Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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
Holding area	WP:SOHA
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	T:DYK
Main Page 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.

RFC on DYK and BLP policy

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

---

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

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

Opening Statement

Background on inconsistent application of BLP policy at DYK

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

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

Reasons for inconsistent pattern

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

Why community action is needed

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

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

RFC format: Questions and Proposals

Note 1. This is a presentation of this RFC's format, including planned guiding questions and a described process for future proposals. Please do not respond to the questions or make proposals in this space. Questions will be opened for comment one at a time, as answers to prior questions are important for informing responses to succeeding questions.

Note 2. The term "negative hook" may mean different things to different people, and individual hooks may be perceived as "negative" by a certain group of editors but not by others due to varying backgrounds among our editing volunteers. In examining policy language at WP:BLPSTYLE, a broadly construed definition of a negative hook could be any hook that may be perceived as an attack on the BLP or an attempt to malign their public image, or a hook that may be perceived as a partisan representation of the subject. These could include the use of contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision. Real examples of hooks that have been identified as negative by some editors have been gathered in the evidence section. See WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE.

RFC Questions

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

If the WP:CONSENSUS is yes or no consensus we move on to the next question. If the consensus is no we skip question 2 and move to question 3.

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

Once opinions have been gathered and summarized we move on to the next question.

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

Once opinions have been gathered and summarized we move to question 4

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

It's possible we may need to ask a question that was not predicted at the onset of the RFC, after getting input to the first three questions. We will leave room to ask additional questions for community input if needed before moving on to proposals. We will discuss any other questions raised by the community. Once completed, we will begin accepting proposals that should come from WP:CONSENSUS input.

Proposals

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

Evidence

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

Negative BLPs that were promoted to the main page without issue Incident Year Hook/comments Discussion Murder of Jiang Ge 2024 ... that the murder of Jiang Ge led to public debate in China over the actions of Jiang's roommate during her murder? The living person in question is Liu Xin, mentioned in the hook and discussed at length in the article. Raised at ERRORS but no response: [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. Negative BLPs that were pulled from the main page Incident Year Hook/comments Discussion Gemma McCluskie 2012 Concerns about recently deceased BLP violation ANI thread:[3] Talk:DYK thread:[4] 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: [5] Article at the time of promotion: [6] 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: [7] Negative BLPs that were contentious at Wikipedia talk:Did you know Incident Year Hook/comments Discussions Andrew Tate 2024 ... that social media influencer Andrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"? Concerns about BLP vio WT:DYK: [8] WT:ANI: [9] 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: [10] Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman 2024 Pulled from queue and then rejected, in part due to BLP concerns. WT:DYK: [11] 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: [12] Lil Tay 2023 Pulled from prep due to poor sourcing of negative information in the article. WT:DYK: [13] 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: [14] Child abuse in association football 2023 Pulled from queue for various reasons, one of which was BLPCRIME concerns. WT:DYK: [15] Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham 2024 There was a contentious discussion on the DYK talk page. That link should be added. Please assist. Template:Did you know nominations/Hal Malchow 2024 Concerns raised over BLP/BPD hook being negative WT:DYK: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 198#Hal Malchow Other kinds of BLP violation concerns in DYK hooks Incident Year Hook/comments Discussion HorsegiirL 2024 Pulled from prep; original hook used the article subject's real name against their wishes WT:DYK: [16] Matthew Charles Johnson 2024 Negative hook with unsourced info raised at ERRORS. [17] 4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC Discussion Questions

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

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

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

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

Question 1

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

• No. We have the responsibility to present negative information on BLPs ethically, and with more care than what is required on other topics. WP:BLPBALANCE requires that we present negative information in context, with nuance, and with care. That is not something that is possible to do within a 200 character single sentence. We have other options in what content to feature. Most BLPs have at least one interesting non-negative/ non-positive fact that we can feature that is entirely neutral. Concerns of neutrality are mostly spurious for this reason with only rare exceptions. Those that are rare, should simply be rejected from being featured, because the tendency is to promote negative hooks from personal bias rather than measured neutral intent.4meter4 (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. We need to get BLP right, but prohibiting "negative hooks" impacts neutrality. The "unduly negative" of the current rules is the right balance between neutrality and not causing harm. This RfC totally misses the mark in terms of the actual BLP problems we have at DYK: many of the biggest problems are not related to "negative hooks" (see "lollipop lady" above, or "HorsegiirL"). —Kusma (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• No. While having some trivia on the main page through DYK is a good idea, not every topic can be featured in such a way, and people primarily known for negative events shouldn't be featured on the main page. If it's impossible to find a positive/neutral hook, or if having one impacts neutrality, the BLP shouldn't be on the main page at all. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I believe WP:ITN should be allowed to report on convictions of war criminals. (And so should DYK and TFA). —Kusma (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  ITN is different. We have no control over the news, which we should report as-is even if it is terrible, but we have complete control over what we put in DYK. Toadspike [Talk] 18:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• No. 4Meter4 covers what I consider the strongest argument above, which I'm not going to pointlessly reiterate. Additionally, the lead of BLP has the sentence Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. I fail to see how "Did you know so-and-so is a misogynist?" is not titillating in the extreme.

While it is true that the principles upon which [NPOV] is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus, the due/undue argument is facile since not every word of NPOV is applicable. The first sentence of DUE reads Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. DYK does not do this; ITN does not do this; OTD does not do this; POTD does not do this; even FAC does not do this. The policy does not read "neutrality requires that mainspace pages when combine with all pages they link to represent ..." A moment's consideration suggests two possibilities: A) the entire main page as we know it should be radically redefined in scope B) not every word of NPOV, including much or the entirety of DUE, applies to the main page. I'd prefer the latter approach.

As to Kusma's war criminal point, I'm afraid that's just a fundamental disagreement over the nature of DYK since I believe war criminals should never be on DYK. I'm aware neither side will be convinced on that issue so I won't argue ny point. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dilettante and Kusma I would argue that the potential for problems at DYK is greater than at TFA or ITN. TFA has lots more space to present negative facts in context given it has an entire paragraph to introduce its topic. ITN pulls its content directly from global news headlines. An ITN report isn't going to broadcast negative content that isn't already widely distributed. Both of those allow for WP:BLPBALANCE compliance, at least in some measure . There is no such guiding force applicable to DYK, and because we feature trivia, not all of the negative content is necessarily widely known or distributed. This increases the risk of harm in a way unique to DYK as compared to other sections of the WP:MAIN page. There is a proven track record of abuse at DYK as evidenced by multiple ANI and ERROR reports. You don't see that happening at TFA or ITN to the extent it happens at DYK for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The existing rules say that all the negative content must be DUE, in particular it should not be trivia that has not been widely distributed. The vast majority of problematic content referred to above was against the existing rules. If we want to prevent bad hooks from coming to the Main Page, we do not need to ban one more class of potentially bad hooks, we need to get to a point where reviewers stop approving bad hooks (and unsuitable articles). Fix DYK's actual problems, don't just outlaw "hooks about BLP that potentially could be read as negative", i.e. anything involving sexuality or religion or stupidity or politicians changing their opinion or football players missing a penalty. An extremely wide class of hooks. —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a pipe dream Kusma. There are experienced editors at DYK that actively argue for inappropriate hooks, and I don't see that changing. Politics and activist paradigms inevitably allow for partisan behavior which leads to abuse of the DYK format. The current system isn't working, and the DYK community has repeatedly shown poor editorial judgement and that it can't be trusted to know when and when not to promote negative hooks. We can't just blame reviewers either, because reviewing admins have to move hooks into queues after they have been reviewed and double check it was a proper review, and we do have editors who look over the content in queues while they sit in them. It's time to acknowledge, that the DYK format and review process is not suited for presenting negative content on BLPs.4meter4 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect: there are experienced editors at DYK that actively argue for hooks that you find inappropriate. There is no general and neutral definition of "inappropriate hook". If we prohibit any hooks that someone finds inappropriate (your proposal's vague definition of "negative hook" indicates that you might go in that direction) then anyone can censor any hook involving any BLP for any reason. —Kusma (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

