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
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
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.

2 queues left.

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

I don't think there is a backlog, or that there is any real urgency. Let's save the emergency pings for admins for when the deadline is under 24 hours, rather than over 50? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Promoting queue sets ahead of time instead of at the last hours is more ideal, could allow for a smoother process of ironing out errors. That said, instead of at 2 queues, I can notify admins when we’re at one or no queue sets left. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes in fact, further to our conversation last week, it's actually better to notify earlier rather than later, because if admins have to do a rush job to get a set ready in under 24 hours, and not do full checks, then errors can creep in.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Well I don't know about "corrected", I'm only offering an opinion ...  — Amakuru (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I've got to say the near-constant DYK pings are annoying to the point I'm tempted to remove myself from the list. PLEASE use them sparingly. WaggersTALK 07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: , well hopefully the 36-hour point, which we have now reached, is a compromise between Amakuru's and Waggers's positions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

A 36-hour point does sound good, and if for some reason no action is taken, we can ping again at the 12-hour mark though hopefully this won’t have to happen. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Waggers. I find these pings annoying. I'm a volunteer, I don't like being nagged because I'm not working hard enough. Pinging the DYK admins should be reserved for real emergencies. RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Le Touquet (nomination)

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

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

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

Ah man, sorry about that. Didn't catch the discrepancy. I'd change it to "even though about 100,000 mines were left in" maybe? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody got hurt; no trouble. I've reopened the nomination page. Schwede66 02:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Moved it on pageview leaders, although I don't really understand summary statistics.--Launchballer 13:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: The bot seems to have undone our edits.--Launchballer 11:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like User:GalliumBot is run by user:theleekycauldron, who frequents this page. Hopefully, she checks in and can offer some advice.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks for the link. I'm not going to comment on the ANI myself, as there often seems to be much more heat than light there. However, I think this could have been avoided with a less-controversial hook, like I mentioned earlier. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It would have been avoided, and going for dramatic and pointed hooks extends beyond just BLP. See also the above discussion on Environmental damage in the Gaza strip. CMD (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I am mad at myself for not sticking to my arguments about BLP hooks. Honestly, It felt like a losing battle. Many wanted a negative hook and so we went with the subject's own words. ALt0 in the nom was great but nobody was having it; and so was your suggestion EG. Thanks for being the great editor that you are and for your suggestion. Bruxton (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This is probably going to be an unpopular opinion here, but the way the Andrew Tate discussion turned out felt like a case of DYK wanting to put politics above anything else, even Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I remember AirshipJungleman29, Lightburst, Epic G and maybe a few others like you who tried to reject neg hooks. It was my fault for relenting and approving the hook - I wanted to reward the editor who brought the article through GA. I think it was hard to reject the actual words of the subject, but as EpicG has said it was not necessary to use it. Anyway it is important that we debrief so that we move forward and grow. Bruxton (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Given that this is intended to be a debriefing I wonder if it would be a good idea to ask for their thoughts and opinions here now that the hook has run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest here: I felt that any negative-sounding hook about Tate, regardless of personal feelings and politics, was going to be a bad idea. Even as someone who doesn't like him at all, I felt that a more neutral hook would have been a more suitable compromise (my preference was simply not running Tate at all, but that was never going to gain consensus). I felt that the discussion was more like a case of trying to right great wrongs or trying to insert politics into DYK, where personal political opinions were given precedence over our policies and guidelines. Yes, Andy may have been too grumpy and I agree that the tone of his comments were outright personal attacks, but he does have a point here: was the hook a good idea in the first place? It probably wasn't and like Bruxton I have regrets about not pushing against the hook more. However, I felt it was a losing battle since several editors wanted it and there seemed to be no way of that happening so I just stayed silent. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying that removing negativity is a way to be "more neutral". It can be a way to be less neutral. Neutrality means reflecting the sources accurately, not eliminating anything charged. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think that the way that Narutolovehinata5 conceives of neutrality and the way that wikipedia consensus generally has are incompatible, if Narutolovehinata5 edits in the way that they think is neutral they're going to be doing things which are the opposite of what the community thinks is neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any BLP violation here; the hook was well-sourced. But this does point up a fundamental clash between two DYK principles, that we avoid (unnecessarily) negative hooks on BLPs, and that every eligible and nominated article should eventually be allowed to run on DYK. The latter may not be explicit anywhere but it seems to be very difficult to decline nominations where there is no DYK problem with the article (like being too short or improperly sourced). Here, the coverage of the subject is so relentlessly negative that it would have been a neutrality violation not to run a negative hook, so we eventually decided that the word "unnecessarily" allowed us to run a negative one. Maybe we should instead have decided that, if the only NPOV hooks are negative, then we shouldn't have a hook at all. But I would very much not want to see this lead to anodyne hooks on subjects whose notability is primarily negative in nature; we might want to avoid those subjects, but we should not whitewash them.

Over on the ANI discussion, some have suggested DYK bans on BLPs and on currently-available commercial products. Maybe we should consider that? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that just because a topic is controversial or negative means that any non-negative hook about them would be a neutrality violation. Take for example Russia, which was brought to GA and nominated for DYK but ultimately rejected. That was after the war had started but there were plenty of possible neutral hooks that could have been used; back then the issue people had was if it was in good taste to run a hook on Russia, even if neutral, given the war and all, and I guess we just had a similar case here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If someone is mainly known for negative things we should not become the go-to way for them to rehabilitate their image by publicizing their love for puppies. At the time of that Russia nomination, all news about Russia was about their invasion of Ukraine. Despite their long history, it would very much have been a neutrality violation to portray them in any other light. It would have made us look like shills for the Russian invasion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The idea that having a non-negative hook about something known for negative reasons would be a case of righting great wrongs, and just because we don't run a negative hook does not mean we are endorsing, condoning or supporting them. I know other stuff exists, but it would be like having a positive hook about the United States or China on DYK instead of them being rejected on neutrality grounds, even though both nations are seen in a negative light in much of the world. My point is simply that ideally we should be separating our own personal politics from that of DYK or even the encyclopedia and there was probably a better way of handling this than how it turned out. For the record, I was opposed to Russia running back then, but in hindsight I wonder if it is unfair to deny a country with a long history of being featured on DYK just because of recent events (and thus recency bias), even as someone who supports Ukraine in the war. It isn't rehabilitation: you can describe neutral facts about something while still acknowledging their negative aspects, just as how you can say negative things about things largely seen in a positive light. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If we run a non-negative hook on a subject for which the bulk of coverage is negative, then we are in fact going to be seen as endorsing, condoning or supporting the subject. It will be non-neutral promotion and it will be seen that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

+1. Just reject the nomination if anything positive would be UNDUE. Valereee (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

As for the bans, I would strongly oppose that. DYK in part is meant to reward contributors or at least incentivize them for improving articles, and not allowing them just because the subject is a BLP or a currently-available product would be deeply unfair, not to mention essentially disqualifying much of Wikipedia. Our normal guidelines and activities already seem to work relatively fine, and cases like this are rare enough that they're more of the exception rather than the rule, but in most cases any issues would already be easily dealt with. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It may be meant to reward neutral-minded Wikipedia contributors, but what it has turned into for BLPs and products is a way for publicists to push Wikipedia into being an advertising site for their clients. That's a much worse problem than a reduction in the possible scope for rewarding contributors would be. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Cases of DYK being used to promote products are so rare that I can only remember one recent case of it happening, and even then it wasn't even a paid promotion. The closest would be fans writing about things they are fans of, but that isn't really the same. Of course a fan of, for example The Simpsons, would be the one most likely to write an article about something Simpsons related, or how a Taylor Swift fan is more likely than a non-fan to write articles about her songs and albums. If it was actually proven that a DYK was nominated to commercially promote a product, that would be dealt with through the usual means. I just don't see it as a regular enough occurrence to warrant such a drastic measure when other measures can already take care of them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of the ALTs about commercial products are promotional in nature because that's what RS are talking about and there's nothing else interesting about the subject. Things like "...that as of its release in May of 2024 the RXK7 was the smallest widget ever made?" We don't like to discourage editors who are interested in cell phones or video games or whatever, so we try to work with them. Maybe we should stop. It's not like being unable to go to DYK is going to prevent someone from creating iPhone 87. Someone will still create it.

