From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)
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
To ping the DYK admins{{ DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Beetle nominations, as well as WikiEdu nominations

Over the past month or so, several nominations have been made by student editors of articles about beetles. Several of them have already been rejected for not meeting the requirements, and in most cases the student editors have been unresponsive to reviews.

WikiEdu nominations have over the years been known for this, but given how there had already been discussions before with WikiEdu regarding article and DYK quality control, it's a bit surprising this continues to happen. The course handling these beetle nominations is [1]; can one of us contact the instructors and inform them of DYK standards to ensure the articles done by the students actually meet requirements, as well as to discuss concerns regarding responsiveness?

In addition, it might be a good idea to contact WikiEdu regarding this because the "WikiEdu nominations disproportionately being more likely to fail compared to other DYK nominations" thing has been a perennial issue for years. Discussions have taken place before where they promised to do something about it, but given these things still happen, it appears that hasn't been the case, and I'm wondering what else can we do regarding this. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 08:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yep, I've noticed the same. I support that we contact WikiEdu. Schwede 66 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We've already contacted them multiple times in the past, and yet despite responses and even promises to change things, this still happens. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed), the two Wikipedian/WikiEdu people listed for this particular course. BlueMoonset ( talk) 14:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We had an alert that told us when students nominated articles for DYK, but looking at my email archives it seems like it's been broken for a while.
I will contact the instructor for this class and remind them to remind their students that if they nominate an article for DYK they need to stick around and respond to feedback. Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 15:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you very much. But as this has been a recurring issue across years, I think a wider discussion about DYK's relationship with Wiki Edu also needs to be done to ensure this does not happen again, even with other courses. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 22:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
What would the wider discussion result in? I guess what I'm wondering is if it's unusual that new editors who nominate to DYK are more likely to not follow through than experienced editors, no matter how they got introduced to Wikipedia. Or said another way, what do we have to gain from establishing a formal rule or decision that treats nominations resulting from WikiEdu work in a particularly different way? If a nomination isn't fit for promotion and the nominator isn't responsive, we don't advance the nomination, and we in the end fail it, no matter what the nomination's origin is. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 00:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
One argument could be that there is a WP:CIR issue with WikiEdu when this has become a recurring issue over the years. If it was just an isolated case, it may not be a problem, but WikiEdu nominations have been like this for a long time, across multiple nominations and courses. It's a project intended to teach Wikipedia editing, and if this is to be the case, it has to be done right.
One nuclear option would be a ban on WikiEdu nominations until the competence issues are sorted out. However, this would be unlikely to get any consensus and indeed even I would personally be against it. What DYK needs is more contributions, especially from new blood, not restricting it. The main reason I brought up the idea of a wider discussion is because this has been happening for years but the perennial issue has remained. Ideas probably need to happen on how to address this that isn't just simply "contacting the student and/or instructor" given the lack of success rate for the latter. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 01:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I can understand the desire for a different means when clearer instruction to instructors and students has mixed results (though I'd muse that discerning the success rate seems difficult; DYK probably only notices that a nomination is from an editor introduced to Wikipedia via WikiEdu when something goes wrong; if a nomination goes well, would DYK have any reason to notice its origins with WikiEdu?). I guess what I'm wondering is what purported solutions would look like. Somehow persuading (requiring?) the WikiEdu nonprofit to add a DYK unit to their curriculum, or them requiring(?) teachers and professors to have such? I'm not sure what influence DYK could or should expect to exercise over disparate faculty's classrooms. But that might be me putting the conversation before the horse when there can be all kinds of ideas others may think of. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 08:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I remember Ian and the project talked before about perhaps requiring some level of quality control. Either discouraging instructors from requiring DYK as a class requirement, or ensuring that the instructors would themselves be familiar with how DYK works.
One possible idea I have in mind, one that perhaps could also be implemented on the WikiEdu side, is that if a course is planning to have DYK in the curriculum, the DYK project is already notified in advance and one of us could be used as a resource and contact person. In many cases, the instructors themselves are unfamiliar with DYK or even Wikipedia editing in general, which makes things hard. Having someone from the DYK project being involved if only as a consultant or in another role might help prevent such issues from happening. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 09:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, in the case of this Behavioral Ecology 2024 course ( timeline here), it appears that while it has two more weeks to run, the Wikipedia component has no more activities (the final ones were last week), and that DYK was an optional assignment in the first full week of March, a full five weeks ago. Ian (Wiki Ed), what are your plans—or that of WikiEdu as a whole—to avoid this kind of blindsiding that those of us here at DYK have to deal with several times a year? I think it's time and past for WikiEdu to be proactive rather than reactive if DYK is to continue to be an involuntary participant in your activities. BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Most Wiki Education assignments get marked on the article's talk page as such. I wonder whether it's easy enough for a bot to mark Wiki Education assignment nominations to DYK? I suggest we put those nominations on hold until we have confirmation from the course coordinator that the students have been tasked with responding to reviews, and that their course timeline allows for that. Putting these nominations on hold automatically will stop a lot of reviewers from needlessly wasting their time. Schwede 66 23:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We already have Category:Wikipedia Did you know nominations by WikiEd students but it's barely been used and hasn't had new entries since 2021. If we could perhaps have a bot or otherwise require the associated template with it for WikiEdu courses, maybe that would raise attention towards them. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 00:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, this would only be useful if categorised by a bot. I didn't even know about the category! The bot could also place a template advising of the situation (e.g. the hold, if others agree with that approach). Schwede 66 00:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The category is associated with {{Note DYK nominator WikiEd}}. I suggested before that it be made mandatory for WikiEdu DYK nominations and I still don't know why that never happened. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 00:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
an involuntary participant in your activities—are we? DYK participants choose what to review and what to ignore, what to pass and what to fail. I guess I'm struggling to see how we're being muscled into some sort of exploitative relationship with WikiEducation. Participation with nominations whose origins lie with WikiEducation seems as involuntary as participation with any nomination, or any nomination with a relatively new editor. I can sympathize with ill-prepared or unsuitable nominations being annoying, but they're annoying whether or not they have to do with WikiEducation. I can recognize there being some level of hassle hassle, but eventually it seems the injury to DYK amounts to—what? Commenting on a nomination that it's been prepared poorly, getting no response for a while, and then procedurally failing it? Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 05:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If these were just isolated incidents, it wouldn't be an issue, but the fact that WikiEdu nominations have been like this for years, and despite efforts to do something about them things have not improved, it shows there is a fundamental issue going on here. It's true that nominations by very new editors tend to have a high chance of failing in general, not juts WikiEdu nominations, but when one point of WikiEdu is to teach people how Wikipedia works, what's going on means it's not meeting that goal well. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 22:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • How do these professors even know there is such a thing as DYK to point their students at? Most of them aren't actually editors themselves. Ian (Wiki Ed)Is there a way to remove DYK from the teaching modules? Because this is burdening an already overburdened system, and frankly it's not doing a damn thing for the students. Valereee ( talk) 01:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Valereee Long ago it was an option, so some instructors who've been around a long time know of it. We removed that quite a few years ago (although we still have a help guide that gets emailed to students when they do nominate an article).
    As for how people find things beyond that...I've had some really strange questions over the years, like "I followed the instructions [here]", and they point to some ancient set of instructions somewhere on Commons, or a YouTube video. Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 21:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Ah, yes, the out-of-date instructions I just found today for enabling something on my phone...thanks, that's interesting history here. Valereee ( talk) 21:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Ian (Wiki Ed): Will WikiEdu be able to commit to a solution, or at least propose one, that can help prevent this from happening again? This has been a perennial issue for years and despite multiple discussions here about them, it appears that nothing has actually been done so far. Either clearer instructions have to be given to instructors regarding how DYK works, DYK itself has to become more involved in helping out these nominations, or DYK should be removed as a course requirement until changes are made. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 00:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Recurring Error in Submission