See the evidence section. I was referencing specifically hooks pulled after being taken to WP:ERRORS and WP:ANI, a small sampling of which are provided above for your convenience. I had nothing to do with determining whether they were "inappropriate". A working definition for negative hook was already given above that was pulled almost verbatim out of WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSTYLE (basically copy pasted). Your bad faith accusations are baseless. 4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes No to unduly negative hooks, but I don't see how every hook about a BLP that is even slightly negative violates BLP. Obviously we don't want to put libel or slander on the main page, and we do not want tabloid-like speculation on the main page either, but "negative hook" is way too broad to outright ban. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I will also agree with Kiana that some of the examples listed are not issues with negative facts being used as hooks, and are therefore not relevant to the question at hand. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes (Coming from WP:RFC/A) - Sometimes the WP:NPOV option is a negative option. Wikipedia prides itself on reporting only what others say. The WP:BLP policy itself says: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. I do not see a major distinction between the main page and an article's text that would bypass this. Sometimes, what is notable about a BLP is negative. Sometimes, what is most interesting about a BLP is negative. Note that I'm not disputing the DYK may have gone over the line sometimes... but a blanket ban, a categorical denial of the ability to use negative material when the negative material is well sourced, given WP:DUE weight, and the most notable thing about an article's subject... that just seems like it's against the core of what wikipedia is. Fieari (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, but only in unusual cases and I would suggest a discussion before using them. The problem here is "negative" has a massive range of values, from mentioning someone's criminality all the way across to highlighting a famous mistake made by a sportsperson during a game. The former is clearly problematic, the latter may well not be. Or, to take an example from above, highlighting something negative in someone's life but also mentioning how they turned the problem around or became successful later. Black Kite (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes as "negativity" is not clearly defined. Many articles are created on the basis of the misbehavior of the subject. If they are found to be acceptable as BLPs, they should not be excluded a priori from DYK.--Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• This is a bit fuzzy as it depends on what a "negative hook" is, but in spirit No. DYK hooks cannot follow WP:NPOV in the same way articles can. They are 200 characters, and the format is not designed to be something needing balance. They should in spirit, but the ways we balance articles are often unavailable. Furthermore, DYK hooks can never be modified once concluded, they appear on the main page and then live on the talkpage forever. Hooks should be handled with caution, WP:BLP ones especially so, and DYK should go further than articles in being careful. I disagree with those who say presenting something banal or mildly positive about an individual people consider negative is whitewashing, but even taking that as the case, trying to find the right "negative" things to say is not a great solution. CMD (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes First of all, "negative" is a sloppy and vague term, as already pointed out. The examples above include a misogynist self-describing as such, a bland hook to an arguably sensationalist article, and the story of a career turn-around... I'm tempted to say that these examples define "negative" so badly that this is a bad RfC. But, people are already talking, so: Sometimes a fact about a person will be "negative" in a way that admits no qualification, and that fact will be interesting enough for a DYK hook. The idea that "balance" can't be fit into 200 characters presumes that NPOV is about saying a positive thing for every negative thing, which it isn't. I agree with Fieari's comment above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• No, but with some very narrow exceptions, since "negative" is overly broad, and encompasses some noncontroversial nonperjorative types of hooks. I believe you have to answer in your own mind question 2 before answering question 1, which is how I arrived at no. How can we establish a rule that addresses potential negative hooks? So much judgment must be exercised regarding whether the lack of context inherent in a hook renders the negative hook problematic that I cannot see any potential for a bright-line rule. However, there are minor "negative" hooks that no one would object to. For example, mentioning that someone is an orphan could be seen as negative but not perjorative. I would change the prohibition from "negative" to "including content that could diminish the subject's reputation." — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• No. At least, not until it can be demonstrated that the broader issues with regard to DYK content have been properly dealt with. In my opinion, the ongoing problems that are evident are more due to process, and to questionable judgement resulting from the pressures the process entails, than to specific subject matter, but given the potential damage 'negative BLP' content can cause, this seems a sensible precaution, as a starting point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Probably? - Way too much introductory RfC material. To the point, however, "negative" is just too broad. If a claim is in the article and there's consensus it meets BLP in the article, that's what matters. If that consensus is unclear, put a hold on the nomination until it's resolved. If the hook includes a BLP claim that misrepresents the article, that's already a problem for DYK. If the hook includes a BLP claim that's unduly negative given the context of the article (extracting the only line of criticism in an otherwise neutral, descriptive article), IIRC that's also something covered by existing DYK guidelines. I don't see a need for a blanket rule like this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• No This comes down to politics and culture wars. We have to have the no-neg-rule simply because editors and politics of those editors change. We can certainly find something interesting to "hook" readers without going negative. Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, and it's a pretty clear interpretation of policy that sometimes running a positive hook would be an NPOV violation. If you don't see how that could be the case, consider the hook "... that Harvey Weinstein was one of the most thanked people in Academy Award speeches for thirty years and holds seven Tony Awards?". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  Just because we don't run a negative hook doesn't mean we have to run a positive hook. We have the option of not running a hook at all. – Teratix ₵ 05:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  It wouldn't be an "option", it would be a discussion (potentially contentious), which would require elements to determine why it would not be run. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  By "option", I mean "something within our power to do". – Teratix ₵ 07:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Assuming that's true, it would not be a NPOV violation. It could be read as a "positive" hook, and we'd probably change the wording a bit, but at the same time it reads as what I'd expect to find in one of the many news pieces throwing critical shade on the various awards bodies and their relationship to Weinstein/the studios. A quick look finds for example "In fact, the producer elicited more gratitude on the stage of the Academy Awards than any deity". If there is no agreement on this, then as Teratix mentions rejecting nominations remains an option. CMD (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - it's not a violation of BLP to call somebody a "terrorist" if reliable sources do so, and there is nothing wrong with that reflecting on the main page. GiantSnowman 11:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• No neutrality is a pillar (WP:5P2) in main space and it is even more important when we select a <200 character hook to say something about a person. We do not have to highlight the positive but we do have to be neutral. We all have COIs based on our disparate backgrounds and interests. As 4meter4 said above we have to be careful because, tendency is to promote negative hooks from personal bias. edit:also just read CMD's rationale and I very much agree.Bruxton (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes "Andrew Tate self-identifies as a misogynist" is neutral. It's his whole shtick. NPOV doesn't mean we can't show the negative, it means we have to present it in a balanced way in accordance with sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. BLP does not disallow us from describing negative information about living people, as long as it is properly sourced. DYK is not subject to any exceptional requirement on this issue coming from BLP; it is the same as the rest of the encyclopedia in this regard. The internal DYK rules do have a separate requirement to avoid unduly negative hooks, but that word unduly is important; it is a nod to WP:NPOV. Symmetrically, NPOV does require us to use negative hooks, or not to have a hook at all, in situations where anything but negativity would be undue. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• Mild no. The question of whether content is BLP-compliant in an article where it is contextualized and balanced with other content is different from the question of whether that same content is compliant when it is featured on the Main Page with no context at all. Compliance with WP:NPOV and particularly WP:DUE is virtually impossible in a DYK hook, which raises grave concerns with respect to WP:BLP's directive to employ the greatest care and attention to [...] neutrality[.] I recognize the concern that focusing on negative BLP hooks also risks NPOV -- and for my part I would not restrict my position to negative hooks. At the very least, the same concerns apply to promotional hooks (if any). And at the risk of jumping ahead in the agenda, I would question whether it's particularly wise to feature BLP content in DYK at all. BLPs are an inevitable and sometimes necessary product of our encyclopedic mission, but it seems unlikely that we really need or want to incentivize their creation, or that they are likely to showcase the kind of content that makes DYK a benefit to the main page. (Bot-summoned.) -- Visviva (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - some material is inherently negative but that does not mean that we should censor them. Say we had a DYK on a recently created article, e.g. Killing of Roger Fortson. Fortson is recently deceased, and the police officer that killed him is, as far as I know, still a living person. A negative hook will very likely ensue, with either information that portrays Fortson or the police officer in a negative manner. Does that mean that we cannot feature the article at DYK had it been nominated early enough? I think not. Or how about South Africa's genocide case against Israel that did make it to DYK? The material in the article is likely to portray either some living South Africans, or some living Israelis, or maybe the judges, lawyers negatively. starship.paint (RUN) 08:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Do the headlines in that article's references contain negative statements about a living person? Many newspapers acknowledge that readers stop at the headline and will offer a descriptor rather than a name. That's where they get "Florida Man threw live gator in Wendy's drive-thru window, police say"[18] 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".[19] Couldn't a hook be piped as something like, "... that Florida police shot a US airman six times in his own home?" If that's a "negative hook on a BLP", then I'd say yes it is compliant with WP:BLP. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• No. Going out of our way to get negative content so prominently displayed isn't NPOV, it's POV pushing. Featuring negative content about living people on the main page is incompatible with our BLP policy, not to mention simply unethical. I'd go even farther to say that DYK shouldn't feature anything contentious or charged. That's just not appropriate for the main page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. We should not be using the exceptions to make a rule. The vast majority of hooks, "work". --evrik ^(talk) 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes as already the statement in the hook has to be verified, and in the article, which has to comply with policies. So it would mean that the hook also complies with BLP policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  A statement might be neutrally weighted when given as part of a 2000-word article but become undue in a 200-character hook. – Teratix ₵ 05:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• No, because the policy on biographies of living persons is a non-negotiable policy, and Did You Know is a nice-to-have. We have seen that negative hooks inevitably result in conflict. While it probably is possible to develop a policy within the policy as to when negative hooks are consistent with BLP policy, that will be too difficult to be worth the effort. We cannot risk compliance with BLP policy in order to enhance the optional feature of DYK. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • It appears that there is likely to be No Consensus on whether negative BLP hooks are sometimes allowed, and then we will get into the weeds of Question 2, which we will not be able to resolve, because the simple answer is to Just Say No to Question 1. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, this can follow the neutral point of view in some instances. We allow leeway so hooks can be interesting, but they should not fundamentally misrepresent the topics they are about, which can sometimes be entirely negative facts about living persons. Theleekycauldron and starship.paint make good points. Note that it is possible for other sections of the main page to include negative information about living people, such as In the News (I was thinking about politicians but the current ITN has a blurb mentioning a sportsperson's loss) or Today's Featured Article (it would be wrong for a blurb of a controversial figure to be a hagiography). — Bilorv (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• No Dilettante's comment and 4meter4's reply speak to my concerns. DYK is unique in that it is not intended to summarize the article/topic. It incentivizes the most interesting details from an article, which often means presenting information from BLPs with very little context. The Andrew Tate or Matthew Charles Johnson hooks are good examples where effort gets placed on finding something interesting to say about these people (an edgy interview quote, behavior during a trial), while excluding some of the most relevant information about why these people are notable (charges of "rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women"; "convictions ranging from burglary, armed robbery, serious violent offences, and murder"). The idea that DYK would run a positive hook about Harvey Weinstein suggests to me that the community's will to exercise good judgment in deciding which topics are suitable for this type of treatment has atrophied under the current guidelines. hinnk (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. The current wording, "unduly negative", is overly-broad and prone to an argument saying it's possible someone will perceive it as something negative. I experienced this with my hook of Hal Malchow, where I suggested a hook (ALT1) that was written as quirky and non-negative, but others disagreed. We should act with the presumption that our readers are intelligent enough to know that a single-sentence blurb is not the entire character of a person. To repeat what QuicoleJR said above, I don't see how every hook about a BLP that is even slightly negative violates BLP, and especially when well-sourced. SWinxy (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Important context: ALT1, in this case, was ... that Hal Malchow was detained in a Lima, Peru, airport because he was accused of smuggling cocaine in his arm cast?. Malchow was never charged, let alone trialled, let alone convicted for this accusation and it has nothing to do with the reasons he's notable. Honestly, even mentioning it in the article is verging on a WP:BLPCRIME violation.