In the case of Tate, my feeling was that the ALTs being suggested were either mealymouthed or were no less negative that the one we ran with. He ran a Hustler's University -- which was a pyramid scheme -- is either disingenuous (if we don't say what it was) or negative (if we do). I think we just need to stop running hooks about living people. It's too fraught. Valereee (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It should probably be a case-to-case basis because many if not most BLPs that are nominated for DYK are uncontroversial. Tate was really just a special case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

So how do we decide? Do we really run "...that Andrew Tate is a surfer?" when literally 98% of RS are covering negative things? I don't want to unduly include negative shit, but when that's almost literally all that's out there, do we really want to have to cherrypick something neutral? And honestly does Taylor Swift ever need to be mentioned again on DYK? Valereee (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Can't we just remove the "unduly" from WP:DYKBLP? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing, @AirshipJungleman29? That we shouldn't worry about something being unduly negative? Or that we should never run anything negative? I would actually object to either. Maybe you're saying if we can't say something nice, we should reject the nom? Valereee (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The latter, yes. I don't think blanket-banning all BLPs is a good idea—for one thing, they're around a quarter of the hooks. Saying "if saying something positive about [person/product/controversial current event] could reasonably be described as POV, just forget about it and move on" is good with me. No DYK hook is worth tens of thousands of bytes of discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Bios are a quarter of hooks, I don't think living people are? But I get your point. Agreed that the discussion over Tate here and elsewhere is not worth our time. I'm not actually sure the nominator would disagree. Valereee (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Tangent: just did a count of hooks from this month's sets, and came up with 20% for BLPs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Another reason to just get rid of them. 02:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Valereee (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems a bit drastic to me. Most are perfectly fine. I also suspect (with no evidence other than my experience in promoting) that BLP hooks are less WP:BIASed than the average bio hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Seems drastic to shoot them just to get around WP:BLP. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I broadly agree. I think one of the main problems with this nomination, and many like it, is the sunk cost fallacy attitude that if a nominated article receives massive amounts of attention and discussion, it has to get onto the main page (as Bruxton admirably admits above, they "wanted to reward the editor who brought the article through GA"), otherwise it is a waste of time and a betrayal of the DYK process. In practice, all this usually leads to is everyone getting worn down and a controversial/substandard hook getting allowed onto the main page. We don't have to do that to ourselves—we can, if we really want, but we don't have to. I think a line to that effect at WP:DYKCRIT wouldn't go amiss. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. We err too much on the side of "Someone worked hard on this, we should find something we can use." Valereee (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

We had other choices. If you revisit that thread of our discussion many of the editors seemed to hate the person so much that they were unwilling to consider any hook that did not take him down. As Epic Genius says in the thread, you had a choice. So it is not a BLP thing if we follow our own rules. Lightburst (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I was talking more about the DYK culture than about this specific hook or about BLP, Lightburst. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Other choices like Uday was relatively neat and Qusay seldom raped the disabled? It's a choice, but it's a bad choice. If we're considering saying something positive about someone whose coverage in RS is 95% about bad things they've done, we're whitewashing. If our choices are

1. Say something extremely well-sourced that is negative and not undue, and end up with someone losing their shit over it
2. Say something trivial and unduly positive and end up whitewashing
3. Reject the nomination

I think #3 is the best of bad choices. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

But #1 is better than #2 per WP:NPOV. —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

And I agree, which is why I supported it. In retrospect I think Black Kite was correct; 1 may be better than 2, but 3 is better than 1. Valereee (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Then we block the person losing their shit and move on, how is that even a question? We don't let editors who can't edit civility get a heckler's veto, we block them for disruption which losing their shit over DYK would by definition be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be a question at that ANI, though. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it? At that ANI they seem to have done a good job of separating someone losing their shit (hence a discussion about a 24 hour block for the disruptive editor) and the underlying issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Still catching up here, re: "wanted to reward the editor who brought the article through GA". The irony being is I said I already didn't care about the DYK anymore, given the controversy, prior to the DYK being approved. So while this statement is probably accurate most of the time, in this case, it was because an alternative hook was provided that it was then approved. I specifically chose not to include that hook, to avoid all these inevitable issues (that enough users warned about over use of negative hooks). So it might be worth being more mindful of the nominees opinion, and then this could have all been avoided. The article is already an WP:1M, so no offence, but getting on DYK doesn't make any difference here. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"currently available commercial products" is a massive area: books, movies, music would be reduced to things that are out of print. Various sports events are also highly commercial. If we ban these for advertising, I hope we also ban all hooks relating to religion (proselytising), beaches and other extant geographic features (good for the travel industry), museums, trains and TV stations.

It is natural for DYK hooks to bring attention to their subject. It is always possible that this attention results in additional sales. The only way to make sure it never happens on the Main Page is to remove all content from the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

And I agree, it's too massive, and unfortunately I'm not Czar. I do think we should tighten up on the brand-new whizbang that there really isn't anything interesting to build a hook around. I've always been a little torn -- it feels unfair to editors whose main editing interest is each new iteration of the iPhone or whatever -- but we've got nominated right now ... that RuPaul's Drag Race Live! replaced the eleven-year run of Donny and Marie Osmond's concert residency at the Flamingo Las Vegas? To me that seems pretty ho-hum. Show ends at venue, another show begins in that venue. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That is a boring hook, and I think we should avoid this type of hooks independent of whether this replacement happened yesterday or 100 years ago. The problems is that our mechanisms for rejecting hooks are terrible and cause lots of drama, so I am trying to find new (or old) ways for us to get rid of bad hooks and other problematic nominations without the drama of explicit rejections, for example by allowing them to time out. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

How does that work? You're right that we don't have a mechanism...things just sort of automatically get moved through the process, and it's often at the prep>queue stage that some admin brings a hook here. Often multiple hooks in a single prep set. By which time so many people have been involved with the nom that there's a sunk cost. Valereee (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"Any nomination that hasn't been accepted by a reviewer after three weeks or promoted to a prep set after six weeks is automatically closed as rejected" would both kill the backlog and give us a means to pocket veto any nomination. It is like DYK was in 2006, just with a lot more time before noms are rejected. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

But how do we encourage reviewers to not review and promoters not to promote? Reviewers just want to get their QPQ, and promoters want to get the sets filled. That's why stuff ends up here at the prep>queue phase, when some admin questions multiple hooks that got that far. We create a list every week or so asking people to review hooks that have been languishing. Valereee (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• I can’t say I am surprised. I knew something like this would happen which is why I was so adamant against running a negative hook initially (and I never really felt good about it even after being worn down to change my position). I would have been ok with a neutral non-negative/non-positive hook, but clearly that would not get support. We probably should not have run a hook at all on Tate.

I would support a burn clause where we simply say we won’t run a negative hook on any BLP if it’s contested at nomination. Meaning that if there are any objections to a negative hook raised in review it doesn’t run by default. Likewise, if people insist we must run a negative hook when others oppose it’s an automatic reject of the hook nom and we simply won’t run any hook. Best to err on the side of caution and only run negative hooks on BLPs when there is unanimous support. We don’t often have contentious BLPs so I don’t think this clause would impact the vast majority of BLPs at DYK.4meter4 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That is only half the problem. If we insist on not running negative hooks, but insist on running hooks on those subjects anyway, we will force ourselves to violate neutrality. We need a way to tell nominators that their article is not suitable for DYK despite being nominally eligible, and we need to enforce this rather than softheartedly giving in every time to boring or negative hooks because we can't find a way around them but we can't get ourselves to refuse a nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I like AirshipJungleman29's suggestion of adding something like if saying something positive about [person/product/controversial current event] could reasonably be described as POV, just forget about it and move on to WP:DYKCRIT. I think it's understandable that, once an editor has put in the work to improve an article, reviewers want to find a compliant hook that showcases it. Clarifying in advance that some of these articles aren't suitable for DYK means submitters don't get an unpleasant surprise and reviewers don't have that impossible responsibility on them. hinnk (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I think softheartedly giving in every time to boring or negative hooks because we can't find a way around them but we can't get ourselves to refuse a nomination is close to one of our central problems. We do not want to explicitly refuse to run a hook or an article, because people have it in their head that any article satisfying a bunch of more or less arcane rules has a right to appear on the Main Page. My suggestion is to go back to the roots: just remove all nominations that have not been promoted after a certain time, as we did back in 2006. That way, QPQers and prep builders can collectively reject any nomination for any reason without fighting huge arguments about what is and is not boring. —Kusma (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This. It was suggested before and remains even more relevant now. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK has many issues (sensationalism, boredom from dominance by regulars and their topic areas, sloppy reviewing, understaffing) but I think avoiding controversial topics would make DYK worse without solving anything.

Any hook about Tate would have attracted controversy; we should not let fear of controversy censor our range of topics. I am actually surprised this one was attacked for being "negative about a BLP" instead of for allowing Tate to "advertise" his misogyny on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Controversy is worth considering for reasons other than fear, but I do agree that we should probably not be making a sweeping rule change based on the Andrew Tate article hook, that is prime hard cases make bad law. CMD (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. @hinnk. AirshipJungleman29, Valereee I would oppose any rule change making it harder to add a positive hook. We shouldn't enshrine the idea that saying something positive is automatically or even potentially a POV violation into DYK policy. That will cause lots of drama in normal reviews, and it could have an unintended consequence of increasing not decreasing negative hooks when it comes to BLPs. Any policy we make needs to focus on negative BLP hooks specifically, and not become an unnecessary barrier to featuring positive hooks on people.

@Narutolovehinata5 I notice your examples did not actually involve BLPs, so they aren't good examples. Making analogies to non-persons like countries isn't useful as these rules are specifically limited to living people. I also note that in my proposal I didn't outright ban negative hooks, it only made it much harder for them to go through in the narrow context of BLPs. @David Eppstein and Kusma As for "boring" hooks, that isn't the issue at hand. Don't make this conversation about something that isn't relevant to BLP policy as it applies to DYK. We aren't getting in trouble outside DYK for being boring. In comparison to the volume of hooks we receive, there are a minuscule amount of negative BLP hooks being proposed, so this issue has almost zero impact on the percentage of interesting hooks we run. Don't create a red herring.