Have tried multiple times to nominate an article for DYK, and keep getting this message:

"Creating nomination page: Failed to save edit: The page you tried to create has been created already.

Arrgh :( Something bad happened. Your DYK template wikitext is provided below, which you can copy and use to create [[Template:Did you know nominations/]] manually."

This is despite me *not* making the page already.


Maximilian775 ( talk) 15:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Which article are you trying to nominate?-- Laun chba ller 15:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I've taken the liberty of commenting it out. My guess is it had something to do with the numerous unclosed links (you'd used 'l' instead of ']' or '|' in a few places). I've created the nom for you.-- Laun chba ller 02:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Judging from the fact that the error message incorrectly links to Template:Did you know nominations/ and that there is no DYKmake template in the commented-out wikitext, I'm gonna take a wild guess and say our friend here forgot to specify the article title in the relevant field. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 02:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
User:Launchballer User:Narutolovehinata5, shouldn't we somehow enable the bot/tool to accommodate nth nominations, which would require a rule.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I addressed the wrong person.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That would be a good idea, but I don't know if having a fixed rule on the naming conventions should be since that would require consensus. It might be easy to do through the Wizard at least. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 07:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
no, we don't need a community vote on precisely what convention to use. that would be silly. we just need it to be implemented in the code. if the author chooses something unworkable, we'll change it. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 07:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't know that it would be silly to decide by ourselves and give them a directive, but it is acceptable for them to implement a reasonable code. In the mean time I have nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Hill (basketball)/DYK2, Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Murphy (basketball)2 and Template:Did you know nominations/In a World...(2nd nomination), which is a bit silly.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
My vote remains "(2nd nomination)".-- Laun chba ller 12:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That is OK, but is more characters (17) than any other similar archive syntaxes. WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FTC and WP:FLC use the shorter /archiven (9 characters). WP:GAN uses the much shorter /GAn (4 characters). Why don't we go with /archiven.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That shouldn't be a difficult thing to do, I imagine. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 07:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Andrew Tate nomination

I thought that this could use wider discussion. I had a chance to read the Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew Tate nomination. I was surprised to see editors ready to approve this hook ALT1: ... that one of the most-liked tweets of all time was Greta Thunberg's response to Andrew Tate (pictured) in December 2022?
The hook is less about this BLP article and more about the Greta Thunberg tweet which said, "yes, please do enlighten me. email me at smalldickenergy@getalife.com". When I read the hook I am more apt to be interested in the tweet than the featured article. I also think it violates our WP:DYKHOOKBLP.

Hooks must adopt a neutral point of view. Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. Note that this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole: a sentence that might be due weight in the article can become undue if used in the hook, as all of the surrounding context of the individual's wider life is missing.