  It's honestly alarming you think that highlighting an unsubstantiated accusation of drug trafficking is "quirky and non-negative" and that you repeatedly doubled down on the nomination when other editors pointed out the problems with this. I don't think you're competent to be commenting on questions of BLP policy. – Teratix ₵ 04:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• No. DYK hooks, by their nature, don't present a neutral overview of the subject but pull isolated facts out of context to pique people's interest. So for a negative BLP hook to be acceptable, the isolated fact it highlights would have to miraculously accord with how we would neutrally describe the subject in a balanced overview with full context. Not completely impossible, but because DYK process has strong incentives to sensationalise and quickly promote hooks I don't trust it to reliably make these judgements. The Tate hook is the only one of those examples which even gets close, but, as others have pointed out, it omits mention of his serious criminal charges in favour of highlighting an edgy self-description. – Teratix ₵ 04:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Fully concur with @Theleekycauldron. The emphasis here is that negative DYKs are a problem, but very few are considering the opposite: we could equally argue that overly positive, hagiogrpahic, trivial BLP DYKs are a problem; these potentially create equally undue characterisations of the subject. The implication of "no" here is less concerned with overall neutrality, but rather with only one side of the neutrality spectrum. There is somewhat of an inherent tension between the purpose of a DYK hook (clickbait?) and writing an NPOV encyclopaedic article. As long as DYK exists I cannot see this tension (positive and negative) being fully mitigated; completely ruling out "negatives" only deals with one part of the problem. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is a non sequitur and closers should give it no weight. Whether overly positive BLP hooks are a problem has no bearing on whether negative BLP hooks are a problem. – Teratix ₵ 07:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  This misrepresents my intervention, I did not state "overly positive BLP hooks are a problem", you've missed the point of argument from counterfactual. Claiming NPOV as a reason to curtail "negative" hooks is arbitrary, all BLP hooks are (potentially) problematic from an UNDUE perspective. I'm not arguing that there is no problem whatsover with negative hooks, just that I cannot see how the proposal resolves the problem of DYK mischaracterising subjects in some fashion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I cannot see how the proposal resolves the problem of DYK mischaracterising subjects in some fashion It does not need to and was never intended to do so. It is specifically intended to deal with mischaracterisations arising from negative BLP hooks – the most damaging kind – not every sort of mischaracterisation. – Teratix ₵ 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  "negative BLP hooks – the most damaging kind" that's an assertion based on anecodote, without even picking apart the notion of damage (damage is done not just to a BLP subject). I can think of damaging positive hooks, as the Theleekycauldron's Weinstein example demonstrates. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Can you think of any damaging positive hooks we've actually run (as opposed to hypotheticals)?Sincerely, Dilettante Sincerely, Dilettante 16:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Dilettante today's DYK has "... that 69 is "nice"?" - so we've put school/frat boy innuendo on the front page. I can make a strong case that damages Wikipedia's reputation. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's not exactly germane to a conversation on BLPs, but I suppose it's my fault for failing to clarify my request. I'd argur literal libel is more damaging than puerile humor, but to each their own. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Libel isn't allowed under the current guidelines/policies; we're discussing what is allowed at present. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Mu, but closer to No but on different grounds. Invoking BLP is overkill here. We can and do present negative information on BLPs when sufficiently well-sourced in articles. However, the front page is not an article. It has its own rules and responsibilities. We already have lots of DYK-specific rules; clarifying and strengthening the existing discouragement of hooks that "unduly focus on negative aspects of living people" is something we can do just because it's a good idea. It's better to play it safe for reputation-affecting items on the front page, not necessarily because it's a BLP violation, but just as a common courtesy and "mood" deal - DYK should be fun facts, not a crime blotter or the like. (This would allow the occasional "fun" negative hook that isn't meant particularly hostilely, but get rid of more of the weak "here's a criminal" hooks.) SnowFire (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Without an equal prohibition on positive hooks, this makes little to no sense. Toa Nidhiki05 18:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• No There are further issues with controversial issues on DYK. Some editors seem to think that everything that meets the basic criteria should be included in DYK, but DYK is not a good/featured article listing. The short one line sentence poses serious issues when dealing with BLP and contentious issues. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• No, I don’t think Wikipedia should be showcasing articles by publishing hooks (by nature condensed, out of context, and with a tendency to sensationalise) saying something negative about a living person. The main page gets 4,5 - 5 million pageviews per day. It is impossible to know how many people read some of the hooks without clicking the link to the article for further context, but it’s quite obvious that such readers exist (myself for example). I’m with SnowFire: we should play it safe. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. 'Unduly negative' together with the BLP rules seem about the right balance to me. If someone has been convicted, then I certainly think that we can mention the conviction in DYK. If someone has just been accused and they deny it, usually that is not responsible to mention without more context than we can include in DYK. Also I worry what harmless things could be interpreted by some editors as "negative". JMCHutchinson (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes as long as the hook is properly vetted and supported by reliable sources, I see no compelling reason to prohibit negative hooks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, with care. It should certainly not be for the purpose of sensationalizing something relatively minor ("Did you know that John Doe was arrested for DUI last week?" is obviously inappropriate, even if it's true), but if done appropriately, something potentially "negative" could still be valid. The world is not all rainbows and unicorns, and we present the bad along with the good. Also, what is "negative" is inherently subjective—I would consider it bad to be a neo-Nazi or a misogynist, but some people proudly identify as those things. If they do, would it be "negative" to reflect that on DYK? Rather, what we need is a firm rule that any BLP hook on DYK, whether it's considered "negative" or not, should be well cited to highly reliable sources in the article, should not "imply by omission" things which are not so cited in the article, and should not be needlessly sensationalistic. If a "negative" hook can meet those criteria, then so it does. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• No. There is no space in a short DYK to provide a balanced NPOV – there is space for one fact only. DYK reviewers have always been unable to enforce policy consistently. We need to draw a clear red line that DYK hooks cannot cross, so that reviewers can easily point to this consensus when rejecting bad hooks. Toadspike [Talk] 08:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Maybe BLP is bilateral: strong sourcing is required both for content that can be interpreted negatively and positively. Disallowing negative DYKs on BLPs but allowing positive ones disrupts this balance. While I can agree with some arguments made by No !voters, I would go further and say that 1) it is impossible to follow NPOV in 200 characters—the hook automatically does not present the subject and/or fact in appropriate context, and often highlights negative or positive aspects 2) if we are going to ban negative BLP hooks, all BLP hooks should be banned. (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Question 2