I am saddened that editors are unwilling to do anything meaningful about the problem at hand. It looks like we will do nothing based on consensus at the moment. That in my opinion is a mistake, because frankly we aren't currently compliant with BLP policy as a project, and we are likely to end up being chastised again and may end up being the subject of an RFC or other type of review that could result in punitive consequences against the project in which we will be forced to change our rules, and not necessarily in a way that we will like. We could even see our project disappear from the main page, or be given a blanket BLP topic ban (both would be awful). It's better to do the right thing now, then to do nothing and put the project's longterm health/survival in jeopardy. This issue isn't just going to go away, and this conversation here won't make the project look good when it does come up again outside of DYK. It will only show we knew there was problem and enabled it to continue.4meter4 (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary 4meter4, before your comment it looked like consensus was near-unanimous. Also, please note the details of WP:PINGFIX. Finally, I don't see any connection in the paragraph directed at me to what I actually said, so I won't reply to it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29 I was specifically referencing your comment "if saying something positive about [person/product/controversial current event] could reasonably be described as POV, just forget about it and move on" is good with me." I think that language is problematic for the reasons I articulated above. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

4meter4, in that case, I have two points. First, please try to use the correct language so there is no confusion—"policy" should only refer to those pages defined as such, and not to a page that is essentially a WikiProject essay. Following on from this, "the idea that saying something positive is potentially a POV violation" is already enshrined in Wikipedia policy (the actual one, not the WikiProject essay). The idea that we at DYK can somehow overrule this basic standard of Wikipedia is far more likely, in my opinion, to end up in "punitive consequences against the project". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with both your comments. Where I have a problem is that I think editors are likely to take the earlier quoted text as a guide that all positive hooks are inherently bad and biased, which is not what I think you were intending to communicate. Many positive hooks are balanced and neutral when examined in light of the sources and the subject. The issue with DYK is we can only feature so much in 200 characters, so providing balance as described in the policy you linked is more often than not impossible on contentious topics. We can’t say pick a positive assessment to feature and balance it with a negative assessment in two hundred characters. We can only feature one side in a hook if there is more than one side by virtue of space.4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"We can’t say pick a positive assessment to feature and balance it with a negative assessment in two hundred characters" that is WP:FALSEBALANCE not what our policy is. Balance for us basically just means following the sources including in proportionality, that sometimes means that 100% negative is entirely balanced and the same with 100% positive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A positive hook in the case of Tate would have been undue. ...that a kickboxer ran a Hustler's University? to me feels like both an easter egg and whitewashing a pyramid scheme. Literally there are people who would be nauseated to click on the innocent-sounding 'kickboxer' and end up at Andrew Tate.

I'm not unwilling to do anything. The next time such a situation arises -- and maybe it won't -- I'll be arguing to reject the nomination for being something we can't in good conscience create a positive hook for. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Valereee I was referring to tightening written policy as a project, not individual choices. We need to make other editors go the same direction through updated policy language.4meter4 (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Start an RfC. I would support some neutrally-worded version of what you said below: If people think saying something nice or neutral isn't cool we just don't run it at all and reject it. Valereee (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I would disagree about the Easter egg part. People propose this kind of hook at DYK all the time, and I'd argue that the Easter-egginess of the hook would do more to attract readers than saying "that Andrew Tate is a kickboxer who ran a hustler's university".

As for whitewashing, if the only other alternative is an unduly negative hook, I say such a DYK should probably be scrapped altogether. We really should not let this reach a situation where either of the alternatives (a negative hook or one that gives the appearance of whitewashing) will agitate readers. Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This ^ Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Easter eggs aren't the issue. It's the fact that this particular easter egg may take the reader somewhere they'd be nauseated by. I agree, we should have just scrapped the nom. Valereee (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4, in discussions about possible Andrew Tate hooks, I strongly opposed anything that would mention the crimes he is accused of, but has not been convicted of. I have also pulled hooks over BLP concerns. I am not convinced we have a general BLP problem (as opposed to a general "reviews are too superficial" problem) and the AndyTheGrump issue has not made me change my mind so far. What do you think the problem is? —Kusma (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Kusma I think we are too permissive of negative BLP hooks. The short length of a hook makes it impossible to present negative facts in context, which is required by WP:BLP policy. Given our limits on space, I think an outright universal ban on negative hooks should be implemented on all BLP nominations. That's what I would say if this went to an RFC. I proposed a more middle of the road approach above because I recognize not everyone would agree with this view.4meter4 (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd support 'no negative BLP hooks'. I wouldn't support 'find something nice to say about all BLPs'. Valereee (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee That is where I am too. Tate should have not run for exactly the reason you just said. If people think saying something nice or neutral isn't cool we just don't run it at all and reject it.4meter4 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I am opposed to that as it has wide reaching implications. For example, it means Radovan Karadžić can not be featured on DYK until he dies, unless the hook omits the fact that he is a major war criminal. Stuff about BLPs that would be OK to run at ITN (say, a major war criminal is convicted at The Hague) should be OK to run at DYK. —Kusma (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. It's unfortunate for us that ITN seems to have fewer haters. :D Valereee (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The hook is essentially one sentence from the article. It is not necessarily the most important aspect of a BLP's life. There is more to Radovan Karadžić's life than his war criminal activity so there is plenty of hook fodder without dealing with the negative aspects. Nor is a neutral or positive hook about a "bad" person "whitewashing". The article would contain all the reliably sourced bad stuff and the hook isn't meant to be a summary of the article. Rlendog (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

On wikipedia neutral is not in between positive and negative, it is separate from them. Both a positive and a negative hook must be neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The difference is that DYK trivializes the subject go a greater extent than ITN. Sure, putting a war criminal being convicted next to the World Darts Championship is less than ideal, but it's a lot less diaparate in subject and tone than putting a hook about the aformentioned war criminal next to before becoming a voice actor, Kikunosuke Toya was the keyboardist of an all-male Princess Princess cover band in high school? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: Do you have any recent examples where we have featured BLP content on DYK that could have harmed the person? (I do not think the Tate example falls in this category). Without more examples of the problem you are trying to solve, I think making additional rules is ill advised. —Kusma (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Kusma, here's a nom from yesterday:

• ... that the instrumental track "BBL Drizzy" is about rumors accusing Canadian rapper Drake of receiving buttock augmentation surgery?

It's a twofer: commercial product + BLP Valereee (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not an example. It is a nomination from yesterday, not something we have featured on the Main Page. If this gets a decent review, the obvious BLP vio should be called out by the reviewer. (Seriously? rumors about people having cosmetic surgery?? the whole Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud sounds super lame, but has more than a million page views in the past four weeks, so obviously I am out of touch). —Kusma (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I would say nominations count as we are specifically looking at our procedures for reviewing hooks. I think we should compile a list of negative BLP hooks that have run and have been proposed. We should also look for hooks that have cropped up on the DYK talk page and have been contentious. We should probably create a thread on preparing for an RFC and the first step should be evidence gathering. It may be that the community decides that what we are doing is mostly working, and that nothing need change. Or it may be, that an issue will be clearly identified after we gather evidence. Either way, it would be helpful to have community input to guide what we do going forward, if only to affirm what we are doing is correct. After we gather evidence, we could take some language proposals for updating DYK procedures/guidelines. That way when the RFC begins we can have some well articulated issues and proposals.4meter4 (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that work needs to be done before any BLP rule change is proposed. (And perhaps we do not need to change our BLP rules, but just enforce them, i.e. find ways to increase review quality). —Kusma (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

When the colonists in America took up arms against the British in America they called it a war for independence. The British called it a rebellion. George Washington was a traitor and a terrorist to the British but America named streets after him. It is about perspective and many editors have none when it comes to a person with a different view than their own. Even the person who you call evil, is admired elsewhere. So in the Tate hook experience we had editors making suggestions against policy based on their political leanings or their inner moral compass. If we look at misogyny it offends the sensibilities of many editors here, yet many major religions and societies practice it. You cannot do what the media in America is doing daily: represent editorial views as fact. Saying a hook that is neutral is undue is the height of silliness and is not based on policy. We can see this same silliness playing out every day, especially here on Wikipedia where we punish or promote based on the politics of whatever editors are active when an issue arrises. We can do better without rejecting nominations. Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

So Wikipedia needs no "inner moral compass"? Convicted murders, rapists or paedophiles should all be treated the same as anyone else, as they may be "admired elsewhere", yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Your comment is exactly my point. Hyperbole personified. Lightburst (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Was your answer yes or no? Thanks. I wouldn't want to be accused of "white-Washington". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I see only two editors in this discussion who have made political arguments, you and Narutolovehinata5. Your argument in particular appears to be 95% politics and only 5% policy and guideline, its an incredibly weak argument on just its wiki grounds... Its only compelling if you attach a lot of fringe political baggage to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. It is difficult for some to consider different views. For instance right now there is an image of a man in a dress on the main page. Do you think some readers may find that offensive? We force our views all the time. We promote and now we want to reject if it does not fit the narrative - whatever it is. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

In the Tate discussion many editors would not allow any neutral hook. I sympathize with 4meter4 and Airship29 who mentioned how editors can get worn down. Bruxton (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

