or 7 seven.
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ DYK admins: All the queues are empty. -- evrik ( talk) 00:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
@ Arcahaeoindris, Sdkb, and PrimalMustelid:
The following text in the article is a quote, but does not have a citation:
Also, the following needs a citation:
These will need to be cited before the article goes on the Main Page. Z1720 ( talk) 14:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
— Bagumba ( talk) 18:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)In general, the shorter and punchier the hook, the more impact it has
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)
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)
It will actively drive readers away who will see a mass of bold text that makes no sense combinedwere clearly not true. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
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.)
that a "fall-down comic" won a gold medal on the balance beam?(Not currently in the article but source-able to ref 1.)
|
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"
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)
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)
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 Questions
Proposals
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
Negative BLPs that were pulled from the main page
Negative BLPs that were contentious at Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Other kinds of BLP violation concerns in DYK hooks
|
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)
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?
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
Florida Man threw live gator in Wendy's drive-thru window, police say" [50] 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". [51] 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)
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)
... 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.
I cannot see how the proposal resolves the problem of DYK mischaracterising subjects in some fashionIt 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. – Tera tix ₵ 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)
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.
Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". Rjjiii ( talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
... 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.". [52] Rjjiii ( talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
There are no systemic problems with positive hooks and BLP violations at DYK
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)
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)
(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)
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)
Remember, many readers of DYK will not click on the article to read the negative fact in context
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ OtharLuin, Evrik, and AirshipJungleman29:
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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ Keivan.f, MSincccc, and Evrik:
Earwig came back with a high match with [54]. 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)
@ 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)
@ Launchballer, Thriley, and Evrik:
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)
@ Launchballer, Thriley, and Z1720:
I suggest the above hook. -- evrik ( talk) 02:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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:
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)
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)
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 " |
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)
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".-- Laun chba ller 18:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
systematic agricultural destructionand
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 topicthat 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)
Why not? That's what happened. AndWe wouldn't use "...Allies' systemic destruction of Dresden..." for Bombing of Dresden in a DYK ...
Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gazais 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to
Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the
queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
DYK queue status
Current time: 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 6 hours ago() |
Did you know? | |
---|---|
Introduction and rules | |
Introduction | WP:DYK |
General discussion | WT:DYK |
Guidelines | WP:DYKCRIT |
Reviewer instructions | WP:DYKRI |
Nominations | |
Nominate an article | WP:DYKCNN |
Awaiting approval | WP:DYKN |
Approved | WP:DYKNA |
April 1 hooks | WP:DYKAPRIL |
Preparation | |
Preps and queues | T:DYK/Q |
Prepper instructions | WP:DYKPBI |
Admin instructions | WP:DYKAI |
Main Page errors | WP:ERRORS |
History | |
Statistics | WP:DYKSTATS |
Archived sets | WP:DYKA |
Just for fun | |
Monthly wraps | WP:DYKW |
Awards | WP:DYKAWARDS |
Userboxes | WP:DYKUBX |
Hall of Fame | WP:DYK/HoF |
List of users ... | |
... by nominations | WP:DYKNC |
... by promotions | WP:DYKPC |
Administrative | |
Scripts and bots | WP:DYKSB |
On the Main Page | |
WP:Errors | WP:Errors |
To ping the DYK admins | {{ DYK admins}} |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
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)
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)
( 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)
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.
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 Questions
Proposals
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)
Please comment on the proposed RFC structure here. Any suggestions for improvements are much appreciated. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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: [1] |
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: [2] |
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. |
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: [3] Talk:DYK thread: [4] 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)
|
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)
Incident | Year | Hook/comments | Discussion |
---|---|---|---|
Gemma McCluskie | 2012 | Concerns about recently deceased BLP violation | ANI thread:
[6]
Talk:DYK thread: [7] |
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:
[8]
Article at the time of promotion: [9] |
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: [10] |
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: [11] WT:ANI: [12] |
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: [13] |
Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman | 2024 | Pulled from queue and then rejected, in part due to BLP concerns. | WT:DYK: [14] |
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: [15] |
Lil Tay | 2023 | Pulled from prep due to poor sourcing of negative information in the article. | WT:DYK: [16] |
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: [17] |
Child abuse in association football | 2023 | Pulled from queue for various reasons, one of which was BLPCRIME concerns. | WT:DYK: [18] |
Incident | Year | Hook/comments | Discussion |
---|---|---|---|
Incident | Year | Hook/comments | Discussion |
---|---|---|---|
Incident | Year | Hook/comments | Discussion |
---|---|---|---|
HorsegiirL | 2024 | Pulled from prep; original hook used the article subject's real name against their wishes | WT:DYK: [19] |
Matthew Charles Johnson | 2024 | Negative hook with unsourced info raised at ERRORS. | ERRORS: [20] |
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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 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)
...[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.
Maybe we go back to 8 hooks or 7 seven.
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ DYK admins: All the queues are empty. -- evrik ( talk) 00:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
@ Arcahaeoindris, Sdkb, and PrimalMustelid:
The following text in the article is a quote, but does not have a citation:
Also, the following needs a citation:
These will need to be cited before the article goes on the Main Page. Z1720 ( talk) 14:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
— Bagumba ( talk) 18:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)In general, the shorter and punchier the hook, the more impact it has
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)
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)
It will actively drive readers away who will see a mass of bold text that makes no sense combinedwere clearly not true. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
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.)
that a "fall-down comic" won a gold medal on the balance beam?(Not currently in the article but source-able to ref 1.)
|
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"
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)
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)
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 Questions
Proposals
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
Negative BLPs that were pulled from the main page
Negative BLPs that were contentious at Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Other kinds of BLP violation concerns in DYK hooks
|
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)
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?
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
Florida Man threw live gator in Wendy's drive-thru window, police say" [50] 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". [51] 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)
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)
... 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.
I cannot see how the proposal resolves the problem of DYK mischaracterising subjects in some fashionIt 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. – Tera tix ₵ 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)
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.
Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". Rjjiii ( talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
... 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.". [52] Rjjiii ( talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
There are no systemic problems with positive hooks and BLP violations at DYK
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)
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)
(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)
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)
Remember, many readers of DYK will not click on the article to read the negative fact in context
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ OtharLuin, Evrik, and AirshipJungleman29:
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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ Keivan.f, MSincccc, and Evrik:
Earwig came back with a high match with [54]. 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)
@ 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)
@ Launchballer, Thriley, and Evrik:
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)
@ Launchballer, Thriley, and Z1720:
I suggest the above hook. -- evrik ( talk) 02:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
@ 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:
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)
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)
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 " |
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)
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".-- Laun chba ller 18:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
systematic agricultural destructionand
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 topicthat 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)
Why not? That's what happened. AndWe wouldn't use "...Allies' systemic destruction of Dresden..." for Bombing of Dresden in a DYK ...
Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gazais 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
@ 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)