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

• Comment I do not see enough support for this RFC at Question 1 to proceed further. I say we close this RFC now. --evrik ^(talk) 20:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• I'm going to break several thoughts into separate bullet points in case there is consensus for one idea but not another. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Negative accusations against living persons cannot go into a hook (WP:SUSPECT & WP:BLPGOSSIP). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Negative and subjective evaluations of living persons cannot go into a hook. A standalone hook cannot meet WP:BLPBALANCE, which requires that we, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I can agree with this, but one of the biggest arguments regarding this whole topic is "what counts as disproportionate balance"? In the case of the Andrew Tate hook, the argument in favor of the hook that eventually ran was that Tate is largely known for negative reasons, and so the hook also has to be negative. A positive or even neutral hook about it would be "disproportionate" or "unbalanced". That is a sentiment I personally disagreed with but was ultimately the prevailing one, so that has to be kept in mind when discussing whether or not such hooks should even be allowed in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• A negative hook about an individual not known for the fact in the hook, should pipe their name to best meet WP:BLPNAME. For example, use "... that Florida police shot a US airman six times in his own home?" instead of "... that Florida police deputy Joe Bloggs shot Roger Fortson six times in his own home?". This is in line with newspaper headline standards based on the understanding that some people do not read past the headline: "Headlines should include people's names only if they are highly recognizable by most readers.".[20] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Again, wrong question. Many "negative" BLP hooks are fine, while "positive" hooks can cause harm to BLPs. We should avoid harm, respect privacy where appropriate (i.e. where the people affected by the hook are not public figures like, say, Andrew Tate), and generally be careful, independent of whether people think something is is "negative". My detailed comments were moved; they show areas where we need to be careful with BLPs to avoid causing harm. —Kusma (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a red herring. We have no evidence that positive hooks have been pulled from the WP:MAIN page for BLP violations, been brought to a notice board such as WP:ANI or WP:ERRORS, or have been promoted to the queue after a contentious discussion. While theoretically a positive hook could be a POV problem, in practice there aren’t any real systemic problems with positive hooks at DYK. There is a systemic problem with negative hooks with supporting evidence.4meter4 (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a "red herring", and it is the focus on "negative hooks" instead of on BLP issues. Running the Tuen Ma hook could cause harm to a BLP, running the Andrew Tate hooks caused contentious discussions inside the Wikipedia community but no actual harm to a BLP. The last thing we need is a rule that limits BLP attention to "negative hooks". —Kusma (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

None of that is actual evidence of a problem with promoting inappropriate positive hooks. It looks like you are handling the Tuen Ma Line hook review which proves my point. There are no systemic problems with positive hooks and BLP violations at DYK. Nobody is going to be convinced positive hooks are an issue without having multiple pieces of significant supporting evidence such as hooks being pulled from the main page or a report at ERRORS or ANI. I’m not going to discuss this with you further. If you aren’t going to engage productively with question 2 and are going to continue to make arguments not based in any meaningful evidence there’s no point in discussing with you further in this thread.4meter4 (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no systemic problems with positive hooks and BLP violations at DYK

Not sure that is true. Please remember the negativity bias, This could simply be a matter of cognitive bias, as we may simply be ignoring problems with positive hooks because they don't pose immediate red flags. Meta-ironically, the voting pattern bias comes into effect in this very RfC. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that there is a negativity bias. I've never seen a positive hook on a BLP cause protracted arguments at DYK. Nor have I ever seen a positive hook pulled from the main page or brought to ERRORS or ANI. Meanwhile, we have lots of evidence demonstrating those exact issues with negative hooks on a repeating basis. The evidence just isn't there to demonstrate positive hooks are an actual problem. For someone who accused me of offering a "solution in search of problem", I find it highly ironic that you are arguing for a problem with no supporting evidence, and willfully ignoring a problem with supporting evidence.4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like an argument from ignorance to me. We don't see systemic problems with positive hooks because of the negativity bias. The positive hook bias may be there, but we are just not aware of it. I have as much supporting evidence for this as you do. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your premise. Positive hooks by their nature have a much smaller chance of violating BLP policy, and as a result are statistically less likely to cause harm or violate policies. This is particularly true because we require the use of independent secondary sources, encyclopedic tone, and we require a balance of POV with DUE weight. In most cases POV issues get sorted appropriately in review and without much fuss. In short, our review system on positive hooks at DYK is working well and there aren't any systemic issues. Arguing that there is a proportional issue, just isn't based in reality, and frankly insisting that it is makes your bias plain to anyone who is objective on this topic. If you can't accept evidence that is right in front of you there is no chance of working with you productively on this issue.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

If we are defaulting to writing positive hooks about BLPs, that’s automatically a NPOV violation. Nobody has even bothered to examine this issue, yet you discard it as immaterial because it doesn’t violate BLP. Sounds like you are preferring one policy over another, when they should have equal weight, hence the importance of avoiding unduly negative hooks. This is the kind of thing Conservapedia is famous for, except in their formulation, an editor is never allowed to say anything negative about the idea of conservatism (if you don’t believe that’s true, then have a look at the site). If we can’t say anything negative about a BLP, that’s a violation of NPOV. I don’t see how you can get around that. The negativity bias here refers to the idea that negative hooks are perceived as a problem, hence they are getting more attention, while the positive hooks go unremarked, partly because they don’t violate BLP as you say, but might still violate NPOV. There’s no way around this, which is why the proposal is so bad. But it does work for Conservapedia, so there’s that. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not a violation of NPOV; NPOV applies to articles (encyclopaedic content). BLP applies to every page on en.wiki, up to and including talkpages. Hooks are not articles, and cannot be expected to "proportionately" cover the topic. Not a single hook does this, whether positive, negative, or some other tive. CMD (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Question 2 is specifically about determining how we can feature negative hooks without violating BLP policy. Work productively and we may be able to continue featuring negative hooks, but with some defined limitations to prevent BLP violations.4meter4 (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Your claim is flat out wrong. Even our DYK guidelines say the hook must adopt NPOV. The more important thing is that your claim basically undermines the intent and spirit of our policies, all of which interact with each other as parts in a working whole. If you and others have this unusual and erroneous interpretation, you may want to start by reviewing DYK guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The DYK guidelines explicitly mention the issue I raise, "a sentence that might be due weight in the article can become undue if used in the hook". The policy and the spirit of all the guidelines and policies remain completely intact and if the main page is handled differently to articles, where we regularly make different considerations to the article space regarding issues like sourcing strictness and censorship. There are currently 3 BLPs on the main page (depending on how you determine recently dead), "... that Richard Osman, who wrote "the biggest thing in fiction since Harry Potter", lost confidence in his writing ability after his experience with Boyz Unlimited?", "... that Green Bay Packers player Travis Glover started at three separate positions along the offensive line during his college football career?", "... that for his first recital as the organist of the restored Frauenkirche in Dresden, Samuel Kummer chose music by Bach, Brahms, and himself?". None of these proportionately represent all significant views that have been published on these topics, which is the letter of NPOV. They are as far as I can tell broadly positive, with even a hooky promotional edge, but I don't read any as significantly violating the spirit of NPOV and/or BLP. The dichotomy of negative/positive is at any rate a false one, we usually have a range of hook options, and avoiding potential BLP issues does not force us towards the binary of having to violate WP:PROMO. CMD (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

No. This is some kind of weird, post-truth revisionism with the purpose of gaming the original intent and spirit of the policies. I wasn’t aware that people actually do this, but here we are. The guideline says "Hooks must adopt a neutral point of view". That’s pretty clear to me. You then selectively quote the following material which applies to BLP and NPOV, based on whether a hook about living people is used in an undue manner. Sorry, but words have meaning. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

And the proposal would not stop hooks from keeping a neutral view, but speaking of post-truth revisionism, the proposal in question was compared to Conservapedia above. CMD (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Improperly posed question presupposing in its wording that we must add something to the wording of the DYK rules. We do not need to do any such thing. We can already use WP:NPOV to decide this. The DYK rules already contain the word "unduly" pointing to this. Continuing to railroad this multipart RFC through is a mistake. Stop now. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  +1 Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think pretty much this. Every page in mainspace must comply with NPOV, and every page on Wikipedia period must comply with BLP. The main page is in mainspace, so it must comply with both. If any content on it does not comply with one or both of those, it must be edited to comply with them or removed. If it does, it is then a matter of editorial discretion whether to include it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I want to thank Rjjiii and Seraphimblade for productively answered this question. Unfortunately the majority of comments in this section have not actually engaged with the question in good faith, and if I don't see some productive movement here in the next couple days, I think we may need to close this question. The RFC as it stands, has successfully identified two opposing camps on a contentious issue, but unfortunately coming to a meeting of the minds, which was my original hope, does not currently seem possible among this RFC's participants unless something changes soon. Unfortunately it's hard to gage what the majority of people are truly thinking about policy language at DYK because of the lack of good willed engagement here. I would point out, that a calm and respectful answer that affirms the language/process currently in place is a perfectly acceptable answer. The question is neutrally worded, so if an editor believes that changes aren't needed that is a perfectly valid answer to this question. Likewise, any thoughts that differ are also valid. Please try and keep comments question targeted rather than diverting the conversation onto other topics. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  If there ends up being no consensus to change the criteria, you might still find consensus to change the process. I was not around then, but I believe several aspects of the current DYK process are responses plagiarism from about a decade ago. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Question 3