We ran a hook that literally quoted him about himself. How is that not a neutral hook? Valereee (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I accepted it, Like many, I found it hard to reject the person's own words. I preferred the EG hook. I am glad that we are discussing. I now see Any The Grump at ANI saying we may have missed a retraction? Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton, just checking to see if maybe you have a diff or a search term that'll help me find that more easily? I've been reading there, so maybe I just missed it? Valereee (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, see here. TSventon (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, TSventon...so in 2021 he said he was "absolutely a misogynist" and in 2022 he complained that people were digging up "old" dirt. Pretty unconvincing, but okay. A retraction's a retraction, I guess? He's no longer calling himself a misogynist. The guy was like 34 when he said he was and 35 when he called it old news. He was raised Christian, became an atheist, in early 2022 identified as Christian again and by the end of the same year had converted to Islam. The guy is, um...not maturing very fast. Sort of confirms that we just should have not accepted the nomination. :D Valereee (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That's ITN. Different animal, for me. I think you're making an incorrect assumption that there's something inherently political about not wanting to find something nice to say about someone who calls himself a misogynist and says he moved to Romania because he wanted to live in a country "where corruption is accessible for everybody" and where people don't get charged with rape as often. If you're trying to say conservatives would admire that, I think you're not being fair to conservatives. Valereee (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah lets be clear, the vast majority of conservatives either despise or have never heard of Tate. He is not a mainstream conservative figure and e-pimping etc is incompatible with conservative values as held by most. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

While that’s very kind and polite of you to say, please add me to the list of dissenters and so-called miscreants who believe "conservative values" are entirely compatible and consistent with what Andrew Tate supports and promotes. In fact, Tate is widely considered to be a product of the alt-right echo chamber, whose set of values are mostly indistinguishable from Trumpism and the current version of the GOP. Furthermore, conservative values in the US today are highly aligned with pre-enlightenment values that oppose democracy, feminism, and progressivism, and support theocracy, patriarchy, and a return to aristocracy. I realize people may disagree with me, but I wanted to make sure my position is known. Viriditas (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO thats why the distinction alt-right exists at all, if it was just mainstream conservatism we wouldn't need a different name for it. There is also something to be said for hypocrisy, just because someone holds certain values doesn't necessarily mean they live by them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean, pollsters and the NYT agree with you.[1] And what you said about hypocrisy is very important. But I think in terms of specific values themselves, the numbers are far different. What initially began as a "radical, obstructionist faction" has become mainstream. The NYT and other media outlets aren't quite there yet. Viriditas (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that picture forces a view on anyone, can you explain? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we've got a picture of Nemo because they won Eurovision, not because anyone wants to "force our views" on dress-wearing? DYK isn't exactly Eurovision. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: there is really no discussion possible on these issues. You said If you're trying to say conservatives would admire that. I pointed out in that thread about Tate that we put a former kidnapper on the main page but only highlighted the thing we wanted people to know. People are in an echo chamber much of the time here. We did not have to be positive about Tate, we just had to not be negative. You have stated over and over that was not possible. Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Lightburst, long discussion, I'm not following...what have I said over and over wasn't possible?

And is the hook about Baker any less negative than the one we ran about Tate? To be clear, I don't think that was a particularly interesting hook, but it's certainly not positive. It says she was imprisoned for thirty years. The fact she was transgender was purely context (and is the part I kind of find boring...so what?) And I certainly don't admire her or want to treat her kindly simply because she's transgender. She's clearly a horrible person in many ways. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the case, as I said at ANI. Yes, the best thing would have been not to run the hook at all, but given that we did, if we bent over backwards to find a not-negative one, given that the vast majority of reliable sources about Tate are negative (for quite obvious reasons), then we're not serving the readers anyway because we're misrepresenting the article. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Not running Tate at all was actually my preferred option and was suggested by some editors, but it was never going to reach consensus due to DYK's general reluctance to reject nominations especially if they're salvageable. Plus it would seem unfair to the nominator to not allow it to run despite their hard work, going back to the "sunk cost" mention above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Do we have a WP:DYK/null rule? If not, maybe should have one? "If all reviewing editors cannot agree to run a hook on a controversial topic, and at least one editor recommends invoking the null rule, then without 100% agreement, the hook(s) should be discarded and the nomination should be closed as not promoted." Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That is not a good option and seems unworkable. We have editors that would kill topics. If you have been on here any length of time you will see that we are not at 100% for anything. Lightburst (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I did stipulate controversial, and if you look at the nominations, 90% appear non-controversial. Of the controversial noms, 90% of those appear to have full agreement on the hooks that are chosen. Tate was highly controversial and did not have anything approaching consensus or agreement. A null rule would give people the ability to default to discard instead of what we have now, which is defaulting to approval (for the reasons mentioned elsewhere in this discussion). Another proposed solution is to think about implementing a temporal embargo, as there is an inverse relationship between controversy and the length of time a hook claim has been in circulation; although there are exceptions to such a thing, as the Reagan and AIDS discussion showed. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I could see needing X% support in cases of controversial nominations. Valereee (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Context is important here, I didn't propose the hook that ran. I had also long given up on the nomination and discussion, believing it was better avoided, long before the hook was approved. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

For instance right now there is an image of a man in a dress on the main page. Do you think some readers may find that offensive? We force our views all the time.

History is a great subject that more people should study. One of the first things you learn about the history of fashion is that men have been wearing dresses, skirts, and tights since the beginning of civilization. Viriditas (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't find a photo of a "man in a dress" anywhere. I see a non-binary person in a dress whose article makes no mention of them currently being a man, only that they won awards nearly a decade ago under the category "male". Or are you misgendering them? Funny, for some reason I was under the impression you had less social capital than other users and would be blocked for insulting or otherwise being rude to people, which misgendering certainly is (even if they're not a Wikipedian). Sincerely, Dilettante 16:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting. I'm sorry for the rude tone and it won't happen again

@Dilettante, this reads as angry and sarcastic. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but could you please try to edit yourself? This is a collaborative project. Valereee (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Easy. ... that the celebrity doctor Nandipha Magudumana was imprisoned and investigated for twelve crimes, including murder connected to a fugitive's prison escape? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That one is a bad hook that should not have been posted (thank you for reporting it at ERRORS). It is already clearly prohibited by the current rules, so it is not a good example for changing the rules, it just shows that our review processes are too sloppy. At least four people failed to notice that this is an obvious BLPCRIME/DYKBLP violation. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

+1. I'm a little concerned this is even in the article, with Wikivoice saying "Nandipha Magudumana aided Thabo Bester to escape from the Mangaung Prison"...she hasn't been convicted? And also in Wikivoice that she "abandoned her family"? Ping to Dxneo. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dxneo, you wrote (at a user talk) I thought the DYK error on Dr Nandipha was addressed the very same day it was removed from the main page. Why is it referenced here again?; taking to that article talk. Valereee (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, I expect there are quite a few people who would argue this passes DYKBLP. The recent RS coverage of Dr. Magudamana is largely negative. At least for some, this means we should only run a negative hook (lest we violate the ever-unerring, ever-applicable policy known as NPOV; perish the thought of IAR), or at least that's what they said about Tate. The fact is that DYKBLP allows for far too many interpretations—some (including mine) would clearly prevent both the Tate hook and this one; some would allow both to be posted.

The BLPCRIME issue is outside the scope of this discussion, but from what I can tell, Dr. Magudamana was a public figure in South Africa prior to the criminal charges. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting. And for the second time I'm seeing what seems to be sarcasm. Maybe we should take this to your user talk. Valereee (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I've opened a section there. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Replying there. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I am a strong believer in "innocent until proved guilty", and I do not think we should ever run any hook about living people accused of crimes, and have made it very clear that such a hook would be unacceptable for Andrew Tate. The BLPCRIME policy basically tells us to include content accusing people of crimes only when it is unavoidable, and so it can't ever happen in DYK hooks. This is not even a matter of DYKBLP. —Kusma (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The DYK volunteers are a dedicated and capable group of volunteers. I've been following this thread, and the one over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_issues_with_Andrew_Tate_DYK_hook. We did nothing wrong. The process works. Let's stop the self-flagellation and move forward. --evrik ^(talk) 16:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your work here Evrik. I want to say we did do something wrong or there would not be such consternation across the project. It is not pandering for me to say that I appreciate the editors here. I have become a better editor from my experiences in DYK and I have also been able to evaluate GAs and new articles at NPP. I think the editors here are quality and while I have had disagreements with a few I respect them. 4meter4 for instance, was right about this situation. We should be less binary in our good vs evil opinions. I am guilty of talking at people instead of to them and of this kind of rhetorical flourish. I think we make conscious choices to promote items that fit our world view and some suggestions above are to reject those that do not. I think that It was good for us to discuss the Tate nomination. I want to note that Leeky has been absent from the conversation. Leeky is a DYK regular who we often look to for guidance, yet they were the most vociferous in arguing for a negative hook here. Thanks for the discussion Valereee I feel heard and I want to say I heard you. Lightburst (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lightburst, that's very kind, and I'm very glad you feel heard. I hope there's no question that you know I respect your input and also your point of view. Valereee (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• I also oppose any form of rule or procedure change. This was a one-off rare incident and the fact that it's so rare is a good thing. It being so rare also means it's not indicative of anything other than an odd outlier that resulted in a lot of (probably unnecessary) discussion. We can and should continue to deal with any such issues on a case by case basis. None of the methods used at DYK need to be altered. Silverseren^C 16:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think when we get expressions of concern from other community members, it's worth considering their point of view. We actively don't want to be or to be perceived as a walled garden. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• To my mind the issue here is not BLP. I just can't wrap my mind around how it could be that. I do, however think that sometimes, out of a desire to get as many pageviews as possible and/or an effort to be funny, DYK reviewers loose their way. I have submitted a number of DYKs myself and I get it, you want people to see your hard work, and a good hook makes that more likely, but this was entirely avoidable. Just because an article meets the basic criteria for DYK doesn't mean it has to be on the main page. This was brought up right at the begining of the initial review of the submission but apparently wasn't strongly considered. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  By the way I've closed the ANI thread as it was not going anywhere productive.

