User:Andrew Davidson/Main Page Errors/DYK

Did You Know

There are 97 entries from 2016 to 2024.

A9 dualling project

• ... that the upgrading of the A9 in Scotland between Perth and Inverness is far from being complete despite its 2025 deadline?

Multiple issues including:

1. {{citation needed}} for the hook fact
2. The project now has a deadline of 2035
3. The project is very much a work-in-progress and so WP:CRYSTAL applies
4. Delays to construction projects of this sort are common and so not remarkable
5. Per WP:DYKHOOK, DYK hooks are supposed to be definite facts which are unlikely to change.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's ask JuniperChill (as nominator), OlifanofmrTennant (as reviewer), SL93 (as promoter to prep), and Premeditated Chaos (as promoter to queue). Schwede66 07:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It appears that the article is still {{under construction}} too as there have been multiple edits to it since. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think we should pull this. The 2025 date was never a "deadline", just an initial estimated estimate of completion date, and one which isn't in place any more anyway since it was extended to 2035. This makes the hook inaccurate as it stands. The other points about it being unremarkable are a bit more subjective, but with the inaccuracy already there I don't think we should leave this in place or even bother trying to tweak it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Apart from all of the issues with the article, it's just not an interesting hook anyway. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Removed – Schwede66 09:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Admiral King

• ... that it was said Admiral Ernest J. King (pictured) was so tough he shaved with a blowtorch?

"It was said" is a blatant weasel which invites a {{who}} tag. I checked on this "popular myth" and find that the article gets it wrong. It says "I understand", Walsh told King, referring to a popular myth, "that you shave with a blowtorch." This supposed quotation appears to be wrong as another source closer to the event tells the story differently:

When another member of the party, who had apparently been well stuffed with stories by Captain Deyo between Washington and Kansas City, asked King if it were true that he was so tough that he had to shave with a blowtorch, Walsh seized upon the idea with delight.

So, by that account, it was "another member of the party" and/or Captain Deyo who said this. As the accounts differ, this is not a definite fact. The one thing that seems certain is that Admiral King did not, in fact, shave with a blowtorch. I therefore suggest this as an ALT:

• ... that Admiral Ernest J. King (pictured) did not shave with a blowtorch?

References

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have tweaked this back to more close to the signed off hook, which made clear this was a "popular myth" rather than anything remotely factual. I've also chopped the "so touch that" bit, because that isn't in the article at the location in question. It mentions him being "tough" elsewhere in the article, but that's not sufficient to link it in the hook to the blowtorch shaving IMHO. I don't really know why the "popular myth" clarifier was removed, since its addition in ALT1 was an integral part of the path to the hook being signed off. Courtesy pings to @Hawkeye7, Jeromi Mikhael, Narutolovehinata5, Hey man im josh, and Ganesha811: who were involved with this hook. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Circling back to this again, I see there was also some discussion after the nom sign-off regarding whether "popular myth" was accurate. I'd note that the second source (Klug) does say this, although the first source attributes it to a Bob Rice, who "winced" when the blowtorch myth was mentioned to King. So it's sort of complaint with WP:V with the current wording, and without even the merest implication that the blowtorch story was true. If this isn't satisfactory though, I'd think we might need to pull it. The proposed hook above saying merely that he didn't shave that way seems rather odd to me, and even that isn't explicitly what's I'm the article as we're told it was an "exaggeration".  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that this one is tricky - as you mention, I had an issue with the way it was worded, and discussed with Hawkeye on the article's talk page here. I wanted to make sure that the hook matched what was actually in the article + sources. I agree that the current hook is weasely, but I think that's a lesser sin in a DYK hook than in article prose. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced by this "lesser sin" theory. WP:DYKHOOK states that

  The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information – if the source is not willing to say the fact in its own voice, the hook should attribute back to the original source as well.

  Attributing to a weasel doesn't seem adequate. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  This isn't even a "popular myth", it's just a colorful figure of speech. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, fair enough, that seems clear. It's trickier to get the hook wording right here because there's a specific incident (the blowtorch story being mentioned to King) and the much more nebulous reality that there was a running joke/story about King that he shaved with a blowtorch, which is what the hook is intended to describe. NPS (the source used the War College web journal source) put it as "of whom it was said", which is just as indirect. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  It sounds like we're getting close to considering pulling this, or at least finding something non-blowtorch related if that can be done. Ultimately it looks like this whole thing is just a humorous anecdote amongst King's friends rather than anything really tangible anyway, so while it's a funny metaphor, it's probably not that useful as a hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think the hook made more sense as a whole when the blowtorch story was merely the illustrative example for the fact that King was "so tough", but I raised the issue on the article talk page about whether we could call King "so tough" in Wikipedia's voice, given the sourcing in the article. With that absent, the hook is a little thin, yes. I don't see much point in pulling it, personally, since I don't think there's anything inaccurate in it at present, but I'm not a DYK regular, so not sure how these things usually go. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh well I'll leave it for now then. If there are strong objections still then I can do some switcherooing...  — Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The version we have now is

• ... that according to a popular myth, Admiral Ernest J. King (pictured) shaved with a blowtorch?

