Jump to content

Talk:Attack on Arvind Kejriwal's residence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the Delhi High Court hearing a petition on the Attack on Delhi Chief Minister's house called the security inadequate? Source: "Security outside Delhi CM's residence during attack was inadequate: High court". Hindustan Times. 2 April 2022. Retrieved 3 April 2022.

Created by Venkat TL (talk). Self-nominated at 13:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article does not [comply] with the copyright policy. Secondly, not news also applies here. Thanks RV (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Venkat TL: I will take a look at this nomination soon. Right now, it certainly seems new enough and long enough, and it doesn't seem to explicitly violate WP:NOTNEWS.
    However, I will note that you currently have four DYK credits. WP:DYKRULES says: "If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nominator is exempt from QPQ." You have two other nominations in progress here and here. This means that if any of these nominations passes, you will no longer be exempt from QPQ, as you will have had five DYK credits.
    As regards the copyright policy, it may also be possible to trim the quotations more. The article doesn't contain a copyright violation per se, as the quotes are properly attributed. However, the non-free content guideline does advise against excessive quotations. In general, it is best to describe details in your own words wherever possible, using quotations only sparingly. Epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the quotes should probably be trimmed—an overquotation dispute tag per WP:OVERQUOTE here would be valid enough, and would need to addressed before the nomination can proceed. Also, epicgenius is correct that if you receive your fifth DYK credit before this nomination is promoted/ran, you'll have to provide a QPQ anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of now I dont have 5 DYK CREDITS, so I am exempt. What may happen in future will be addressed in future. Epicgenius I have only added quotes that I believe are adding value to the reader in understanding the incident. If you have already spotted some quote that you know that can be trimmed please post on article talk page. I will also do another survey and see if I can find something to trim. Venkat TL (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I am aware you don't have 5 DYK credits; that's why I linked to your specific DYK credit page above. I was noting that, since you have 4 credits, you have to do a QPQ if any one of the other nominations are successful; all three of these nominations cannot possibly be the fifth nomination. However, I've now noticed that there's an ongoing discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#QPQ freebies.
        Regarding quotations, there are some parts of the text that can add value to the reader if they are written in one's own words. I have no issue with quotes like "meant to subdue, by the use of force, the highest elected official in NCT of Delhi and therefore the elected Government of Delhi", as these can only be uniquely stated by one person. However, text like Today 11.30 am onwards, a dharna was started [...] Legal action is being initiated. does not seem to be particularly unique wording. I'm also concerned that the article quotes the high court petition extensively, especially as much of it (excluding the characterization of some of the participants as "goons") seems to just state facts. Epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lets not talk about HYPOTHETICAL cases. Stick to the rules and avoid speculation. We will talk about it when we reach there. If there is a consensus to do QPQ before 5 Successful DYKs I will do it. Right now I am following the existing rules. Lets move over this QPQ and discuss the article and DYK. On this page lets stick to talking about the DYK elegibility and the article improvement, please. The timing in that statement is relevant. I have Copy edited and summarize the 2 quotes. please share your feedback. Venkat TL (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • lets stick to talking about the DYK elegibility and the article improvement, please - Don't try to detract from the review, since this is germane to eligibility. You have three pending nominations; two of them will require QPQs, so you can do them now or do them later. Since we are "following existing rules", I'm going to wait until the discussion closes before determining whether a QPQ is required here, because it seems the existing rules are unclear. Regarding the quotes, there are still several sentences where using your own words is preferable to quotations. For example, the phrase "water cannons to prevent the protesters from moving forward" can be reworded, as it's just an objective fact. There are more examples of this, such as parts of the high court petition, which you can say in your own words. Epicgenius (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not detracting from the review, I am telling you to stick to the rules, which you are not. By waiting for the discussion to close, and unnecessary holding this DYK till then, you are NOT STICKING to the existing rules, but waiting in hope that the rules may change, what if the rules dont change? Please stick to the current rules irrespective of your preference of how the rules should be in future. I must remind you how the current WP:DYKRULES look quote If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nominator is exempt from QPQ. Notice, how the DYKRULES do not ask the DYK reviewrs to "hold on the DYK and wait, everytime someone has bright ideas about changing the DYK RULES." So please stop pestering me about QPQ and lets focus on the article. Thanks for the further review and feedback, I have modified those points about water cannon. Regarding the petition, I have tried copy editing them, but given up as I believe they are unique representation and cannot be summarized. I note that the reliable sources covering the incident, HINDU, NDTV etc have also quoted the petition for similar reasons, that I am facing. Venkat TL (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • I know what the DYK rules say; I quoted them at the beginning of this discussion. My point was that you would be exempt from QPQ for this article and that a QPQ would be required for future nominations. I was not saying you required it now, nor did I try to impose a "preference" or enforce a rule that didn't exist.
                Regarding the quotations, the article is a little bit better, but I think some sentences such as "Videos and photographs show that these goons casually walked through the security cordon [maintained by Delhi police], kicked and broke the boom barrier, broke the CCTVs cameras with 'lathis', threw paint on the gate of the residence and almost climbed over the gate, while Delhi police personnel simply looked on, doing little to stop the protesters" can still be rephrased. A similar issue applies to "They were carrying a small box of paint from which they threw paint at the door. In the imbroglio, a boom barrier arm was also found vandalised as also a CCTV camera." Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, of course, I will add the QPQ, when I reach 5 DYK CREDITs. Although I still feel we should use the quote, but I have followed your suggestion and copy edited those quotes in own language. Please take a look. Thanks again. Venkat TL (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems better now. There are still a few phrases such as "threw paint on the gate of the residence" that can be reworded. On the whole, the copyvio detector mainly displays quotes rather than actual copyright violations (though the quotes are quite long). I did not notice this before, but "It is pertinent to note, that in the past as well, on December 10, 2020, there was an attack on the residence of the Deputy Chief Minister by BJP Goons, where also, the Delhi Police did not take any steps to stop the attackers and thereafter failed to take any concrete criminal action against the attackers" can probably also be paraphrased. I have a suggestion for the hook: Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/delhi-high-court-seeks-status-report-on-attack-outside-cm-kejriwals-residence/article65280832.ece
Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/bjp-youth-wing-activists-attack-kejriwal-residence-damage-cctv-cameras-barriers-7844283/
This article is now at AFD, putting on hold until the AFD is resolved. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attack_on_Arvind_Kejriwal%27s_residence&oldid=1205472442"