Bruxton ( talk) 15:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I would be more than happy to never see an image of Tate on the Main page. And even a DYK hook with no image, would make me feel uneasy. How about changing "social media personality" to "alleged rapist, human trafficker and organised crime group member"? Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Joking aside, it is odd how the facts are being downplayed and Tate is being portrayed as a "social media personality" instead. Although the relevant participants have repeatedly claimed otherwise, the DYK nom feels like an attempt at enabling some kind of image rehabilitation or public relations, which we should not be doing. I can't help but feel like we are all being played. Viriditas ( talk) 22:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Only just seen this discussion, but really don't understand how you could get this impression. ATL2 that was initially included was "that counter-terror police have expressed concern over influencer Andrew Tate (pictured), due to an increase in cases related to incel culture?", before being removed due to NPOV concerns.
As the DYK and GA nominee, as well as main contributor to the article, I recommend you actually read the article and judge for yourself if it paints Tate in a good light. My main contributions to the articles sections have been war room, views & influence, reception, criminal investigations, as well as lead. My main inspiration to improving the article was lack of detailed coverage of Tate's activities, views and influence, given he is such an well-known figure. Let me know if you think was good PR for Tate or not.
To reguritate what I said in the DYK nomination about including such a controversial DYK:
"It's a shame that there appears to be a "fear" of raising awareness over what I would broadly consider a "toxic influence" to young males. Notably the UK education system thought turning a blind eye to Tate's influence was also the solution,[5] but along with Australia,[6] have done a complete u-turn,[7] realising that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, and instead worsened the problem.[8]. Lessons could be learnt here..." [2]
The real question is whether Wikipedia should be playing a role in highlighting how influential the likes of Tate is towards young males, with his brand of misogyny and toxic masculinity, or should we just ignore it and hope it goes away? I'll assume good faith here, but attempts to suppress such a DYK comes across as complicity, even if unknowingly, and survivors of sexual assault and harassment by perpetrators influenced by Tate deserve much better. At minimum acknowledging that Tate is part of the problem, rather than pretending he's not responsible for his influence. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 10:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I sympathize with the concerns and agree that Tate is a horrible person and should not be given a platform, but WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS might be relevant here. If not it specifically then the spirit of it. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 10:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Tate may be a horrible human being, but that proposal would very much fall afoul of BLP if not BLPCRIME. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 22:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I will say that "social media personality" would be a prime candidate for WP:DYKTRIM. (As would the quotation marks, it has to be said.)-- Laun chba ller 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) It's not that the editors are ready to approve the ALT1 hook: the entire nomination has been approved and could potentially be promoted at any time. The question is, should Andrew Tate be featured at DYK—because his article was recently listed as a GA—since due to BLP the only hooks that can be run will have neutral characterizations of him when he's not a neutral person? BlueMoonset ( talk) 22:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
We do not feature neutral people at DYK. Reminds me of the saying, "well-behaved women seldom make history". We should promote a hook that directs people to the GA instead of the gotcha tweet. ALT0 was a fact that causes me to want to learn more ... that social media personality Andrew Tate (pictured) was the third most ' googled' person in 2023? But AlT1 directs me to look up the tweet. That is not what we want and probably not what the nominator wants. The person is a social media personality so objecting to that fact also seems wrong. Bruxton ( talk) 23:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree. As an aside, this entire section is faintly bewildering: you have editors openly advocating for WP:RGW bias and insinuating that trying to improve articles on bad people means you are running a PR campaign. I mean, ????? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Seems like a bit of a catch-22. Tate is a bad person, but a DYK hook can't present Tate in a bad way due to NPOV and BLP policies. But a neutral hook must present Tate in a bad way, but it can't because... Viriditas ( talk) 00:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
a neutral hook must present Tate in a bad way Where does WP:DYKCRIT state a hook must serve as a representation of the whole article Viriditas? If it does, we'll have to remove Yuki Sakakihara, Battle of La Haye-du-Puits, Gendarmerie (Czechoslovakia) and CSL Plasma from the next queue because they focus on trivial details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The crux of the issue is "unduly focus". Viriditas ( talk) 00:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
"Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." is the only occurence on that page, and I do not see how that relates to a neutral hook must present Tate in a bad way above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It relates directly to this discussion and the nomination in several ways. The elimination of ALT2, for one example, which was eliminated due to its so-called negativity, however, it did not unduly focus on such negative features of the subject, but rather presented them in accordance with NPOV and BLP. I think this idea that we have to bend over backwards to avoid negativity is the problem. Tate is a negative character as his article illustrates, so a negative hook is not unreasonable. DYKHOOKBLP is being misinterpreted. Viriditas ( talk) 00:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
By way of aside, well behaved women seldom make history was an opening line in historian Laurel Ulrich's Vertuous Women Found: New England Ministerial Literature, 1668–1735, American Quarterly 28, no. 1 (Spring 1976): 20–40, here 20, and the full line is [w]ell-behaved women seldom make history; against Antinomians and witches, these pious matrons have had little chance at all. Most historians, considering the domestic by definition irrelevant, have simply assumed the pervasiveness of similar attitudes in the seventeenth century—a social history rebuke of the tendency to study the exceptional (and therefore rare) instead of the everyday (and therefore more commonly experienced), rather than an axiom endorsing controversy to get attention. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 01:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, so she was just being factual. Did you know ...that Laurel Thatcher Ulrich was interested in Puritan funeral services and thought plural marriages empowered women?) I wonder, if Google had been around in 1933, how many hits Adolf might have got. Martinevans123 ( talk) 15:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I think ... that social media personality Andrew Tate was charged in June 2023 with rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women would be a good option - given that coverage of Tate overwhelmingly mentions and focuses on this I don't think it would be undue focus. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
No objection. (Did you know... that Adolf Hitler's wife Eva Braun, owned two Scottish Terrier dogs named Negus and Stasi?) Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This doesn't sound compliant with WP:DYKHOOKBLP: Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. The hook is focusing entirely and thus unduly on negative things. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I would say that by far the most important word in that sentence is "unduly".-- Laun chba ller 14:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes. We need to be stricter that WP:BLP, and in particular, stricter than WP:BLPCRIME. Our assumption must be that Tate is innocent until proven guilty.
I don't really know what a good hook would be. I was blissfully unaware of Tate until Greta Thunberg's tweet mentioned him. Maybe just mention his kickboxing career? — Kusma ( talk) 14:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah yes, kickboxing. Always comes in handy. For Wikipedia Main page, anyway. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)@ Martinevans123: I know you are trying to be funny with your Hitler hook, but here is a hook we ran in January 2024. ... that Genghis Khan was extremely charismatic and renowned for his generosity towards his followers? Khan may have been responsible for the deaths of millions more people than Adolf. Bruxton ( talk) 14:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, but I'm sure he was always good to his Mum. Martinevans123 ( talk) 14:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, you can have a read of Hö'elün and decide for yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Bruxton: Can you explain the nature of the perceived violation? A number of editors have pointed out that the key words there are "unduly focus" which this does not, but you didn't explain yourself so maybe you weren't mistaken and have an argument here... But you actually need to make that argument. