Template:Did you know nominations/Both Lives Matter

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Both Lives Matter

(

)

... that Both Lives Matter ran an ad campaign in 2017 with two billboards featuring the headline: "100,000 people are alive today because of our laws on abortion. Why change that?" Source: [1]

Reviewed: ~~coming soon~~ Template:Did you know nominations/Herr Jesu Christ, du höchstes Gut

Created by Birtig (talk) and Lionelt (talk). Nominated by Lionelt (talk) at 06:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC).

While this is new enough and (just barely) long enough, when I have a look at some of the available sources not yet included in the entry, I became concerned this page may not yet treat the subject in a sufficiently neutral way (meaning, neutrally represents the balance of reliable sources) as to meet that DYK criterion. Other neutrality concerns have also been raised on the talk page. I would advise revision/expansion to settle these issues before pursuing DYK. (You may also wish to consider an alternative hook to be sure of clearing NPOV as well~~; perhaps instead something about their winning an award for the campaign, so as~~[Please see my follow-up below] to avoid reiterating a disputed claim in a space too small to allow contextualization.) Innisfree987 (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't know what you're talking about. The article mentions that (1) 14 complaints were lodged, and (2) that the name is a ripoff of Black Lives Matter. Sounds like the article was written in a NPOV manner to me. The "concern" you refer to on talk is no longer an issue. It was resolved via consensus. Anyway, this is a DYK afterall, and the article is a step above a stub. I'm sure there's no end to the amount of "available sources." But we're only given 7 days to put this thing together. Pinging the article creator @Birtig: – Lionel^(talk) 07:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, it can be a stub but it also has to be neutral. So if a neutral treatment of a topic can’t be accomplished in the space of a stub, to me it doesn’t qualify. (As for timing the instructions do advise to create in sandbox if you’re not sure you’ll be able to do enough in time allotted.) Just for instance on missing pieces, I was quite surprised when I searched (the link in the ref is broken...) and learned the BLM criticism was about a good deal more than just the appropriation of the name. My concern regards whether relevant perspectives are sufficiently accounted for to qualify as a neutral report, given extent of controversy on the subject. But I don’t mind a bit if you request a fresh review; I’m just one editor. Cheers! Innisfree987 (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that Belfast pro-life group Both Lives Matter won the Northern Ireland Public Affairs Campaign of the Year for the "100,000" billboard campaign in its first year of operations?" Source:s "A Belfast-based pro-life group... won the Northern Ireland Public Affairs Campaign of the Year... We are stunned and delighted to have won best campaign in our first year." [2]

Ready for a new reviewer. – Lionel^(talk) 06:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment I’m sorry, I realize this hook was my suggestion but now reading a bit more into sources, I learned that actually there wasn’t any other campaign competing for the award... Had I known, I'm not sure I would have suggested the win as a good option for a fact not needing additional contextualization. The discovery also reinforces my concern the entry is not yet developed sufficiently to be confident it neutrally represents the "controversial" (source) subject. I've now added a couple things to address absences I've noticed so far, but there are a lot more sources I haven't examined.

I look forward to hearing what another/other editors think. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lionelt: I will be happy to review this for you, the fact it may be controversial is irrelevant (as WP:NOTCENSORED attests). Before I give it the full review, a number of references need their publishers added. Please ping me when this is done so I can hopefully pass it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@The C of E: thank you!!! Publishers added. – Lionel^(talk) 09:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding. Date, length and hook all OK. QPQ done, no close paraphrasing beyond the quote. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)