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

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

Question 4

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

Other comments

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

How do I fix this?4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers Did I fix it?4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

@North8000#top Do you have a suggestion for making this better for the average editor? Should I modify the open statement is some fashion?4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm a dummy on DYK so you asked the perfect person.  :-) I'll work on an answer. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit. Did that help?4meter4 (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: I second North8000's query... what is a hook. Perhaps provide a definition for it the first time you use it, or a wikilink to where it is defined (for those of us who arrive here by other means, for me was WP:BIOGRAPHY, and who don't know anything about DYK process).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: Well, I went and learned what a "hook" is and now it looks simple to fix. Just add this sentence at the beginning of the RFC. "A "Did you know" (DYK) item on the main page of Wikipedia is called a "hook" and in this RFC, "hook" refers to the text portion of that item" North8000 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think it would be a bit more helpful if Wikipedians from other parts of the project were not immediately confronted by a verbose and rambling 1,000-word WP:WALLOFTEXT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I did put a draft forward for public review prior to making this RFC. I even asked for input at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Nobody complained. This is a complex issue. It needed explaining.4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No one complained that they didn't know what a "hook" was, yet you were happy to tweak that. Anyway, it's your RfC—if it's too complex to get wide community input, so be it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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

• Comment. I think some responders have misinterpreted the question. The question was specifically targeted at hook content, not article content. Article space, as long as it is policy compliant with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, can absolutely contain negative content on BLPs, and in doing so it should not impact its ability to be featured at DYK. The question here is whether we can cherry pick a negative fact on a BLP out of the article and feature it as a stand alone fact within a hook where that fact is no longer placed inside the context of a bigger picture of the subject. Can this really be considered compliant with WP:BLPBALANCE? It's telling that most yes voters failed to engage with parts of the question, specifically considering the DYK hook format. There seems to be a general view among the yes voters that if the article is balanced the hook may do whatever it wants. I think this is a fundamental overstep and is ill considered. Remember, many readers of DYK will not click on the article to read the negative fact in context. For this reason, I contend the hook itself must be balanced on its own to be policy compliant.4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  That is exactly why we have a "not unduly negative" rule. —Kusma (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Remember, many readers of DYK will not click on the article to read the negative fact in context

  Not sure that is remotely true. As the reader, I will always read the hook in context. That's the entire reason I'm clicking on them. And all of these comments should be moved to the comment section below. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  "many readers" != "you in particular". – Teratix ₵ 05:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas You can't read a hook in context unless you go to the article page. If you look at page viewing statistics, there is a wide discrepancy in page views from hook to hook which shows not every hook gets as many readers going to the article page. It's common for people to read through the hooks on the MAIN page and only go to the one or two article pages that are of interest to the reader and leave the rest alone. Some people may not go to any articles after viewing the main page. We know that from page viewing stats.4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Today, we ran a clear BLP violation. [21] Matthew Charles Johnson and his co-accused hurled abuse at the judge and threw human excrement at a member of the jury. There was no source provided supporting the claim that Johnson threw excrement. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  That hook was factually incorrect, but not actually nearly as negative as the article overall. A failure of fact checking more than one of adherence to the BLP policy. —Kusma (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not presenting it as concrete evidence that negative hooks should be banned, but it is relevant to a discussion on pulled BLP hooks with negative info in that it provides an additional datum on what kind of hooks tend to be problematic, and for what reason. It may be interpreted in favor of either a yes or no !vote, or as of minor significance either way. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  The subject farted into a microphone and his co-defendant threw excrement. If that's your best argument for negative hooks being banned, then we should probably close this discussion at this point. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not presenting it as concrete evidence that negative hooks should be banned, but it is relevant to a discussion on pulled BLP hooks with negative info in that it provides an additional datum on what kind of hooks tend to be problematic, and for what reason. It may be interpreted in favor of either a yes or no !vote, or as of minor significance either way.

  Thankfully it's not my best argument, nor even an argument at all. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  The hook writer failed to note the subject farted into a microphone and accidentally attributed the excrement throwing to both of them instead of one. This is hardly a major problem. The hook writer messed up and needs to write carefully in the future. This does not say anything about problems with negative hooks or BLP application. My opinion only, of course. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments on proceeding to Question 2

Are Questions 1 and 2 out of order?

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

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

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

I think we have firmly established a no consensus on Question 1. I'll leave it open in case people still want to comment on Question 1. I agree that we can move on to Question 2. It's a bit late to complain about order now that so much input has happened. The questioning process was open for input at a pre-RFC discussion for about a week. It is what it is. 4meter4 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment from evrik

Comment I do not see enough support for this RFC at Question 1 to proceed further. I say we close this RFC now. --evrik ^(talk) 20:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@evrik That suggestion is a terrible idea. This was the question to ask if there was no consensus at Question 1 as outlined in the RFC plan. The fact that there is no consensus at Question 1 indicates the use of negative hooks at DYK is controversial and does not have firm community support. In order to continue to allow negative hooks on the main page we need to create some guidelines that does have broad community support. The attempt to shut community discussion down is not helpful. We need to solve this on-going community problem, and it is a problem with about half the people saying we shouldn't be promoting negative hooks. I further note, that at the WP:ANI discussion there was a mention of taking this to WP:ARBCOM. If we close this now and shut down necessary community input, I would support going forward with an ARBCOM investigation of DYK and allow them to set community policy for us.4meter4 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I do think there is room for productive discussion about how to best deal with BLP issues at DYK. I wish that you would drop the focus on "negative" so we can try to find ways to give more guidance on how to deal with (or at the very least raise awareness of) other BLP-related problems like Template:Did you know nominations/Lunch (song) (perhaps unwanted focus on the BLP's sexuality) or Template:Did you know nominations/I'm really excited about the opening of Tuen Ma line (possibly unwanted attention on a vulnerable person who has been subject to abuse after a viral video). The question should not be so much "is this hook negative?" but more "would posting this hook harm an identified living person?", something where the answer does depend on how public the person in question is and how widely the information is already known (WP:BLPPUBLIC). General classes of BLP hooks that I think should usually not be posted include anything involving rumours (Template:Did you know nominations/BBL Drizzy) or accusing living people of crimes they have not been convicted for (Template:Did you know nominations/Hal Malchow). All of these are recent discussions where at least some people are trying to do the right thing, but better guidance could be helpful for everyone (and certainly more eyes and a generally more cautious approach would be beneficial). —Kusma (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma The RFC is what it is. It was formed during a pre-RFC discussion that was open to community input and comment. I'm not going to go in and change the RFC's structure or questions after having gone through a community vetting period. That will only increase invalidity of the RFC. There's some room for further questions built in. Raise them when we get to that part in the RFC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

To me and others, it has the appearance of a solution in search of problem. Others have already pointed out that in spite of its minor issues due to reviewer deficits, DYK is operating at peak efficiency and accuracy. For some reason, a certain segment of Wikipedia doesn’t want to acknowledge this. For all of its flaws, people are doing a great job. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s a red herring. The issue here isn’t about accuracy or efficiency, but repeated BLP violations; a few of which had wide community input at DYK but ended in a bad choice on the part of the DYK community. (Such as the Tate hook) 4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see the Tate hook as a violation, nor do a lot of other editors. But assuming what you say is true for the sake of the argument, given how many hooks we publish and how many are problematic, what you’re describing is a drop in the bucket. While it would be nice to have statistics, it looks like DYK is doing a good job. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to continue making your case in side threads. The Tate hook was widely condemned at the WP:ANI discussion by commenting admins, and many editors expressed regret in the related DYK talk page. Additionally, I personally have no interest in making this discussion into a broader case against DYK. As you know, I regularly contribute to DYK and am a constructive member of the DYK editing team. This discussion is not intended to become a broad attack on the project, which is something you seem to be attempting to allege. This RFC is meant to deal with a real and continuing problem within the project that happens in a limited context of hook submissions. It's specific, but it matters. I care about DYK and I want it to contine doing what it does well but also improve where it can work better. This is one of those places where DYK must do better. I find it distressing when the project does something I perceive to be genuinely unethical and against WP:BLP policy. The fact that nearly half of the people in response to question 1 also have similar views, should indicate that there is a problem. Good policies don't have such a wide range of discrepancy in an RFC. If you can't see the other side and that we are genuinely acting in good faith and with what is intended to be in DYK's and wikipedia's best interests than there's nothing I can do about that.4meter4 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your dedication, but I also continue to disagree that the Tate hook was "widely condemned". Well meaning and intentioned editors can often have vastly different perceptions of an elephant in a dark room. Enjoy your day or night. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