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I am approaching this subject dispassionately. But there are editors stating that Tate is objectively bad, and they suggest we need a hook that "takes him down a couple of pegs" or insults him with a WP:NEO tweet. Or an editor suggested a hook that accuses him of crimes in Wikivoice. I think it is a COI if an editor looks at a hook and thinks they need to fashion it to support a thesis. I think a hook should cause people to want to know more about the subject, Tate; and I think ALT0 does that. Readers can click on the article and see a rather comprehensive accounting of his life so far. Bruxton ( talk) 17:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The statement that Tate is objectively bad can be backed up with numerous reliable sources, are you saying that Tate isn't objectively a bad person? Because if so you need sources to support that BLP assertion. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ AirshipJungleman29: I see this was promoted again, but I'm not seeing a consensus to do so with the used hook ("that Andrew Tate was the third most 'googled' person in 2023?") Can you revert the promotion to allow for addition discussion, including of the hook I proposed above? BilledMammal ( talk) 06:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, I think it is difficult to even write a neutral hook about Tate. ALT0 suggests he is "popular" rather than "infamous" (when in reality he was arrested in December 2022 in Romania and the vast majority of those Google searches are going to be people finding out about the story of his unpleasant alleged criminal exploits). Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Incorrect, as per the body: "Tate became widely known in mid-2022 and was searched on Google more times than both Donald Trump and COVID-19 that July" [3]. So he was already very popular prior to his arrest, even if the latter amplified this further. Tate otherwise isn't infamous, there are no RS referencing this. He is an internet celebrity, not a celebrity. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 10:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Would this be the same Andrew Tate who the British Government directed schoolteachers not to discuss with children? [4] [5] I'd say that's fairly infamous (actually, that might make a good hook were it in the article, but no doubt someone would claim it is too negative). Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, but it wouldn't, as since then UK & Austrlian schools have done a u-turn realising they need to train teachers and create courses to combat's Tate's brand of misogyny, as well as allocate substantial funds to do so. [6] [7] [8]. But I've been too busy wasting my time with this nomination to update the article accordingly. He otherwise does sound infamous, and in hindsight there are two RS claiming this which I hadn't noticed. [9] [10] CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 11:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I've pulled the hook for now. Discussion on whether the new hook is appropriate, and/or if the article can even on DYK, can continue. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 10:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
DYKHOOKBLP is a great reminder that the Main Page brings more eyeballs onto people than many lower-profile LPs could have ever dreamed of, and to be conscious of the damage you can do to a person's reputation by running a one-sided negative hook from a more mixed article.
Sorry, but that's not Andrew Tate. Let's not kid ourselves: anything we do or say about Tate is a drop in the bucket of all the media coverage he's received over the past few years. RS coverage of him these days is almost unanimously negative. If we decide to censor ourselves on a topic because we don't like that the moral wind of RSes is blowing slant, we're not doing our job correctly. This isn't a guy who made some off-kilter remark once and got cancelled for it (something that could reasonably merit protection), this is just his ideology and he's made no attempt to hide it or change it. I'd say we run a hook about the misogynistic garbage he spouts instead of trying to cover his ass. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 13:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I think it is fine to run a hook about his misogynistic garbage. I oppose a hook about the crimes that he is accused of until he has been convicted. — Kusma ( talk) 13:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Couldn't agree more :) the kickboxing stuff is unduly positive, the charges too fresh- the misogyny is years-long, well documented, and squarely the median of RS coverage. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 15:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes ideally this sort of hook would be acceptable, as it is not unduly negative, it's very much due. Unfortunately others have pushed back against negative hooks since the onset. CommunityNotesContributor ( talk) 17:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, a hook on his misogynistic garbage would be preferable to either the tweet or the crime alts. JoelleJay ( talk) 02:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That's a clear no go per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. We can't feature a hook accusing a living person of misogyny, no matter how true it might be. It's too negative. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Again, that's not what WP:DYKHOOKBLP says or means. It says "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." There is nothing "unduly" about describing Tate as a misogynist. He self-identifies as one, as you must know. ( BBC News, 12 March 2024) In fact, it's a violation of NPOV to focus on hooks that are "unduly" positive and ignore these negative facts, as difficult as it is for some people to believe. Viriditas ( talk) 21:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
More to the point, we aren't accusing anyone of anything with that hook. All we are saying that three organisations and Tate have described him that way.-- Laun chba ller 21:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Of course I realize that we are not making that accusation, but we are repeating an accusation which amounts to the same thing when evaluating the ethics of how we are using the DYK platform. I had never heard of Mr. Tate prior to seeing him at DYK. I wouldn’t consider myself particularly knowledgeable on this person. I personally would not recommend featuring negative hooks on any BLPs because they can’t be balanced with other non-negative material (or at least contextualized) as is done in an article on a BLP. I think it’s best we feature an interesting fact that avoids any sort of positive or negative assessment of this person. I would say that for any other controversial BLP as a matter of policy. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
this is a false balance. if you take the median "tone" of reliable sources and the article, it is negative. running a "neutral" hook would actually be unduly positive. News organizations don't hesitate to call something what it is, and we shouldn't either. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 00:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ theleekycauldron FALSEBALANCE specifically applies to articles and does not apply to hooks on BLPs for the simple reason that hooks have too small a footprint in terms of text length to provide balance and context. Our policy language at WP:DYKHOOKBLP specifically states the bar of using negative material is higher than elsewhere because hooks don't allow for space to provide information in context. It sets a bad precedent to allow any hook on a BLP to feature overly negative material. I further note that hooks are not article summaries but are merely isolated facts on a topic, so arguing false balance on an individual fact that is not disputed in RS anywhere is a distortion of that policy. 4meter4 ( talk) 02:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Our policies apply everywhere; DYN guidelines do not, and have no such reach. "False balance" is a form of bias that we want to avoid in all circumstances, which the NPOV policy instructs us to avoid. To give you a borderline hypothetical example of an unduly case of hook negativity, if Winona Ryder was up for a nom (it’s not, this is just an example), and we had a hook that featured her shoplifting from two decades ago, that would be unduly negative. On the other hand, it would also meet the bar for interestingness. With that said, given that Ryder has not been in trouble with the law since 2001 or thereabouts, and has had a long career as a successful actor since that time, it wouldn’t be fair to focus on that one incident. We do not, however, see the same thing playing out here with Tate. One could make several counterarguments. Is the so-called negativity at work on the Tate hooks unrepresentative of his entire career? He is currently 37 years of age. Of that time, he has been in trouble with the law or otherwise known for controversy for eight of those years. His professional career could be said to have begun in 2005, so of the previous 19 years, eight of them have been involved in negative controversy, which is almost half. That means, in my opinion, that such a so-called "negative" hook meets the criteria for representation based on his overall biographical career. This is unlike Ryder in my above example, who only shoplifted once, more than several decades ago, and has not engaged in any controversy since that one event. Viriditas ( talk) 02:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
yes, the bar for DYKHOOKBLP is higher. A hook on Tate's misogyny is due for the content of the article and due in the context of RSes. I know that because it's in the second sentence of his article, a sentence tens of thousands of people read at every day. Unless you think that is mistaken? theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 02:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Viriditas and theleekycauldron It seems like both of you are calling the hook a false balance because it doesn't reflect the entire article. My response to that is that of course it doesn't reflect the entire article because it's a hook. Hooks aren't article summaries and they aren't meant to provide an overview of the article's topic. I recently had a hook I proposed rejected for reading too much like an article summary. Nowhere in Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines does it say that hooks need to represent an entire article or be written in such a way to reflect the balance in the article. This approach is a highly novel take on hook review that isn't applied elsewhere, and is further evidence of bias in this article's hook review. Indeed, most hooks pick out highly random bits of information that do not give the reader much of a heads up about what else is in the article. We can't start arbitrarily applying policies that are not typically enforced at DYK.