  And just to expand on my point, the main page is not a tabloid, bot sometimes the DYK hooks feel like they are slipping into clickbait territory. Case in point from yesterday:"that singer Frank Croxton performed a duet with his father for the unveiling of a monument to a Confederate States Army general?" Technically true, but somewhat deceptive as it was basically a burial marker, in a cemetery, at the gravesite of the general in his hometown, in 1895, but the way it is worded implies the imagery of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and their pushing of Confederate monuments in public places. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Some of us also follow WO and I can see this critical tidbit is from the WO thread ClusterF%$ck dujour where they skewer DYK daily. The fact that you are still in there jostling around with the anti-wiki folks and then closing discussion about one of their favorite members is a travesty. Lightburst (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Everyone at ANI is ipso facto jostling around with pro-wiki folks, and I think it's fair to say ATG was one of our most controversial members yesterday. Is it a travesty that an enwikipedian closed the thread? Should only people with no involvement with both enwiki and Wikipediocracy close threads? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  One person's interesting hook is another's click-bait. --evrik ^(talk) 22:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  My point is that I don't think the purpose of DYK is for those composing the hooks to show everyone how very clever they are, nor is it to titilate. It shoudn't be, anyway. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think it was a mistake to shut down everything, @Just Step Sideways. No discussion here can result in any sanction for ATG. Valereee (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Here's just minutes ago AndyTheGrump accusing DYK of intentionally "making it harder for outsiders to participate", Just Step Sideways. Valereee (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  That no admin had issued a 24-hour block after 48 hours of discussion indicated to me that a block was not going to be forthcoming. I've not personally taken a position on whether one was warranted or not, but issuing it days after the offending remark just seemed very unlikely. And the issue under discussion was personal attacks, the link you provide doesn't seem to be directed at a specific person and is not otherwise uncivil. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  That is not a reason to shut down the entire discussion. Valereee (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Obviously I don't agree, but also this is not the subject of this discussion. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Just Step Sideways: Geez it was open less than two days. Why on earth are you closing? when I was being discussed at ANI it was open for two weeks. There was a support viote just hours ago. I feel like this was not appropriate. I also want to say that you are quite involved with ATG at WO so you are 100% the wrong person to close that discussion. Suggest you back out your close. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Guess I should've blocked him right off the bat like I almost did, instead of allowing for discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, that probably would've been better. I can't really recall another time I've seen a discusion of issuing a 24-hour block go on for two days with no admin willing to issue the block. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I'd necessarily disagree myself, with hindsight. I'd probably still consider the block improper, but it might have encouraged me to try to get a little more sleep. For the record though, I'd draw people's attention to ScottishFinnishRadish's warning on my talk page. [2] Even if anyone else is under the impression that I'm somehow getting away with my unwise comments without potential consequence, I'm most definitely not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  And yet just minutes ago you accused this entire project of intentionally "making it harder for outsiders to participate", @AndyTheGrump. I'm thinking you think you got away with something. Up until then I was in a forgiving and forgetting mindset. Valereee (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, I'd expand that comment to cover Wikipedia as a whole, so singling out DYK for it was probably unfair. If I were inclined, I could probably write a 4000-word essay on why I think Wikipedia actually needs to make things hard for outsiders to participate in order to function at all. So yes, I have negative opinions about DYK, and per my limited qualifications as a former anthropology student, I'd find it difficult to argue that such apparent obstructionism wasn't the consequence of human agency. 'Intent' is perhaps harder to pin down, so perhaps I should retract that suggestion, and instead ascribe it to an emergent property of collective behaviour, rather than to the intentions of individuals. The end result is the same though - trying to figure out who said what, and when, and how exactly collective decisions were arrived at - if they were actually arrived at at all - is nigh-on impossible to discern without reading everything three times, and hoping that one hasn't missed another discussion somewhere else that makes sense of it all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  That wasn't the only proposal in that discussion. IMO a 24-hr block is almost always silly unless it's a case of high passion edit-war that people just need to sleep on and get less crazy about. Even then I'd rather see a p-block. Valereee (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Discussion and voting was continuous, and I have left a message on JSS talk page. The close was not appropriate and involved. I will ask for an admin review if JSS does not back it out. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Is that a controversial hook? The subject matter of the article, by its very nature, is controversial, but that hook seems sufficiently neutral without going overboard in its wording or POV on one side or the other. Silverseren^C 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know what is a controversial hook anymore. Personally, I wouldn't have said that the Frank Croxton hook mentioned above was anywhere close to "tabloidy", but Just Step Sideways clearly felt different. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That nonsense came from WO. I started an AN discussion which mentions the ANI close and the banter on WO. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's possible the long winding discussion might be a put-off, I've crossed off the old alts and restated ALT3 at the bottom of the page, which might help. CMD (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@ AirshipJungleman29 I don't think it was "tabloidy" either. I wrote the Croxton article and that hook (although it was altered slightly without my knowledge). I never made the connection in my mind to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy when writing it... I pulled the hook fact directly from the cited source, which is why the hook fact ran. It was entirely accurate, and frankly I only suggested it because of the trend at DYK to call many proposed hooks about opera/classical music boring. It seems like hooks following something personal about classical singers tend to get chosen more and pass DYK review. That's the only reason why I picked that event as a hook. This is a case where someone's own experiences reading on a particular topic has shaped their perception, expectations, and assumptions about not only the hook but also the hook's author.4meter4 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That nonsense came from WO. is a pretty funny accusation to make, as if WO is pulling my strings, when, as Lighburst is perfectly aware, I was the one who raised the point over there. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That David Ben Avraham hook is redundant. Posthumously means after he died. If we need 'was killed' for context -- which I'm not sure we do -- then we can get rid of posthumously. Pinging Makeandtoss Valereee (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Just Step Sideways: cemeteries are public places in that context, where do you get the idea that this doesn't fall within the Lost Cause from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's a grave marker, at the person's actual grave. I don't doubt that it got the attention it did at the time because of whose grave it was, but it doesn't feel like the same thing as putting up a giant statue of him riding on the horse in the town square. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Grave markers at the persons actual grave are the majority of Lost Cause monument... It is exactly the same thing, with all due respect you have no clue what you're talking about and are just completely wrong (about the historical fact, I don't have the same qualms with your actual wiki argument). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  "it was basically a burial marker" Levivich (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. DYK community, please read and participate in the related topic thread Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Future RFC on BLPs at DYK. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination bot glitch

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

Notification of nominators

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

I would support a requirement for pings, such as when I modify hooks post-promotion per WP:DYKTRIM, but I think notifications on user talk is a bit excessive in both instances. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems excessive until you start looking at how many hooks are modified in prep with no notification to anyone. One single person making sometimes major changes unilaterally. A hook of mine about Martin Luther King was changed to use BrEng date format. Valereee (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Anyone want to draw up a helpful notification template? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's actually two discussions, I suppose. Discussions vs. modifications. We've asked people modifying to ping, and they simply don't do it. Discussions are a second issue. Most discussions probably do include pings, often to not only nominators but also reviewers and promoters. Some slip through. Valereee (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Revised. We can deal with the annoying problem of revisions in prep later. This one's more important. Valereee (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest. I try to ping people (the nominator, the approver, and the promoter), but it's just too much of a pain so sometimes I don't bother. Many people have signatures that don't match their user names, so you have to click through to their user page to be sure. RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think basic effort is enough. If someone has a difficult-to-ping username and it gets mangled, that's on them. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What about simply posting a notification on the template page of the DYK nomination? Such as "There is an active discussion about this nomination link here". The nomination may concern more than just the nominee, and saves the issue of pinging users. If the nominee isn't watching the page then that's their own problem really. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's an extra step, whether the change is made in prep/queue or bringing it to talk here. Pings can be done in the edit summary of changes in prep/queue, or they can be done in the post on talk. Valereee (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, then 100%, unequivocal support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support The preface to this is a discussion elsewhere and issues I raised regarding an entire discussion occurring without my knowledge as the nominee (no notification or reference on template page). So I support and appreciate the efforts these two users are currently making on this matter, as some pings definitely slip through. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Definitely support. I'm rather surprised this hasn't been made a requirement years ago. If you're discussing someone's content (or actions), it should be required that you notify them. Just like what ANI requires. Silverseren^C 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's a perfect example of what I was talking about. If I click on the signature just above, I get to a page which ostensibly belongs to User:Silver seren, but when I copy-paste that, I get a broken ping. Why did you have to install some fancy CSS on your user page that makes it harder for people to communicate with you? RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that one's on you RoySmith—the {{u}} ping system doesn't use the "User:", so {{u|Silver seren}} should work, but the above doesn't. That said, I have definitely seen someone try to ping Silverseren (no space) before, which didn't work, so they might want to adjust the signature a little. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