One interesting thing I noticed about the RfC is that there's an overlap between those who saw the Tate hook as unproblematic and those who think negative hooks should be allowed (and vice-versa). The opinions are so polarized that it's clear that there really isn't any consensus here on how to handle things. Even DYK itself is divided and finding a solution is not easy. What's clear is that I disagree that "DYK is doing a good job" in this case, because if it was, it wouldn't have ended up on ANI and we wouldn't have this RFC in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Understood, and even though you and I aren’t often on the same page, I want to tell you that I truly appreciate your clear and direct communication. Earlier in the overall discussion (perhaps on ANI, or here, I can’t recall), someone mentioned metrics or at least the impression of them. What percentage of DYK hooks have historically been a problem? It looks like it’s far less than 1%. Why isn’t this a sign that DYK is doing a good job? It’s an incredible achievement. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Most DYK hooks aren't problematic at all, and when problems are found, they're usually fixable things like factual errors, sourcing problems, or unclear wording. Rejecting nominations outright is relatively rare (and is something I and some editors wish wasn't the case if only to prevent noms from dragging out). It's one of the reasons why I'm so opposed to a blanket ban on BLPs on DYK. It would do more harm than good and most BLP issues can be resolved by our existing system. The issue has always been more to do with enforcement and quality checking rather than something wrong with BLP DYKs itself. With the Tate case, the main issue was simply the community could not agree on whether or not the hook was appropriate or even if the article should run at all. With the benefit of hindsight, just rejecting the nomination completely due to a lack of consensus probably would have been the best option; it wasn't an unreasonable one anyway, and I think a large part of what happened was due to reviewers being unwilling to say no due to fear of backlash (a fear that is to be fair not unfounded). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Closing the RFC

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

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

Need help with a nomination after an article title change

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

 Done. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 15:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Appreciated. Mandarax. Not sure why my own effort to change the nom was inadequate but it seems fixed now. Bruxton (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

My hooks are weak sauce - can anyone help with ideas? Template:Did you know nominations/The Blue Angels (2024). Bruxton (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I also started work on this Brian Kesselring who was prominent in the movie. Bruxton (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Our friend Cielquiparle helped with hooks for the The Blue Angels (2024). And the Brian Kesselring, I am just not inspired to nominate. Bruxton (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Quirky slot {{DYKsmirk}}

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

The cool kids write it as {{DYKsmirk}}. Also, the history says Tamzin created it :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)

Oh thanks for the correction - my mistake on attribution. I think you proposed it RS? But thanks Tamzin! Bruxton (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Where is it supposed to go? Does it generate a report? --evrik ^(talk) 19:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  The original idea was we would use Category:Pending DYK American hooks and Category:Pending DYK biographies to help set builders find hooks of the appropriate types when building prep sets. User:DYKToolsBot has some (imperfect) heuristics which applies those categories. That stuff I did. Category:Pending DYK nominations with potential quirky hooks came along later, with This might make a good quirky hook.^(?) being a human-added template which mentions that category. I don't know much much prep builders actually make use of any of this. RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

evrik Because it renders as "quirky hook" I used to go to the approved page and search "quirky". That way I could easily locate any hook that someone thought could be considered for the slot. Bruxton (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

We should probably do one for {{DYKGBP}} :-) RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith Try as I might, I am unable to figure out DYKGBP. Help! Bruxton (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

D'oh! Bruxton (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Please, no. --evrik ^(talk) 03:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Travis Glover

• ... that Green Bay Packers player Travis Glover started at three separate positions along the offensive line during his college football career?

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

I didn't have trouble understanding it, and I don't pay any attention to American football. My knowledge on the sport is close to nothing.4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if it's interesting, but it's clear he played 3 positions in a sport. Whether that's because he's good at them all or because he didn't really have a purpose is less clear. Unfortunately the article does not provide commentary either way, nor any indication if this is different to the norm. If anything, I'm not sure how the hook interacts with WP:DYKHOOKCITE as it seems to be combining different sources, but counting is not usually considered OR. CMD (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why this constantly keeps coming up. Interesting to a broad audience applies to the 400 million fans of American football/NFL in the world. You know what I don't find interesting??? "That 69 is nice". How is it interesting that a child was going to have a different name?? ("that North West was originally going to be called Kaidence"). Or "that Lock's Quest was said to feature "some of the best original music in a DS game"?" What broad audience finds the music in a video game as some of the best? DYK does not have to be interesting to everyone. Half the DYKs on the main page I could give zero crap about, find full-blown disinteresting, etc and I don't come complaining to the talk page about every one of them. Could it have been worded better? IDK, propose a different wording if you want. Starting (not just playing) three different positions along the offensive line is an interesting fact to almost any AF/NFL fan, it shows versatility and productivity. Also, literally the English couldn't get simpler. There is no jargon or terminology here, and the only possible concern is linked (offensive line). This isn't Simple English Wikipedia. We can assume that the average read understands standard English words. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

We need you to cool it Zanahary (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder Zanahary. No cursing. Responding to the points brought up. No personal attacks. But yeah, I guess I'll take a chill pill. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

So many BLP hooks are extremely boring facts about pretty obscure people. I notice articles about sportspeople are particularly productive in terms of bad hooks. I’m not trying to be an ass, but I think we need to be more strict about the “interesting” criterion. Zanahary (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Part of my "frustration" is the continual needling by some DYK regulars on WP:DYKINT regarding American football topics, likely because of a lack of interest, knowledge or understanding of the sport. However, I often stress that a worldwide audience of 400 million for AmerFoot is significant, especially considering the sport's higher interest from English-speaking language countries (and this being the English Wikipedia). I'll also note that AmerFoot is currently going through a significant expansion internationally through the NFL International Series, so this isn't an American-only topic anymore. WP:DYKINT says The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. This language is clearly ambiguous and provides a lot of room for interpretation, taking into account differences between populations and interests, and obviously provides room for hooks that have a general interest, but not a universal interest. I just wish that every other AmerFoot hook that comes to DYK doesn't get this type of discussion, while other topics with much smaller or less general interest from the population have much less scrutiny. It's just frustrating and tiring. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn't an anti-American football bias specifically. Similar things have also been said about basketball hooks, and basketball is more popular internationally than American football. Even soccer hooks have had the occasional pushback, so the concerns about sports hooks being too specialist aren't an American football thing. For what it's worth, I'm familiar enough with American football to get the idea of the hook, but not everyone worldwide will get it. Even within America, not everyone is an American football fan outside of the Super Bowl. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the bi-weekly "mind-numbingly boring opera hook" discussions, like the one we had for a DYK that ran on the same day as Glover... And maybe it feels like AF DYKs get dragged more than other topics because, unlike every other topic, AF subjects run at DYK practically every other day? Between May 25 and May 31 we had three hooks on specifically gridiron offense players on NFC North teams! JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think its all that specialist. All you really need to understand to get the hook is the idea of 'positions' in sports, and I'd say that probably the vast majority of people do; e.g. I don't know a ton about the terminology for ice hockey, but I could understand it if someone said that "so-and-so ice hockey player played at three different positions'. Also, I'd think that him not only playing, but starting at each of the positions adds interest. I've had more 'interesting' hooks before, but I'd still say it clears the bar of 'interesting-ness' considering what we generally post. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not a big sports fan, but I know that at least in some sports, it's common for players to play different positions. I've always assumed that while the center has certain unique skills, the other linemen were pretty much interchangeable. RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not think these hooks a are too "specialist". I enjoy learning about all subjects so I often click through the links of hooks that I am not sure of and I learn. I think many people have a fundamental understanding of sports, and they would likely understand that starting "at three separate positions" means someone is pretty good at the sport. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree—as someone who has the barest understanding of American sports, I'm fairly certain that as long as you understand "positions" and "offensive" can be used in a sporting context, you should be able to understand a) what the hook is saying and b) that it's a bit unusual. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

as long as you understand "positions" and "offensive" can be used in a sporting context, you should be able to understand ... that it's a bit unusual. Really? I would guess most readers would not be at all surprised to hear that many offensive positions are interchangeable in a sport they're not super familiar with. A lot of sports do not make that big a distinction between positions, especially at lower levels (keeping in mind that basically only two countries even have college sports, so outside of NA readers will have very little appreciation for college feats of any kind), even in American football (e.g. the QB on my high school's team was also the kicker, probably because he was a ballerina), and it's definitely not unheard of at the professional level either. Utility players are pretty common in the most popular sport in the world -- our category has over 800 members -- and that's mostly only including players switching between offense and defense! Some of the most famous NBA players in recent history are combo guards, and in the MLB it is rarer for a team not to have someone who can play multiple positions. Utility players aren't that uncommon in gridiron either, and according to this NYT article, most American football fans apparently don't think it's that difficult for pros to switch along the O-line.