That said, even if we were to apply false balance to the individual fact (which is how false balance policy should be applied at DYK by looking at sources about individual hook facts) Can you point to a specific false balance in the hook that was pulled? I think if you were honest you couldn't because it's simply a matter of math based on google's collected data. There's really nothing controversial in the statement that he was 2023's third most googled person. That's a fact based in statistical evidence, and is entirely uncontroversial as a stand alone piece of information. We could even remove the descriptor "social media personality" if people prefer not to emphasize that one part of the subject's life over others and it would still be interesting as a fact. If you're saying that its a false balance because it doesn't reflect the whole article, then my response is that isn't what DYK is for and that isn't how we review hooks at DYK on a routine basis. Hooks aren't meant to present balanced pictures of the topics being featured. If they were, we would be rejecting 99.9% of all hooks for not giving a sufficient summary of the subject in the hook. Hooks are random and often present small random minutia of interest. The main issue here is that people don't want to follow WP:DYKHOOKBLP policy. Well tough. It's policy. We don't feature negative content on BLPS. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Here's some hooks for you:
  • "... that the philosophy of Andrew Tate is regarded as the same as a pick-up artist?"
  • "... that Andrew Tate believes women are the property of men?"
  • "... that Andrew Tate self-identifies as a sexist and a misogynist?"
  • "... that Andrew Tate ran a webcam business that he described as a 'total scam'?"
  • "... that Andrew Tate called Alex Jones 'one of the greatest men on the planet'?"
  • "... that the BBC accused Andrew Tate's online courses of 'coercing women into sex work'?"
Tell me what policies and guidelines I'm breaking. Viriditas ( talk) 18:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If you had observed the conversation below, I think you will have noticed my opinion has shifted on this issue after being made aware of at least one negative hook that ran in the past on a BLP. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 19:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The fact that you are even able to do that makes me respect you even more. Viriditas ( talk) 20:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose I do not think it is our role to craft a hook that fits a world view. Launchballer has already stated in an above thread that they wanted a hook that "takes him down a couple of pegs". That is exactly what their proposed hook does and that is not what DYK is for. People are far more complex than their labels and our readers can figure it out without us leading them by the nose. Bruxton ( talk) 15:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm not exactly sure what can be achieved by the objections being raised here which essentially boil down to 'we don't like Tate' and 'we don't want to promote a hook unless it signals our moral disapproval of Tate'. By definition that is WP:POV pushing and doesn't follow out guidelines for hooks on living people. We can't present a negative hook about a BLP per WP:DYKHOOKBLP and more broadly WP:BLP policy in general. The pulled hook "that social media personality Andrew Tate was the third most 'googled' person in 2023?" is neutral. It's a verified fact that he was the third most googled person in 2023, and he is, for better or worse, a social media personality. We aren't endorsing or promoting any of his negative bevhavior by stating so, and reframing it as somehow non-neutral is an over reach and mis-application of WP:NPOV policy as these two facts are not contradicted anywhere in reliable sources. Whether you like the man or not he will still be the third most googled person in 2023 and he will still be a social media personality. I don't think this one factual sentence could or should be misconstrued as an endorsement of Tate's actions. I also don't think it's a good precedent to censor DYK. I support promoting this hook a second time, because it is compliant with policy and probably the most neutrally worded hook possible on this particular individual. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I am watching how others approach this BLP. It is interesting because it reminds me of a newsroom where editors try to shape a narrative. Leeky says this living person (LP) needs a negative hook because he has a "subpar moral compass". SN54129 says, "F Tate" Billedmammal supports listing "crimes he has been charged with" Kusma wants to "run a hook about his misogynistic garbage" Horse Eye's Back says that the LP is "objectively bad".
    This LP is clearly not liberal and is a sort of anti-woke figure so I am not surprised that some editors demand a hook which portrays the person as bad, it is like a virtue signal. Last year I was chided for opposing a BLP at DYK Sarah Jane Baker. The person was convicted of kidnapping and torturing her stepmother's brother. Also convicted of attempted murder and prison escape. But we did not highlight any of that, we highlighted the fact that they were trans. But people could go to the article and read about the person's crimes - we did not lead them to the crimes. When we make editorial choices they often involve identity politics – but should they? I read the puzzling words above, "running a neutral hook would actually be unduly positive"? Is that a Jedi mind trick? Because we have WP:DYKHOOKBLP for a good reason. So back to this LP... in reality I suppose that that the person would not care what hook we run because like the old proverb says, "There’s no such thing as bad publicity". Whatever we decide to run here will mean more clicks. We just might end up looking like partisan hacks if we shape the hook to reflect our moral outrage. Lightburst ( talk) 02:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Um, you think people are "virtue-signalling" because Tate is "anti-woke" (whatever that nonsensical phrase means)? Have you actually read the article? This is not a left-versus-right issue, Tate is a nasty piece of work (as he admits himself). Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • "I have 33 cars. My Bugatti has a w16 8.0L quad turbo. My TWO Ferrari 812v competitizione have 6.5L v12s. This is just the start." Maybe some lovely whitewashing hook could be engineered from his boys' toys catalogue? Or how about "... that woman-hating thug Andrew Tate was banned from Twitter, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube in 2022, as a result of repellent outbursts"? [11] Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't really care what hook we run (and I object to the way Lightburst has misrepresented my comment in the above), I am mainly here to oppose accusing people of crimes on the Main Page. I am also generally pretty liberal with regards to "runnings hooks about X is advertising"; I think if we want to be neutral, we shouldn't exclude topics because we don't like them or because they might advertise the wrong thing. (We should have run a hook about Grimace Shake). There are plenty of things to say about Tate, using his name or not, some of them negative, some not. (Did you know that the son of a chess master became a kickboxer and internet celebrity?) Given Tate's usual page views, putting him on the Main Page without mentioning his name probably won't be a huge event in terms of views. — Kusma ( talk) 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment And this is why I would vastly prefer no Tate DYK entry to one that was negative. Yes, we are NOTCENSORED, but that doesn't mean we can't consider whether we need to give any oxygen of publicity to a man that has been described as a danger to - especially - women and children. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Perhaps we could mention something that isn't what Tate is usually known for, rather than go for a more controversial hook that's already likely to be known to a wide variety of people. E.g.
– Epicgenius ( talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That's the most on-its-own-merits interesting hook anyone's proposed so far, even if it'd probably get less clicks due to not using Tate's name. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 08:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/proposal. I think we only have two options here. One is to run a hook that isn't negative in compliance with WP:DYKHOOKBLP policy. The other is to reject the hook topic as a whole because the subject is too controversial and we don't want as a project to appear like we are promoting this person. We have not run hooks in the past for being too controversial, so it is not entirely unprecedented. What we can't do is run a negative hook on a BLP. Based on past experience, taking that road will only land us at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and it will get pulled from the main page. I suggest presenting these two options and taking a formal vote to craft a WP:CONSENSUS opinion. If the majority consensus is to reject, we reject. If the consensus is to go forward with a non-negative hook then we can decide what that hook is after that. 4meter4 ( talk) 14:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • A vote? Seriously? No, just reject the nomination as too much effort. The nominator already sees this as a waste of time, so just close it and move on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
      • I don't see any WP:DYKHOOKBLP hook that is actually interesting to run. Therefore, this should be closed as rejected in my opinion. Not all articles have suitable hooks for DYK, and this one doesn't appear to. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    • I disagree that BLPHOOKBIO bans negative hooks - it bans unduly negative hooks. In cases like this, where coverage is overwhelmingly - almost unanimously - negative, a negative hook is both allowed by BLPHOOKBIO and required by NPOV. BilledMammal ( talk) 14:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