But Silverseren isn't Silverseren. It's Silver seren. Valereee (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

And I agree with this, @Silver seren. If you want pings, make your username easy to ping. Valereee (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Whenever I ping someone, I just copy paste their username from their HTML signature, to make sure it's right. Since plenty of people have signatures that aren't their exact username. Also, RoySmith, the link you made there uses {{u}} wrong. The link you made is User:User:Silver seren because User: isn't a part of that template. As a direct link, without ping, User:Silver seren works perfectly fine. Silverseren^C 01:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I got that I shouldn't have pasted the user: But the gist of my point was that some people have signatures that don't match their username and that makes it a pain to ping them. RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, some of us have no idea what "copy paste their username from their HTML signature" means. And that's not something we expect people to know. What I do when I really want to make sure is click to the user page, copy from there, and come back to paste. But we don't expect people to go to that much trouble either. If you want pings, make pings easy. Valereee (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I have boldly added a line to WP:DYKTRIM, although I'm not entirely satisfied with the wording. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Which I removed due to lack of consensus. RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably need more input. I (obviously) think this is what we should do, but we can't require it without consensus. I'd support adding it as 'best practices' until then, though, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Valereee (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support enforcing pings - actually on user talk doesn't seem excessive to me. If people want to tinker with hooks (and many do), they should do it earlier in the process. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment it should be a best practice and not an absolute requirement. --evrik ^(talk) 02:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  So insinuations of running a PR campaign for a BLP or bad faith nominations can go unchallenged by the nominee then, if they are not notified of the discussion, for example? CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment agree with Evrik. We do have many rules and guidelines already. Bruxton (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support Nominators should be involved with their DYK hook nomination every step of the way, and having them be pinged in these discussions ensures that they involve themselves in addressing issues as soon as possible. Being pinged to be notified of DYK statuses is a regular expectation of the DYK process anyways despite what some may suggest. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like a no-brainer and would help avoid confusion and needless discussions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Nominators and reviewers should probably be pinged as best practice, but like some above hesitant to write it into a rule, for risk of ending up with AN/I-like situations where the initial comments are all make sure you ping. Other examples exist, it is probably best practice to link to the nom page, but I am not sure making it a rule would help. CMD (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• I am trying hard to do this (usually I want nominator input when I raise an issue), but let us keep it a suggestion and not a must-do rule. (I.e. if an admin forgets to ping the nominator, then the next person who sees the thread should just do the pings instead of berating the admin for Not Following The Rules; DYK admin work is unfun enough already). Also, would/should something like the mention (by Valereee) of the butt implant rumor nomination somewhere above require a ping? —Kusma (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  In an ideal world, we would have an easier way to raise an issue with a hook in a prep or queue. I need to copy the hook, link to the nom and the prep/queue, and figure out who the nominator(s) and other involved people are and ping them, all of this in addition to explaining my query. Admin queries are far too common to be this cumbersome. (In an ideal world, QPQ reviews would catch all of these issues and we would not need to discuss whether or not to ping). —Kusma (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  A bot could do that, I'd think. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Snow close.--Launchballer 15:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

---

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

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

There should be discussion before an RfC, and I feel confident it would quickly find that we should not ban all DYK hooks from India. CMD (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This follows the recent extensive discussions here and at ANI. Looking for the most recent hook from India, this seems to be Asha Sobhana. That's not tagged as a contentious topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I don't recall in those extensive discussions someone proposing the idea that all articles falling under CTOPICS should be banned, let along there being specific discussion on that question. There has been a suggestion to restrict BLPs, but that is only one of the many CTOPICS. CMD (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to emphasise what I said below, any editor is free to add {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} to Talk:Asha Sobhana if they so desire. I mean I could do it right now. I'm not going to in part since some may argue it's WP:POINT. I'd disagree on that since it's not disruptive to do so considering the DYK has already run and there's no harm in having the notice there; but it also doesn't seem to be that important to have a notice so better to just tell and don't show. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

We have lots of BLPs about sportmen and women like this. If such a template is added, at what point are constraints like 1RR and ECP activated? And at what point do you have to notify editors per the awareness clause? As this stuff seems quite bitey, it's good to understand it. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is unclear. Are you talking about "controversial topics" or about Wikipedia:Contentious topics? I definitely oppose any restriction on "controversial topics" because almost anything can be controversial (for example, anything with shock value or involving sex or crime or religion). —Kusma (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly not ready for RfC, so I have removed the RfC tag. —Kusma (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was quite clear that this meant those topics which are formally tagged as CT per WP:CTOP. I have revised the text to make this clearer. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Just for clarity, you are aware that anyone is free to tag any article where CT applies with the Template:Contentious topics/talk notice? There is no "formal" process for doing so, the only thing that really matter is whether CT applies so it can be done to any BLP to give one example. Normally this is no big deal since CT applies regardless of the notice, but your proposal makes it a big deal. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The specific example which sparked this was Killing of David Ben Avraham -- someone said they wouldn't promote this to DYK because touching it was too dangerous. The talk page for that has an {{ARBPIA}} template which says: "The contentious topics procedure applies to this article." and goes on to explain that WP:ECP and WP:1RR applies. It's this level of CT that I intended to cover. It's news to me that any BLP at all can be tagged in this draconian way and that bit of WP:CREEP seems to have happened at the end of 2022. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at talk:Andrew Tate, as that's been the main bone of contention lately, it has a {{controversial}} template which just seems mildly informational and a {{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} which is the full monty. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Biographies of living people are a contentious topic — are we really going to ban these from DYK? Multiple contentious topics are completely fine to be shown at DYK, we can't just ban all of them out of nowhere. Skyshiftertalk 12:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topics include all biographies of living people, India, Pakistan, Iranian politics, Sri Lanka, anything related to post-1992 US politics, COVID-19, Eastern Europe, gender and sexuality and climate change. Disallowing so many large content areas is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. —Kusma (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No, BLPs are not all contentious topics -- they are a different class of topic per WP:BLP. Excluding all BLPs would be a much bigger deal. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You are aware that "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles are designated as a contentious topic." (Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons)? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

That is not a good solution either: new articles could still be nominated before anyone has had the chance to add a CT notice. The presence or absence of the CT notice at the time of nomination has very little to do with the contentiousness of the actual article and DYK hook. —Kusma (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is certainly true that CT's are more difficult to write about, which often means they involve more work to process at DYK (see Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war for another recent example). But that's not a reason to blanket ban them from DYK. RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. I suppose there could be some way of flagging CTOP entries for review, but let's face it the vast majority of hooks related to CTOPs are completely unremarkable (especially as, technically, all BLPs fall under that flag). And, as we saw with Tate, most controversial issues arrive here anyway for discussion. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Absolutely not. This is too large a category to exclude. Toa Nidhiki05 13:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: as long as the article is in good shape (which includes a neutral point of view) and the proposed hook is not a contentious or controversial claim, a contentious topic article should be an article like any other for the DYK process (and for all article-related processes such as AFC, PR, GAN, FAC, etc; for that matter). Cambalachero (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest a snow close - The proposal is simply too broad. Now I know we just had a few discussions about contentious topics on DYK, including one that's ongoing, but I am not convinced that a blanket ban is the solution. It should probably be a case-by-case thing. Plus, having blanket bans would be unfair to editors who worked hard to bring the article to a good state if not create it, only to be told their efforts cannot be incentivized just because of the subject matter. There are times when precisely due to an article's subject it's not a good fit for DYK, but they are the exception and not the rule and we shouldn't have any strict rules about them. I know this discussion has only been up for a few hours but I would suggest closing this as soon as possible as this simply will not go anywhere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Future RFC on BLPs at DYK

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

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

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 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 specific proposed changes based on WP:CONSENSUS input.

• 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. I want to make sure we leave room to ask additional questions for community input if needed before moving on to proposals.

Proposals

• Proposals should come out of the discussion resulting from the above questions. I am not going to go in with a set list of proposals because I think these should come directly from the community input to the RFC questions. The goal of this RFC is to improve DYK's review process as it relates to BLPs in order to assist DYK and its volunteers in being consistently compliant with WP:BLP policy and prevent conflicts at DYK review on BLPs. Once a proposal has been made we will vote and arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS on each individual proposal.