And anyway shouldn't DYKINT be aiming higher than "a bit unusual", especially when the mild unusualness is not even obvious to most readers? JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I don't understand quite a lot of what you just wrote, but for me, a person with "no special knowledge or interest" in the topic, it is intriguing. Not "jump out of my bath yelling" intriguing, but the sort that makes me raise my eyebrows and nod my head. Thus, fine by me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we are just trying to feature new and good content, so aiming higher with hooks is not as important. We look for what might get folks to read the article and some of us think maybe this hook will. I appreciate you POV though. Lightburst (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If the sources themselves don't find his switching along the O-line unusual enough to discuss beyond mentioning that he "has experience at both tackle and guard", why should WP? I should note also that the first source lists 25 other players in his draft class alone with "experience at both left and right tackle" or "both center and guard" or "had double-digit starts at both guard spots" or "played at a high level at both tackle and guard" or "logged snaps at every offensive line position ... except center" or "logged snaps at all five positions in college", and that's just for starters who played multiple games in multiple positions on the O-line, I'm not even including defensive line or other offense players, or all the players with descriptors like "[had] a few snaps at center and right guard, but [almost all] of his college snaps came at left guard" or "practiced at center and right guard". For several players the source even lists playing only one O-line position as a weakness.

Also, 3/6 days last week had hooks on NFL offense players from the same division in the same conference... If we're constantly going to inundate DYK with American football hooks, shouldn't readers unfamiliar with the subject at least be able to recognize why the hook is interesting without having to click through to the article, let alone have to additionally follow each of the links on football positions within the article so they can figure out for themselves why it would be unusual for someone to go from right to left tackle (because certainly neither the article nor its sources explains this)? JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If the sources themselves don't find...unusual enough to discuss beyond mentioning...why should WP?: That's a slippery slope. A lot of DYK hooks just randomly quote snippets without the source expounding on the quote or even then source of the quote.—Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The hooks certainly, but it was disappointing when I clicked through and it was not explained in the article either. CMD (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Nor is it in many other hooks. We can use this hook as an example for improvement, but it's not the exception.—Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's totally not interesting. I'm not raising my eyebrows either. Zanahary (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Three American sports hooks on DYK right now

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

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

69?

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

Josethewikier I think we all know what 69 means. It does not surprise me to see these sort of things on the main page. It is rather tame in comparison to other hook we have run. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is to share the information of the world, so this is within our purpose. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Although "that 69 is odious and pernicious" would have been quirkier, and I should have proposed it instead of promoting the "nice" hook.--Launchballer 00:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

right, that makes sense! Josethewikier (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• That was such a cheap way of getting pageviews, in that it takes advantage of people's common knowledge of these two precious digits for the clicks. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Antimonumento 5J

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

• ... that the Antimonumento 5J (pictured) was installed on 5 June 2023 to commemorate police repression during the 2020 protests in response to the death of Giovanni López?

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

Ok, the wording isn't ideal, it is more an issue of commemorating the victims here. Could we do "commemorate victims of police repression" instead? --Soman (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the hook in the queue. RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all, sounds OK now. I suppose the monument wasn't primarily for the "commemoration" in fact, it was mainly as a protest... but meh, it's good enough for me if it's good enough for you.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Then maybe we want "... was installed on 5 June 2023 to protest police repression ..."? RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Soman are you OK with my proposed "... was installed on 5 June 2023 to protest police repression ..." wording? RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, "... was installed on 5 June 2023 to protest police repression ..." wording is good with me. --Soman (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I went to make this change and realized that gave us "protest police repression during the 2020 protests" which just sounds silly. I'm going to leave it as it is now. RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Lin Yu-tang (long jumper)

• ... that Taiwanese long jumper Lin Yu-tang qualified for the 2024 Summer Olympics by switching out his broken track shoes between attempts?

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

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

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

Prep 4

Here We Go... Again

• ... that in the song "Here We Go... Again", The Weeknd claims that he can make his lover "scream like Neve Campbell"?

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

Hi! I'm fine with restarting in favor of a new hook. Would mentioning Beach Boy member Bruce Johnston's involvement in the song's creation be fine? I'll wait for the others' opinions. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 20:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with that hook, although I did wonder about that myself. I'd move away from names-based hooks altogether.--Launchballer 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think reopening the DYK nomination and creating a new hook would be ok! And AskeeaeWiki, I don't know for sure if mentioning the Beach Boy member would be interesting; though we'll find out once the hook is re-created. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx 03:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ll add that Neve Campbell might not appreciate that lyric. Zanahary (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

+1. Why would we even consider using this quote in a hook? Valereee (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

And in fact Campbell's reaction was a complete diss: ‘Wait, which weekend? Last weekend?’ hahahahaha. Now that's a hook.

• ... that Neve Campbell's reaction to The Weeknd's claim he could make his lover "scream like Neve Campbell" was, "Wait, which weekend? Last weekend"?

Valereee (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to return this to Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created/expanded_on_May_9 for a new hook/new review, but it doesn't want to transclue...what am I doing wrong? Valereee (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You haven't reopened the nom, so it won't appear. I've fixed this.--Launchballer 18:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Launchballer! Valereee (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

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

Tad's Steaks

@RoySmith, Epicgenius, and Bruxton:

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

Thanks for spotting that. Fixed. RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I knew you would! Bruxton (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What makes a good DYK image?

I'm looking at WP:DYKIMG where it says The media must be suitable, attractive, and interesting; images in particular must display well in the small size of the {{Main page image/DYK}} template and find that description lacking. For sure, requiring it to be "suitable" is a tautology, and I'm not sure what it means for an image to be "interesting" in a DYK context. As for "display well", that is often a point of contention when I mention that an image isn't good. So, what do folks think would be more specific attributes that we should mention in DYKIMG to help improve our image selections? RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's meant to be vague and subjective? --evrik ^(talk) 16:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Far be it from me to object to snark, as it's a style of discourse I often employ myself. But my intent here was to see if we could build consensus on a more practical guide to hook authors and reviewers regarding image selection. RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Given the current interminable RfC, I'm okay with the vagueness. --evrik ^(talk) 16:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of that is too nebulous to be useful, I'd be inclined to yeet everything between the two 'must's. Images shouldn't be gratuitous, but I think that's covered within WP:DYKGRAT, I don't think it warrants repetition.--Launchballer 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought the recent one on 3 June was too grainy and low quality and just another portrait. —Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes we try to balance the availability. It's really easy to get a great shot of an existing building. Not so much an Indonesian doctor who died in 1983. That doesn't mean we should run lots of images of buildings. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

yes. --evrik ^(talk) 19:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

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

More than one month old

• April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Cora Babbitt Johnson
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Lunch (song)
• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Lineage (anthropology)
• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Peewee Jarrett
• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Bar Kokhba refuge caves

Other nominations

• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Qin Huasun
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Adnan al-Bursh
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Professor Layton and the New World of Steam
• May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Homeworld: Vast Reaches
• May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Toro de fuego
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Asia
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Florida Hospital Oceanside
• May 9: Template:Did you know nominations/AdventHealth North Pinellas
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Ann Wells
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Party of Revolutionary Communism (five articles)
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Manganese nitride
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Guardian Cap
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Ceasefire proposal for Israel–Hamas war (May 5)
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Grace A. Johnson
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Interstate 85 in North Carolina
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Vinland Saga (TV series)
• May 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Saleh Manaf
• May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Sadie O. Horton
• May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Jasprit Bumrah
• May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Sea of Voices
• May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Baubau
• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/South by South Lawn
• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Space Babies
• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Russell Cole
• May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/East Wake Academy
• May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/I Am Human (film)
• May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Hock burns
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Leike
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Praetorium of Constantinople
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Jump (Tyla, Gunna and Skillibeng song)
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Flyover (book)

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Friendly Father

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

---

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

Which of the 32 different dates that we have for Father's Day do you think we should pick? I don't think this is a goer. Schwede66 02:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The third Sunday in June is Father's Day for many countries, but seeing that Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June will not mention it either, I withdraw my proposal. Yue🌙 03:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Kenneth Law

Considering we currently have an ongoing discussion about how to handle negative BLP hooks, this nomination may be of interest. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

An almost wholly negative article about a BLP subject who has ongoing criminal court proceedings? DYK shouldn't touch this with a bargepole. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I touched it. Now we'll see what happens. --evrik ^(talk) 00:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I failed the nomination per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it fits the criteria you've cited. It's factual and relatively neutral. --evrik ^(talk) 00:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Factual or not, "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided" It also says "this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole". RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The hook itself is relatively neutral. --evrik ^(talk) 00:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I've invited comments from WP:BLPN.[22] I don't see a neutral hook in the article. Everything is either about pending charges, or it's attributed to Law himself. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

If you were to write on say ... Charles Manson, even a neutral hook may be perceived as somewhat negative. --evrik ^(talk) 21:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