No that isn't how it works in practice BilledMammal. I have never seen a negative hook on a BLP successfully run at DYK. Why? Because it inevitably gets hauled into Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and pulled for violating BLP policy. Practically speaking, it isn't feasible to run negative hooks on BLPs the way the system is actually run. I guarantee you, any negative hook we run on Tate won't last a half hour before it's pulled. There's a zero tolerance policy in practice at MPE for negative BLP hooks. 4meter4 ( talk) 14:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Would you call ... that Rasmus Paludan caused a global controversy by burning the Quran? a negative hook 4meter4? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Fair point. I'll have to reconsider my thoughts on BLP policy now that I've seen we've run that one. If we are going to run hooks like that it would be helpful to have a more detailed guide on how to determine when we can go negative on a BLP and what the limits are. As I recall, I approved a hook on Sarah Jane Baker which later got pulled at MPE; an experience which pushed my interpretation of policy towards an avoid negative hooks on BLPs view. It seems to me that we lack consistency over when we invoke BLPHOOKBIO policy. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 4meter4, Sarah Jane Baker ran unchanged for 24 hours so was not "pulled at MPE". — Kusma ( talk) 15:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I must have been confusing that hook with another one I reviewed. I know I reviewed a hook at some point which got pulled at MPE for BLP concerns. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 4meter4 and AirshipJungleman29: I woke up thinking about what was different about the hook AirshipJungleman29 presented ".. that Rasmus Paludan caused a global controversy by burning the Quran?" I think it is different because we are highlighting something he did and what happened. In the majority of hooks presented here about Tate others were calling him names, labeling him or alleging crimes. I think in the hook presented by @ Guerillero and Valereee: below Tate accepts the label. So that is much different than someone said -. When we label people with someone said Tate has SDE. Someone accused Tate of X, I think it is much different. Lightburst ( talk) 14:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I, for one, am extremely disappointed that no one mentioned the third option: run a very interesting, non-negative hook that doesn't mention him directly, That way, people don't know who the hook is referring to until they click on the page and see Tate's name. But seriously, has anyone considered this? – Epicgenius ( talk) 15:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) You always have great ideas EpicG. I agree! Editors like to invoke WP:NOTCENSORED but only when it suits them. The problem with the type of moderating suggested here is that it is based on the politics of whoever is active right now in DYK. That is in fact why we have guidelines and policies - because editors and editing patterns are in flux. Moderation of this kind is just censorship. The readers of the main page are smart enough to use google. They do not need you to protect them from this person or their opinions. Lightburst ( talk) 16:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I could get on board with the "a kickboxer started a university" hook above.-- Laun chba ller 16:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Epicgenius I saw it. I like it and if there is support for it, we should run it. I didn't say anything earlier becuae I was waiting to sort out whether there was support for any non-negative hook at all before expressing my support for it. However, now that I've seen the Paludan hook, I'm less inclined to be so adamant against a negative hook... It's going to be challenging to get a consensus behind a non-negative hook, particularly when it appears we have run at least one negative BLP hook in the past. Things aren't so cut and dry as I thought they were under policy. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
You're still peddling this political nonsense. This is not a political issue. And yes, easily-influenced children do need protecting from Tate's misogyny and bullshit - something even a right-wing British Government admitted. [12] [13] Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I assume you are in the UK or Europe? FWIW, as a bit of a backgrounder, for those who aren't aware of the regional phenomenon (not saying you aren't, but for the general reader) in the US, the "peddling of political nonsense", such that an apolitical position or policy is made political via rhetorical strategy, is one of the touchstones of post-1980 right-wing politics in America. Obviously, this is being done in the UK and Europe as well, but until very recently (aside from exceptions, which may in fact have US donors behind them) it was unique in some respects to US politics. By way of current example, the recent popular and viral video of Steven Bonnell interviewing Jordan B. Peterson is a master class in this rhetoric. Various critics have noticed that Peterson and Tate are all sharing the same or similar talking points which can be traced to right wing groups, foundations, and individuals who disseminate these ideas and then share them on social media and elsewhere. It's a fascinating topic and I won't say any more about it, but I did think it needed to be said as a balanced, indirect reply to accusations of "virtue signaling" and "wokness", which is part of the same, collective movement. Viriditas ( talk) 20:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I am in the UK. I agree with you, but really the point I was making was that the issue isn't really "liberal/left-wing" editors wanting to make a "right-winger" look bad - after all, he does that job well enough himself. The bigger issue here is "should be be giving a misogynist a platform on the front page of Wikipedia?" regardless of whether the hook is positive, neutral or negative. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
BK, I think that probably falls under WP not censored? I, too, hate to give this horrible person a platform. But the article was improved. There are reasonable hooks. Valereee ( talk) 23:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
No, I don't think NOTCENSORED really applies here - after all, we are not suggesting removing Tate's article completely. However, a discussion of where material should be displayed is an editorial one, not a content one. Black Kite (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
BK, that was my feeling entirely. Which is a kind of censoring, I guess. DKY... that lover of traditional Khmer music Pol Pot was described as "very likeable, a really nice person." Martinevans123 ( talk) 08:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Martinevans123
The pol pot example is not dissimilar to the recent ghengis khan dyk that shipped.
I offer this perspective: Wikipedia is not a platform. Wikipedia pages are not a platform. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that can be edited by anyone. Bome sall 1 ( talk) 09:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, that's all true. The issue seems to be partly... Ghengis Khan is an historical figure, and some folks may remember the deeds Pol Pot. But at least he's dead. While Mr Tate is very much alive and kicking (and can even edit Wikipedia, of course). Martinevans123 ( talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • ... that on a 2011 podcast Andrew Tate (pictured) described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"? is probably what I would go with due to his own statements. ... that Andrew Tate (pictured) is "absolutely a misogynist"? is snappier and something he would agree with, but might raise a fuss -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Kind of agreeing with Guerillero...if Tate's describing himself that way, that's a good DYK hook. Did you know that? No, I didn't, and it's interesting, because there aren't actually that many men who would describe themselves that way publicly, at least if (self-censoring a joke in poor taste). Let's not give it the image slot, though. There are so many more interesting images. Valereee ( talk) 23:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've added an ALT3 to the nom, needs another reviewer. Valereee ( talk) 23:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks @ Guerillero and Valereee: It is certainly better if the person is saying it instead of a third party. Just might work even though I liked EpicG's idea as well. Now to find an uninvolved editor to review. Lightburst ( talk) 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Valereee
    Comment on alt 3
    If the words "social media influencer" were removed, it may still be an effective hook.
    Would instead read as follows:
    ALT3: ...that Andrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"? Bome sall 1 ( talk) 05:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    I think you're right, it would still work, but for me providing context is helpful when the person isn't a household name. If it were Martha Stewart or Tiger Woods, we probably don't need to provide any context, but many English speakers will have no idea who Andrew Tate is and why the fact he describes himself as a misogynist is meaningful in any way. Telling them he's an influencer makes that bit of information relevant. Valereee ( talk) 11:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Valereee
    I concur. Makes sense. Even in context of your two examples... It would be totally acceptable, possibly preferred, to add a couple of words to describe their profession.
    Four example:
    , "dyk.... professional golfer tiger woods (insert factoid?)"
    Bome sall 1 ( talk) Bome sall 1 ( talk) 04:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    But then some editors would demand that you insert an article as well: ... that the professional the golfer the tiger the woods (insert factoid). Otherwise it's "vaguely sensational", and somehow an unsupported editorialization. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Wikipedia:The problem with false titles. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Picture of self harm scars. dyk 16 April 2024