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

Suggestions on RFC construction

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

Evidence

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

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

Negative BLPs that were promoted to the main page without issue

Incident	Year	Hook/comments	Discussion
Murder of Jiang Ge	2024	... that the murder of Jiang Ge led to public debate in China over the actions of Jiang's roommate during her murder? The living person in question is Liu Xin, mentioned in the hook and discussed at length in the article.	Raised at ERRORS but no response: [3]
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: [4]

One of mine: Diether Dehm, see Template:Did you know nominations/Diether Dehm. A 2020 nomination where the less negative of two hooks was chosen, but certainly both can be understood as saying something negative about a living person. Not my best hook and not my best article, but it ran without controversy (and did not attract a lot of views). Not sure how to put this into the table, sorry! —Kusma (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Negative BLPs that were pulled from the main page

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A DYK on the death of actress Gemma McCluskie, posted only three weeks after her 2012 murder: ANI thread:[5] Talk:DYK thread:[6] I hope that it shouldn't prove necessary here to point out what WP:BLP says (and said in 2012) about taking consideration for friends and relatives etc of the recently deceased, the need to avoid tabloid-style sensationalism, and all the other obvious issues with this DYK. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC) I'm not sure an issue from twelve years ago is relevant now? Except to show Andy's been calling people names for at least that long. Maybe we should concentrate on the past year or two? Valereee (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC) This is from 2012, and shows that there is a long-standing issue with AndyTheGrump. It is an inappropriate hook sensationalising a murder, not a "negative hook about a BLP". —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Attempts to stifle discussion of long-term systemic issues with DYK duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Andy, I don't think anyone would disagree these were bad. But let's focus on today's issues. Valereee (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Not without clear and unambiguous evidence that DYK has undergone systemic changes which would prevent a recurrence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC) So is it your intention to bring in here as evidence every DYK you've ever objected to in the past 12+ years? Because I think your strategy would be counterproductive to fixing the problem. Something that has been pointed out to you before, including very recently. Valereee (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC) It is my intention to respond to the request made in this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Which means you're going to completely jam up this apparently well-intentioned RfC by someone who agrees with you. Okay. Valereee (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC) That's exactly what is happening. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC) If it hasn't happened in twelve years then it's not a recurring problem. This is why 12-year-old evidence sucks. Levivich (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC) How about actually waiting to see what other evidence is offered before dismissing it? I am still under the impression that this request for such evidence was made in good faith, even if some would apparently prefer to exclude anything they would prefer not to get scrutiny. Let other contributors provide their own evidence. If mine is all there is (which seems unlikely) you can then argue that there isn't a systemin problem. And no, I have no intention of bringing 'every DYK I've ever objected to in the past 12+ years' here. I brought up two, because they were clearly relevant to a discussion which seems on the face of it to be focussed around adressing systemic issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Do you have a suggestion how to get people to review more properly? Your method seems to be to reduce the number of DYK volunteers by insulting them. If you want to help, please review nominations and double check prep sets. All kind of issues are occasionally caught only at the prep-to-queue stage or at ERRORS. Some of them are comparatively minor (like repeating incorrect claims about "X was the first Y to do Z" from sources), others are bad (copyvios) or really bad (accusing BLPs of crimes that they have not been convicted for). It can be exhausting to check everything, and we do not have enough admins doing it. We need more (non-admin) eyes on the prep sets and queues. Yelling at volunteers like you do has as its most likely effect a reduction in our number of capable volunteers. Please stop making DYK worse and start helping to make it better. —Kusma (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please note that I have raised the improper hatting above, along with what appears to be a more general attempt to prevent legitimate participation in this thread at WP:ANI. [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

@4meter4, maybe put the information into a sortable table so people can at least sort by age? Valereee (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

If an editor skilled in templates wants to take that on, more power to them. I am not the best at table design.4meter4 (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I am probably the editor least skilled in templates in any discussion on this page, so if anyone wants to fix whatever I did wrong, please do. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Incident	Year	Hook/comments	Discussion
Gemma McCluskie	2012	Concerns about recently deceased BLP violation	ANI thread:[8] Talk:DYK thread:[9]
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: [10] Article at the time of promotion: [11]

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	Discussion
Sarah Jane Baker	2023		WT:DYK discussion: [12]
Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman	2024	Pulled from queue and then rejected, in part due to BLP concerns.	WT:DYK: [13]
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: [14]
Lil Tay	2023	Pulled from prep due to poor sourcing of negative information in the article.	WT:DYK: [15]
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: [16]
Child abuse in association football	2023	Pulled from queue for various reasons, one of which was BLPCRIME concerns.	WT:DYK: [17]

• I'm not sure how to add it to the table, and technically it was a BDP and not a BLP, but Killing of David Ben Avraham might be of relevance here even if it being contentious had more to do with IP rather than BLP per-se. Just leaving it here for the record. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Negative BLPs that were contentious during review but not rejected

Incident	Year	Hook/comments	Discussion

Negative BLPs that were contentious during review and rejected

Incident	Year	Hook/comments	Discussion

Other kinds of BLP violation concerns in DYK hooks

Incident	Year	Hook/comments	Discussion
HorsegiirL	2024	Pulled from prep; original hook used the article subject's real name against their wishes	WT:DYK: [18]

Evidence discussion

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

Other issues

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

A DYK on the 'Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu' was finally pulled in prep, just before it was due to go live, back in 2013. But only after a WP:BLPN thread, and another on WP:ANI, brought the matter to the attention of the broader community, DYK regulars having entirely failed to notice the numerous issues. The DYK stated as fact that this individual had been 'cooked in a curry'. This assertion was sourced in the article to a food blog. Note that not only have there have been no convictions for this alleged murder, it has never even been determined that Marithamuthu was murdered (or, apparently, that he is even dead at all), never mind being disposed of in this bizarre manner.

BLPN thread :[19]

ANI thread:[20]

Talk DYK thread:[21]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Again over a decade ago. Maybe let's focus on current issues instead of playing Andy's Greatest Hits? Valereee (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Not without clear and unambiguous evidence that DYK has undergone systemic changes which would prevent a recurrence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, I mean this absolutely sincerely: why? If we want to fix now, let's focus on now. Valereee (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "let’s hold DYK hostage until it gives into our demands" tactic. I originally suspected the Tate nomination would lead to this, regardless of the hook. This tactic is popular in some sectors, and it’s the preferred strategy of conservative legal activists who have used it to try and control the Supreme Court and get them to rule in their favor by bringing artificial cases for them to rule on. Viriditas (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I go away for a few hours and it looks like a cyclone came through here. Maybe we need to close out some of these threads? There were relevant comments by others but I cannot even find them. I am seeing ATG throw a tantrum in here and at ANI. I agree with Kusma's advice in the hatted discussion Your method seems to be to reduce the number of DYK volunteers by insulting them. If you want to help, please review nominations and double check prep sets. This method of damning the volunteers and their ineptitude is not going to have the desired effect. Lightburst (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump Undoubtedly, DYK has failed in other areas on occasion, but we can not handle every issue all at once. This RFC has a very specific focus. Please keep your examples limited to the specific topic area of this RFC. We are not looking at hooks that involve people who are dead, only those who are alive because the focus of this RFC is WP:BLP policy as it relates to WP:DYK. We have to keep the RFC. focused or it won't work and will be closed without any productive work being done. We can always look at another policy area in another RFC if it is needed. At this time, BLP issues have been the most consistent point of contention within the project which is why this RFC is needed. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As I stated above, it hasn't been established that Ayakannu Marithamuthu is actually dead. And both in 2013, and now, claiming, without proper sourcing that a named individual cooked another named individual in a curry to dispose of their body is clearly and unambiguously a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a consensus in this discussion to only stick to recent evidence. Since Wikipedia runs by consensus, you're beholden to it. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I see no evidence whatsoever that there has been any sort of discussion sufficient to reach such a 'consensus'. And if there has, it should probably be brought to the attention of the broader Wikipedia community, who may very well have a differing opinion as to what is or isn't relevant to a discussion on the sort of systemic issues that this thread was apparently created to tackle. If we can't discuss it here, perhaps we need to do so in an environment where certain individuals cannot reject evidence because they don't like it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks isn't conducive to an RFC. Old evidence isn't helping us. If you want to study a problem and find a potential solution, you first have to ask the right question based on a set of assumed values. The evidence cannot tell you if those values are good or bad, it can only help you arrive at a solution you already agree is useful or helpful. Old evidence doesn't get us any closer to this answer. The majority of the respondents to this discussion have asked you to provide current evidence only. I'm asking you as well. Viriditas (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things. Valereee (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Andy, I'm trying to assume good faith, but it feels like you're torpedoing this effort, which seriously is making me wonder whether your actual intent is to prove DYK problems can't be fixed. I'm really sorry to say this. I think you're a well-intentioned editor. But it feels like...well, almost sabotage. I'm sure if anything it's subconscious, I know you'd never actually want to do that. This editor seems to be making a good-faith effort. Valereee (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I believe BLP is kind of incidental here, and not the underlying issue. DYK has three major problems:

• QPQ reviewers sometimes do not check the article and hook for policy compliance
• Prep builders sometimes promote the hook to prep without checking for policy compliance, assuming the QPQ reviewer did their job
• Admins sometimes promote the prep to queue without checking for policy compliance, assuming the QPQ reviewer and prep builder have done their jobs.