... that the Beach Boys did a cover of a Charles Manson song? RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll approve that hook when you write the article. --evrik ^(talk) 22:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is written, that's where the hook came from. I'll keep it in mind if it ever reaches GA. RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Saw this through the BLPN notification. Regardless of whether WP:DYKHOOKBLP applies, putting an article on the mainpage about someone who is currently on trial for fourteen counts of murder seems like a terrible idea. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've rejected. This seems to be another Tate case. Almost identical: Law himself says he sold the stuff. Ping to Bremps. Valereee (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is a terrible idea. People do bad things. If the person is notable for doing bad things, the hooks may be uncomfortable. Also, I don't think this should have been closed as it does a disservice to the author. --evrik ^(talk) 14:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Evrik, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that you think every borderline nomination should be accepted. You should be aware that this is a fringe viewpoint. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I've never said that. What I've seen in the last month is a hyper focus on the negative BLPs. I think we've lost perspective. Also, I don't appreciate your negative personal attack. --evrik ^(talk) 16:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"I've never said that." You are correct evrik, I said it. Can you point out that negative personal attack you refer to, perhaps keeping this nomination in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going down this rabbit hole. --evrik ^(talk) 16:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, so will you strike that WP:PA accusation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You strike your comment. I'll strike mine. --evrik ^(talk) 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Negative? I thought this was interesting. :D Valereee (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If the person in question had been convicted of doing terrible things, I might have a less strong opinion, but until Law's trial is actually concluded he is notable for being accused of doing terrible things. The fact that people look at this hook an conclude "this man has done bad things" before the court has actually determined whether he did or not is precisely one of the main reason that this seems like a terrible idea. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Laura Veale

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

The traditional meaning in Yorkshire, of "Yorkshire woman" is Yorkshire-born woman". Yorkshire has always been a parochial area with its own identity, and during previous generations being born there was part of the identity. Even these days - I have lived there and contributed locally for over a quarter of a century, but am still considered an outsider (and consider myself so), because I came from Kent. The Yorkshire dialect is not just an individual sound. Like all dialects and languages, it is a way of thinking. If I understand correctly, that way of thinking used to affect the Yorkshire cricket teams during previous generations (though probably no longer), in that you once had to be born in Yorkshire to play for Yorkshire. Malcolm Neesam, a traditional Yorkshireman, wrote the text on that brown plaque, and Yorkshire-born is what he meant, for sure. Veale was not the first qualified woman doctor to practice in Yorkshire - but it is agreed by local historians that she was the first Yorkshire-born woman to do so. I have checked thoroughly with Harrogate Civic Society, and they all agree with that, strongly. Storye book (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"I talked to somebody who said it's true" isn't a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think its fine either way. --evrik ^(talk) 16:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That isn't an RS either. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "Veale was not the first qualified woman doctor to practice in Yorkshire": So she's not the first female doctor in Yorkshire. And the source definitely isn't good enough to state that she is the first female doctor born in Yorkshire, because the language is too ambiguous. That goes beyond the problem that sources for such hooks often get it wrong by overlooking someone else with a stronger claim. Are we confident that they went through all the birth records of all the female physicians in the UK (or the crown colonies, or the world), checking whether maybe one of them was born in Yorkshire, or did they only find a listing of female physicians in Yorkshire, check through which of them were actually born in Yorkshire, and when finding one said "she's the one"? I don't think this hook is rescuable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I've replaced this with another English biography hook by Story book from Prep 7. People can sort out the problems with this one on the nomination page. RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

• @PrimalMustelid, Soman, and Goldsztajn: This is missing an end-of-sentence citation for the hook fact. RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"With the main leader of the party Spiridonova imprisoned at the Kremlin it fell on Kamkov, Karelin and Proshian to represent the Central Committee in bearing responsibility for the July debacle at the 4th party congress.[1][10] [...] Spiridonova addressed the gathering through a letter which self-critically reviewed the actions of the Central Committee.[1]" --Soman (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The hook said "jail", so that's what I searched for and found "The main leader of the party Maria Spiridonova was in jail at the time, but addressed the gathering by a written letter." RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

BLP discussion/Barron Trump

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

Does DYK have any guidance to reviewers about notability checks? —Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

We do not, but the concern for me was more that red flags should have been raised over all the negative stuff in the article that was really about his father, not about him. Valereee (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

We do, articles with questionable notability deserve {{notability}}, which is a disqualifier per WP:DYKCOMPLETE. I suggest adding a line to WP:DYKRI.--Launchballer 11:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

We do say no tags, but we don't call out notability expressly. We also don't call out BLP violations expressly. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that the AfD was not WP:SNOW closed as a delete or redirect, I don't think it's egregious that such a long bio with many footnotes not from Daily Mail-like sources wasn't challeged at the DYK review. —Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer instructions does mention "BLP-compliant" but maybe this needs its own line.--Launchballer 11:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we're talking two different issues here; the notability question, and the original concern of BLP vios that led to the AfD. I'm much more concerned that we ran an article that was full of negative stuff about his father that was only tangentially related to the article subject. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure what solution could be added here. DYK is a mostly single reviewer process that mostly focuses on the hook, and it sounds like the issues in question were unrelated to the hook. On the wider bias point, that is bias in the line of what I would expect the bias of en.wiki to point to, and those are the biases that are both less likely to be picked up and harder to deal with. CMD (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

We could demand a more explicit BLP compliance check to ensure reviewers do not just look at the hook. You know, replace "new enough, long enough, not copyvio" by "new enough, long enough, not copyvio, no potential BLP issues". It would help if we could guide QPQ reviewers to open a thread here (or at BLPN) if there is any doubt about BLP compliance of either hook or article, so any such issues could be caught and discussed much earlier than the point when admins promote prep to queue. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I would support that. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The DYK process went fine? It was on the main page for like 23 hours before it was pulled. Which leads me to why would we put it into a holding area for re-running? It had nearly the entire day. Valereee (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree that the nomination should remain closed if it ran for nearly an entire day before being pulled. The fact that it's currently at AfD is irrelevant. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a case of running something up the flagpole, you see who salutes and you see who shoots. Sometimes the issues we debate here won't become apparent until something goes before the broader audience.--evrik ^(talk) 20:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6 (nom) BLP/neg concern

I think we need a new hook for this one:

• ... that Brad Banducci stepped down as CEO of the Woolworths Group after walking out of a TV interview, causing national headlines in Australia?

How about something like:

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

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

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

Happy with that. GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me, might be worth adding 'future Woolworths CEO' or somesuch.--Launchballer 11:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've replaced, used 'future Woolworths CEO'. Thanks, all! Valereee (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7 (nom)

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

• ... that Georgi Romanov had a shootout loss in the 2022–23 KHL season even though he was credited with playing zero minutes that season?

I would suggest maybe

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

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

I don't see the negativity nor the problem with using a stats database, and the proposed ALT is nowhere near meeting WP:DYKINT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the original hook isn't exactly a BLP case. Indeed, the hook is actually interesting even for a non-sports fan, which can't be said for some of our other recent sports hooks. I would suggest however clarifying "shootout loss" in the hook for the benefit of non-ice hockey fans. The new hook might have potential if it is specified that Romanov is an ice hockey player, but otherwise the original hook is still better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification at the article for how/why this happened. Valereee (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: "A goaltender receives a loss if he is on the ice when the opposing team scores the game-winning goal." – Romanov made his only appearance in a shootout (which is not timed, thus 'zero minutes') and the other team scored the game-winning shot during the shootout. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11, THANK YOU. Lol, I was like...whaaaa? So this is not something anyone would be embarrassed about? Valereee (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm... well, I've never been a follower of hockey so I can't say with certainty – but it doesn't strike me as something overly negative... BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good example why "negative hook involving a BLP" is a too wide category to be outlawed. Anyway, I think we could just as well state this without the loss:

• ... that Georgi Romanov's saved three out of four attempts in a penalty shootout that was his only appearance in the 2022–23 KHL season?

The "credited with zero minutes" would benefit from better sourcing. —Kusma (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

+1. Valereee (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I too did not see this as a negative blp hook. I was very interested in figuring out how it happened but never once had a negative thought about the player. Bruxton (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't sports, so I'll take your word for it that playing zero minutes all season and still recording a loss is not embarrassing. :D Valereee (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Negative? I thought this was interesting. --evrik ^(talk) 14:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't sports, but negative doesn't mean uninteresting. And unless this is something so common that no one who does sports has any questions, then are we sure Elite Prospects didn't make a mistake? Valereee (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated to the actual nom, the proposed ALT1 focusing on his wife seems inappropriate to me. We would (I hope) find it sexist and wrong to have a hook on an independently notable woman that focuses only on what her husband did, so the reverse should also be wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Valereee (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see this as negative? Statistics from reliable databases are usable as sources as far as I'm aware? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Question about review

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

• ... that Sami politician, activist, and journalist Bjarne Store-Jakobsen's "mythical love story" is the subject of the 2014 film Bihttoš?

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

• ... that the "mythical love story" of Sami politician Bjarne Store-Jakobsen and Blackfoot physician Esther Tailfeathers is the subject of the 2014 film Bihttoš?

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