Hello,

Are there any methods available to mark the image with a content warning?

Are there any alternate pictures available?

I recommend taking some action to mitigate the risk of widespread negative reactions.

The reason I am posting this is because the picture of self harm scars on today's dyk was unexpected for me to see. I experienced a mild negative reaction upon viewing the image. I feel that there is a potential for other readers to have strong negative reactions to viewing this image unexpectedly. My understanding is that, broadly speaking, pictures of self harm scars are sometimes marked with content warnings to mitigate this risk.

I am not sure if I'm in the correct place to initiate this discussion.

Please do let me know if I am posting this comment in an in appropriate forum,and where would be better Bome sall 1 ( talk) 05:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not censored. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 06:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Please treat newcomers with gentleness and respect. It's true that Wikipedia isn't censored; it's probably also true that an editor whose first contribution was this past January and whose first DYK interaction was this thread may have been both unfamiliar with that rule and/or with why that means Wikipedia eschews disclaimers that other uncensored spaces nevertheless use. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 22:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I apologize for my earlier tone, I understand I could have worded that response better. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 00:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Narutolovehinata5
I did appreciate your direct to the point response, with a helpful link. I didn't reply to say as much, not entirely sure why.
@ Hydrangeans
Thank you for standing up for me/advocating for being kind to newbies. I personally appreciate it. Plus, it's nice to know that people like you are out there. Bome sall 1 ( talk) 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Hi, Bome sall 1. I wrote much of the cover-up tattoo article and took the photo you're concerned about. I could respond to this from a few angles, but I'm about to go to sleep so I'll just point out one detail: The person in that photo, a good friend of mine, goes out in the world every day with her forearms visible. Of course, she doesn't go around broadcasting "these are self-harm scars," but neither does the hook as written, and I was careful about exactly that. The article does of course explain the scars' provenance, because it's of encyclopedic relevance in that context, but for the Main Page I felt it would be gratuitous to get into that detail. I don't actually believe that WP:NOTCENSORED applies unqualified to the Main Page, but I also don't think it's fair to say that the Main Page should be more censorious of people's self-harm scars than society at large is for how people present those scars in their daily life. And again, in daily life, across a variety of cultural contexts, my friend does not cover her forearms (weather permitting).
I appreciate the desire here to, essentially, protect people who struggle with self-harm, but there is another way to look at this attitude, which is as stigmatizing self-harm, telling people with visible self-harm scars that we must obscure them. For me, as someone who has self-harmed and has spent a lot of time listening to others speak for me about how I should feel about my scars, it was really liberating for me to see my friend's tattoo and see that she was turning this pain into an artistic message, owning that part of her past. I'm not saying that that's what the image on the Main Page right now need convey—to most people, I reckon, it's just an image of scars and they aren't thinking much about where they came from—but I just want to counter the assumption that removing the image would be compassionate to self-harmers, rather than reënforcing shame. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed ( they|xe) 06:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Tamzin hi Tamzin,
Noted, rescind my original questions.
Thank you for taking time to write such a thoughtful comment. Your patience and courtesy towards me is sincerely appreciated. I had not considered the perspective you shared. My worldview is expanded. This has certainly eroded my personal aversion to images of self harm scars.
Your friend should count themselves lucky to have a compassionate friend like you. Being kind to a stranger on the internet is a green flag, full stop...Let alone your thoughtful discourse. I won't go on.
I'll leave it at this: thank you for being bold, vulnerable even, by sharing your perspective.
As an aside.. When I posted my comment, I wondered if I was throwing a paper airplane off the empire state building. What would the chances be of the comment being seen by anyone involved in the dyk, or anyone involved in the article editing at all?
Turns out I was found by someone who personally knows the photo subject. What are the odds! Bome sall 1 ( talk) 07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Bome sall 1, re: What would the chances be of the comment being seen by anyone involved in the dyk, -- just for future reference, it always is a good idea to let people know you're discussing their nomination. To find out who was involved in a nomination here, go to the article's talk page, where you'll find the DYK nomination. The nominator's username is near the top of that section, and everyone who commented on it will have also signed it. You can WP:PING them to your comments or questions.
In general, comments here will be seen by multiple people who work here regularly. Even without pinging Tamzin, who was the person who took it to Good Article status and nominated it here, it's not highly unusual that she saw your question anyway. Valereee ( talk) 11:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Valereee noted. Appreciate the pointer and insight into the Wikipedia dyk editing culture! Bome sall 1 ( talk) 11:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Queue 3: request for move to other queue/day

Hi

I recently nominated two related articles which both got approved Mirna El Helbawi and Connecting Humanity, currently they are in the same queue right next to each other. Please can I request they are posted on different days? The hooks are quite different but it may be confusing for readers to have two related hooks next to each other.

Thanks

John Cummings ( talk) 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You sure about that? I see Connecting Humanity in prep 5 and Mirna El Helbawi in prep 3, five days apart.-- Laun chba ller 16:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Launchballer thanks very much, I saw them both listed on the same page and assumed they'd be on the same day (I don't really understand the system :) Can you tell me what days they'll be published? Thanks for your help, John Cummings ( talk) 20:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ John Cummings, see Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Local_update_times. — Kusma ( talk) 21:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Kusma, thanks so much. John Cummings ( talk) 16:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Queue 6

2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot

a pretty picture
a pretty picture

The hook was rather verbose; I've shortened it. RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I also uploaded a better version of the image; this is the kind of photo for which spot-metering was invented :-) It's still not great, and I don't see any other images in the article that are much better. Perhaps we want to use another hook for the lead in this set. RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Actually, looking at the other articles in this set, I think Albert Gumble would make a great lead image. RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I find the image which is now in the slot much more dramatic. I might vote to leave it. The one you presented could certainly be used in another set. Lightburst ( talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, for sure, it's a more dramatic subject. But technically it's a terrible image; poorly exposed and out of focus. All you can tell is that there's a person in front of something that's burning. It's not until you look at the full size image that you can tell it's somebody wearing a hockey helmet and a "Vancouver" shirt, that the fire is a burning car, or that there's a crowd of people. It fails the "suitable, attractive, and interesting; images in particular must display well in the small size" requirement of WP:DYKIMG. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Quick check - can an article by DYKed twice?

I just passed Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Hill (basketball)/DYK2 (GA). But then I noticed it was DYKed previously. Is this ok? I could not find a section in DYK rules covering this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Repeats are allowed after five years, and that one was 2011.-- Laun chba ller 07:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:DYKNEW: An article is ineligible for DYK if it has in the past five years appeared on the Main Page as a bold link at DYK, unless the article was then deleted as a copyright violation. It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination or between nomination and appearance on the Main Page, appeared as a boldlink at In the news (ITN) or in the prose section of Selected anniversaries (OTD), or as Today's featured article (TFA). A nomination must go on hold if the article has pending nominations to appear at any of the same. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of OTD are not disqualified, nor are names listed in "Recent deaths" section of ITN.—  Usedtobecool  ☎️ 07:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Censorship by copyright pulled