When these three problems occur at the same time, errors slip through and we end up violating BLP, NPOV, copyrights or other core policies on the Main Page. Additional rules will not help as long as people skip the checks for rule compliance. —Kusma (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Everything you've said is true, but it ignores the fundamental question that has been asked in previous discussions up above, namely, are all nominations suitable for DYK? Because right now, the problem is that we default to approve, even if people don't think it should run, instead of to discard, of which there is no mechanism to facilitate such a decision other than letting it time out, which rarely happens. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think having strict timeout rules would make it a lot easier to remove bad noms (for any reason) and would be worth trying, but I do not anticipate this to become community consensus. —Kusma (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• A different example of a BLP problem: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_197#Pulled_Template:Did_you_know_nominations/HorsegiirL, which I pulled from prep because of a WP:BLPPRIVACY issue, see Talk:HorsegiirL. Things do not have to be "negative" to be a BLP issue at DYK. —Kusma (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma This is a good point. I created an "other kinds" section for evidence. Please add that as an example to that section. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• The evidence categories seem too limited and debatable. For example, consider the case of Jimmy Carter who is remarkably still with us. In that case, several issues were raised at WP:ERRORS about a hook about him and multiple changes were made to the hook. That's often how it goes down – a discussion at WP:ERRORS and then a variety of possible outcomes. Pulling is not the only possibility. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Here's a list of cases from my records which I'll compile as I come across them:

1. Jimmy Carter
2. Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales
3. Murder of Alexis Sharkey
4. Mick Jagger
5. "35 people, including the President, First Lady, three senators, and a governor"

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

These probably belong in the tables above if we want people to consider them, rather than in "Other issues"? Valereee (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson I created an "other kinds" of BLP violations section. Please add these. If there is another section you think we should create, I am open. This structure was not intended to limit us, I was just intending to get the ball rolling. If we need to expand (provided we stay focused on BLPs) we can. Thanks for participating.4meter4 (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm just getting started and gathering the raw data should come before attempts to classify it. My current impression is that examples are easy to find and so it's just a matter of looking. I looked at the current DYK set and immediately found two examples which I have reported at WP:ERRORS. What happens there is usually quite haphazard so we'll see how it goes. These fresh examples indicates that DYK is paying no particular attention to whether the topic is a BLP or MEDRS matter. As these are both quite serious, the checklist or other processing templates should highlight these aspects for special scrutiny. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

These are instructive discussions, so here is a permanent link. There seems to be no general agreement as to what constitutes a "negative hook"; any attempts to outlaw these would require more precise language than "negative". Was the Andrew Tate hook negative? Or was it allowing him to advertise his misogynist agenda? Was it both? —Kusma (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The big problem with WP:ERRORS is that it's ephemeral and doesn't maintain archives or any kind of project files. That's why I record some completed discussions in my personal archives but just those that I took an interest in.

DYK keeps archives of its discussions and trawling through those with keywords like "BLP" will probably yield many more examples. As these issues are quite subjective, it may be good for DYK to keep a list of controversial cases, like it keeps a list of hooks which did well.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

There was additionally this query at WP:ERRORS (basically a question about sourcing and whether Tate saying he has been quoted out of context means that any quotes of what Tate has said are unreliable). Overall, I think the community did not care much until ATG saw it as an opportunity to insult DYKers. —Kusma (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"No BLP" rule

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

---

• Adding this here for discussion because Andy and others are trying to propose it, so I'm just anticipating their future proposal. I can't say that I really oppose or support it, but I think we should start discussing it now rather than later. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't recall making any such proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It would certainly get rid of a lot of articles about minor sportspeople or opera performers. —Kusma (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

While BLP-related DYKs have clearly been amongst the most problematic, I'm not sure this is necessarily the best approach. To me, the underlying systemic issues are often more to do with the 'how' than the 'what' when it comes to DYKs. The problem lies in the process, more than the subject matter. Poor sourcing, poor judgement, and what appears to be an overwhelming concern to get something on the main page at any cost - even without proper agreement as to what - can happen with any topic. So yes, BLP-related material absolutely needs to be treated with great care, and if DYK can't do that, it shouldn't be permitted to, but that won't make the remaining problems go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

One of the biggest issues with DYK has always been the reluctance to reject nominations. We really should be more willing to do so if it's for a good reason (not necessarily BLP related), but most of us do not want to hurt editor feelings, and in several instances editors are reluctant to let their hooks be rejected without a fight. Indeed in some cases, nomination pages for articles that may not have been good fit for DYK ended up being longer than the article itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

As others have said, a blanket ban on BLPs on DYK will do more harm than good. Most BLP DYKs are uncontroversial and it would be overkill to throw the baby out of the bathwater, or to do something drastic just because of a few bad apples. It would be deeply unfair to ban DYKs just because of a handful of controversial cases, especially when in these cases the issues had more to do with a lack of proper enforcement of rules rather an issue with them being BLPs themselves. Banning BLPs should be an absolute last resort, not a first resort: instead we should focus on improving enforcement or trying other proposals like automatically timing-out stuck nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• This would be a sensible option in an omnibus RfC because it seems likely that some BLP-hawks might support it. The main complication is that almost any page is within the scope of BLP – not just biographies. The page just needs to involve living people in some way to qualify. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• I sincerely hope a BLP topic ban isn't proposed. That seems a disproportionate response as the vast majority of hooks on BLPs are non-controversial. My hope is to see some limits placed on DYK in recognition of the challenges of meeting WP:BLPBALANCE within the DYK hook format. My own suggestion would be banning all negative hooks on BLPs. If we don't have something nice to say on a BLP we don't run it. It's as simple as that. A DYK hook doesn't have the space for contextualizing complex topics/controversies, displaying nuance, or providing balance within a single one sentence question.4meter4 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would oppose your simple suggestion "banning all negative hooks on BLPs", unless there is also wording that bans BLPs primarily focused on negative information about the subject altogether. I do not want to see us making happy feel-good hooks about bad people because hooks that more accurately represent those people are banned. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

David Eppstein You are welcome to propose that, and I can sympathize with that position. It may have been better to not run a hook on Tate for example, for that reason. That said, I'm not as concerned with presenting positive facts about people as I am negative ones because the risk of doing harm is not as high. I also have reservations about that as a policy because it provides a subjective moral judgment element into the review process. It's usually easy to identify a negative hook about a BLP, and making that call doesn't require that we evaluate whether the person is good or bad. It's harder the other way, where we have to evaluate is this a good person and do they deserve to be featured at DYK? I could see a lot of POV pushing and politics motivated decision making coming into play on this latter one, and that is concerning. I'm open to hearing more on that idea, but I have reservations on endorsing that within a DYK guideline. I would have to hear specifics on what that process would look like and how we prevent personal biases and politically motivated editors from sinking a DYK nom that probably should run. We have several editors with vehemently opposed ideas on the Palestine/Israel conflict active at DYK for example. I could see politics easily sabotaging a nom on a living Palestinian or Isaeli under that guideline in a way that wouldn't sit well with many people on both sides of that issue; particularly with the global increase in both islamaphobia and anti-semitism. I could even see someone like Minouche Shafik being labeled a "bad person" for political reasons. The potential for abuse within such a policy is pretty high which worries me. It smacks a bit too close to cancel culture which is not something I want to see endorsed at DYK. 4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The risk of doing harm to the article subject may not not high. The risk of triggering readers and of discrediting the encyclopedia as a whole is much higher. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I oppose establishing any future restrictions. The system works fine now. --evrik ^(talk) 00:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• I would also oppose any kind of BLP ban, if it came to that. Yes, this would theoretically solve some of the problems mentioned above, but it would also go overboard in that a large number of non-problematic BLPs would also be rejected (essentially, throwing the baby out with the bathwater). As mentioned by Andrew Davidson, such a ban could also be interpreted very broadly, to the extent that any article that talks about any living person might be subject to restrictions.
  I'd rather we try a much less drastic solution first. For example, perhaps we could allow reviewers to more easily reject BLP-violating hooks. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• I have no objection to anyone closing this thread. My purpose was to investigate the window of applicable and acceptable discourse on the proposed proscriptive approach to dealing with BLP issues on DYK. This small sample of community discussion shows that the range is narrow and that contrary to the opinions of others expressed elsewhere, there is little perceived support for a "No BLP" rule. While a larger sample may show otherwise, I want to thank those who participated. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Minor hook issue needs correction - queue 3

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

The hook is actually in Queue 3; I've amended the section header above accordingly. We have 24 hours for the fix to done. Note that the DYKmake credit already reflects the name change; however, there is no citation after the one occurrence of the name in the article as should be done (pinging BeanieFan11). This will need to be addressed; I'd like to suggest that the team name occur at least once in the body of the article, and that the new paragraph about the name and logo and such also have a citation added at the end. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Some edits were made after I had initially created the article (adding the unsourced content). I should be able to get to them soon, although I'd appreciate if someone could also make the hook change as requested. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Could we get someone to change the hook now? @Amakuru:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

BeanieFan11 that could possibly have been posted at Errors to avoid pinging all the admins. TSventon (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to GS Valkyries is, would that be correct? It's a team, not multiple Valkyries? Valereee (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Golden State Valkyries article uses are, as do Dallas Wings and Las Vegas Aces (selected at random). TSventon (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Hmm... I'm not completely certain. Though, I think I'd lean towards are as that's the format that all WNBA teams use. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't sports. I grammar. :D Using is was partly about it/they is/are the first franchise, for me. So we'd say the Indiana Fever are the first franchise, but the Indiana team is the first franchise? Valereee (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: That sounds right to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Phases of ice

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

Classy 101

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

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

@TSventon: Nop. That "her" refers to Miko, because Feid recorded that, it's mainly his song (appears on Ferxxocalipsis), despite the both singers are credited as lead artists. If it's very confusing, please, let me know. Santi (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Pollosito, what about

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

TSventon (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's better. Thank you. Santi (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm made the update. RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)