There was a report at Errors concerning the Censorship by copyright hook. The article had been orange-tagged ( Template:Globalize), with Dilettante reporting this to Errors. Whilst the long list of examples is spread around the world, the prose deals mainly with North American issues. Posting this here rather than at Errors as this discussion gets archived, whilst Errors gets nuked when the main page changes at midnight UTC. I offer the pre-emptive comment that issues relating to this particular tag are hard to detect by the checking processes in place beyond the original review, as you have to critically read the whole article to detect it. If the original reviewer doesn't pick up on it, there's every chance that it slips through. For example, the admin instructions have read article and copyedit as an optional component. Schwede 66 19:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, just letting you know that I'm about to go tramping (aka hiking); back in 36 hours or so. Schwede 66 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I think this is deeply unfair on several levels; first, it allows one to spuriously tag an article about to be DYKed or just DYKed and demand it to be pulled, likely not eligible for re-DYKing. Second, I don't agree with this being called in need of significant globalization - as Schwede notes, the list of examples is globalized. And the concern about the prose being focused on NA issues is highly debatable. DMCA and American copyright legislation have wide-ranging international application. Besides, prose mentions non-NA legislation like European Union's Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (Copyright Directive), and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Later, the prose discusses European history (ex. Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers to suppress texts it deemed problematic, such as anti-Cromwellian and anti-Caroline satirical writings) as well as the concept of the Global South. This is something to be discussed on the talk page, not something that should lead to emergency DYKpull, but bottom line, IMHO the article was incorrectly orange tagged and should not have been pulled from the main page. Last but not least, best practices when tagging articles require that the tagger starts a discussion on the talk page - this was not done. Nor was the globalize template even explained in the edit summary. So we have bad templating followed by a bad pull. Ironically, this seems like some sort of "censorship by tagging". I request that this is restored for the main page. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
For what it's worth I would WP:IAR support it being added to a later set of hooks because it was pulled early. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I felt bad @ Piotrus: and I pinged you at errors. It does feel unfair that editors driveby tagged the article while it was on the main page. I felt like the article was comprehensive enough for DYK in that form and could have included those items later. Our own AirshipJungleman29 also tagged the article. As BlueMoonset has said below it would probably be unfair to run it again because it was live for the majority of the runtime. I can agree with the @ Launchballer: suggestion about adding it as a tenth if that idea gains support. Lightburst ( talk) 23:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I would be opposed to another run on the main page. The hook was up for over 19 hours, which is significantly more than hooks get when we're running two sets a day. It's too bad that it didn't get the full 24 hours, but it got over 80% of the time—and 160% of what a 12-hour hook gets. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm broadly of the view that pulled hooks should resume where they left off, as a tenth hook.-- Laun chba ller 22:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Requires an admin to add it back. If you can find one willing, go ahead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the feedback. I am fine with it being run at a 10th hook for ~5h, that's a fair compromise. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That's a neat way to go about it. I'm also supportive of Launchballer's suggestion. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 03:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I've reinstated the hook as there's consensus to do so. Schwede 66 20:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived several hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of all 10 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 11. Because this list is so short after the backlog drive—which is great news!—I plan to add to it every couple of days. We have a total of 167 nominations, of which 95 have been approved, a gap of 72 nominations that has decreased by 42 over the past 15 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) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Please can someone look at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war

Hi all

Please could I ask someone to look at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war? The nomination was rejected with only the comment With four maintenance tags, this isn't going anywhere. Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Guidelines states that 'Rejected' should only be used for an "article is either completely ineligible or otherwise requires an insurmountable amount of work before becoming eligible" which isn't true (I fixed the issue raised in 10 mins). Thanks very much, John Cummings ( talk) 09:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Replied there.-- Laun chba ller 09:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Queue 2

Hal Malchow

I don't see anything in particular that's a problem here, but since we're putting a WP:BDP on the main page with an accusation of a crime, it wouldn't hurt to have some extra eyes on it. RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is the accusation of a crime by someone who died mere weeks ago, though he was never convicted or even charged with it: a negative hook when we're not supposed to do that to real people while they're alive or within a couple of years of their death. Can this nomination be pulled while a new hook is proposed and reviewed? (The other hook listed in the nomination template is neither well written nor interesting, so not an adequate substitute.) BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree with BlueMoonset. Schwede 66 09:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ SWinxy, Elias Ziade, and PrimalMustelid: see the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Got it, although I have no ability to remove a promoted hook in queue. PrimalMustelid ( talk) 11:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Pulled. RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
RoySmith, I've plugged the hole in Q2. PrimalMustelid, as you are not an admin, you cannot edit the queue (i.e. there was no expectation for you to do so; you were invited to comment here). Schwede 66 19:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks. I'm liking this new 9-hook thing. It makes pulling a hook a lot less painful; if we find one to replace it with, great. If not, the world won't end if we go with 8. RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ BlueMoonset Good point, I agree with pulling the nomination. It's important to handle accusations sensitively. el.ziade ( talkallam) 17:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Virtual Self (EP)

The source says I must have listened to snippets of 100,000 songs, which turned into the stronger he stated he "listened to snippets of 100,000 songs" in the article, which in turn got turned into the even stronger statement Porter Robinson listened to excerpts of more than 100,000 songs in wiki-voice for the hook. I think this needs to be rephrased. RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

And on the copyright front, there's a lot of word-for-word between the article and https://www.sonar.pictures/the-stratospheric-colossus-of-sound-20 (and some other sources). Earwig has the details. I'm not great at figuring out who copied from who, so this needs another set of eyes to look it over. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm just guessing, but 1) I would add quotes to the hook material in question (which solves the problem), and 2) Sonar.pictures looks like they copied the content from Wikipedia in an example of backwards copyvio, but again, I'm just guessing. Viriditas ( talk) 22:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Skyshifter: Viriditas ( talk) 08:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Sonar.pictures is very clearly the one who copied from Wikipedia. Regarding the hook, it was an error to say "more" than 100,000 songs. However, I think just removing that word would make it fine. Skyshifter talk 08:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Done RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Approving hooks individually instead of by set

As a result of a recent ERRORS discussion, a hook had to be pulled. This was no-one's fault in particular and there are bound to be false positives. One of the users pointed out that were hooks to be approved individually instead of by set, it would likely prevent many pulls and corrections. It would also reduce load on any individual sysop since they're not required to go through five hooks when approving. Instead, they may approve as many or as few as they'd like when they wish to work on this.

I'm posting this here because ERRORS gets wiped daily and the discussion is long gone. Pinging Amakuru and Schwede66 as people who weighed in. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Do we need another discussion on this topic? I'm fairly sure that after the last one, we came to the conclusion that this is perfectly viable right now. I certainly remember individual hooks being approved in prep sets a week or two ago (EDIT: see this example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The point is that this needs a well-defined mechanism for how to implement it, and one that is understood by, and communicated to, all admins who work on DYK. I don't see any recent updates to Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions that would suggest a new system is in place. First choice would be something technical, whereby the current {{ DYKbotdo}} template, which automatically authorises the whole set, is replaced with a hook-by-hook sign-off. Then the bots can be adjusted to (a) not push a set to the main page if any are outstanding, and (b) provide suitable early warnings here at WT:DYK if a set has missing sign-offs and is imminent for promotion. I think the principle that one admin handles the whole set is still proabbly broadly a good one, but this adds in an extra level of security. Second choice would be a manual system where maybe the hooks all start with some sort of flag on them, and you remove them one by one as you check the hooks.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 17:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Do we need an extra layer of security? If yes, can we afford an extra layer of security? — Kusma ( talk) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Individual hook approvals would help to put more blame on individual admins. Given how many admins we have at DYK, I think this is not a good idea. — Kusma ( talk) 17:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1220579084"