The trouble with this is that it's still a weasel without clear attribution. As examples of clearer attribution, consider:

• ... that FDR wrote that a "sweet young thing" told him that "the toughest man in the Navy" (pictured) shaved every morning with a blowtorch? (source: Fleet Admiral King: A Naval Record)

• ... a daughter of Admiral Ernest J. King (pictured) said that he was "... the most even tempered person in the United States Navy. He is always in a rage.” (source: Naval History and Heritage Command)

Andrew🐉(talk) 14:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

'Ain Ghazal Statues

This has been substantially edited since it hit the main page, including a complete revision of the claim. Therefore the hook is no longer cited per the DYK criteria. The article now claims the statues are "the oldest extant specimens of free-standing plaster statues" while the hook claims they "are considered to be among the oldest large-scale representations of the human form ever found". Suggest this hook is pulled as it is no longer verifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Seems reasonably easy to verify. For example, World History Encyclopedia "considered among the oldest of monumental statues". As these statues seem quite special and encyclopedic in tone, I favour leaving the hook up. If the article is being edited, then it can be edited some more to maintain consistency. Andrew D. (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Please then add the hook and reference it back into the article. That's how DYK works. If not, I'll pull the hook myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Pull it. The claim on main page is nonsense - there are representations of the human form that are believed to be 20,000 years or more older than these, remarkable though they are. ("Monumental statues" are very much not the same thing as "representations of human form"). And "large-scale" is POV. Who decides what is "large"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thus pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Here's another quote from an OUP work, which uses similar wording, "Sculptures made of lime plaster from Ain Ghazal in Jordan are among the earliest surviving large-scale statues of the human figure." The claim is therefore not nonsense. Please restore it pending further discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Both your quotes use "statues" which are one specific form of "representations", the word used in the hook. Representations also include rock paintings, carvings and reliefs. The oldest statues does not mean the oldest representations. Fram (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Feel free to work on the article. Once you have a suitably referenced hook in accordance with the rules of DYK, come back and let us know. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

American Colossus

• ... that American Colossus is a biography of a man who was "the most famous sportsman in the world" and "the most forgotten great athlete in American history"?

The topic here is a book. The quotations are not attributed and one of them is from the author of the book and so is promotional hype rather than being independent and reliable. The other quote comes from a tennis correspondent who will likewise be biased in favour of that sport. These are not definite facts, they are opinions. See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, MOS:PUFFERY and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

<crickets>

Amy H. Herring

• Re "that Amy H. Herring led a study whose data showed many American women were reportedly virgins at the birth of their first child?". The source described the level of this anomaly as a "tiny percentage". Describing this as "many American women" seems a misleading exaggeration. Instead of "many", this should be "some" or "few". Andrew D. (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 0.5% apparently... I've changed it to "some" and I think even that might be overstating it. No worries if someone else wants to change it to "few" or something similar. Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Anna Russell Cole

I’m afraid I don’t agree that ... that Anna Russell Cole, a significant benefactor of Vanderbilt University, donated $10,000 in 1926 to endow the office of dean of women? is an interesting hook. This fact tells us that a benefactor gave money to a university. That sounds likely.

Even the way the sentence is structured—Anna Russell Cole (who?) a significant benefactor of Vanderbilt University (Oh, okay!) donated $10,000 to endow the office of dean of women? The reader begins with no knowledge of or context for who this person is, then learns she was a benefactor, then learns she did what someone must do in order to be called a benefactor.

It’s not unusual, to say the least—it has to be true, give or take the detail provided on where her donation went (which, if interesting, could be emphasized as such with a better hook—but I don’t see any indication from the article’s treatment of the fact that it is unusual or interesting. It’s one of many donations she made). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Right, there were quite a number of editors involved in this one. Let us ask them for their input: Xoak (as nominator), Hydrangeans (first as reviewer but later having adopted the nomination), Launchballer (as the second reviewer), AirshipJungleman29 (as promoter to prep), and Premeditated Chaos (as promoter to queue). Schwede66 09:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair cop. My initial gambit is ... that Anna Russell Cole donated $10,000 in 1926 to endow Vanderbilt University's office of dean of women?--Launchballer 09:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think WP:ERRORS is the place to relitigate whether hooks are interesting or not. That's a subjective question and not a clear-cut error or violation of core Wikipedia guidelines that I'd expect us to fix after the prep process is over. Suggest we close this and move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree, since WP:DYKCRIT clearly states that approval is subjective. That said, I think the hook is mostly interesting, but I should have trimmed it along the lines of Launchballer's suggestion above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is, DYKCRIT and other norms on that page are project-specific. The requirement for something to be "interesting to a broad audience" is one set by the DYK community, not a sitewide guideline. As such, it's beyond the scope of ERRORS. This page is intended for factual inaccuracies, hooks or articles that don't conform to the sitewide policies guidelines (including the manual of style), and those that aren't "main page ready", for example because they have uncited paragraphs. That's not to say we should never make changes, and no doubt you could dig out examples where I've enacted on a report such as this made some in the past too - if there's consensus amongst participants that a change will unambiguously be better then one could consider it. But as a general principle I don't think we should routinely treat these requests as bona fide errors.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes that interesting? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I find it fairly interesting that an American woman has control over the equivalent of US$175k in today's money in 1926, but I get the sense that the hook isn't really about that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a shame that this was not the picture hook as her lead picture is quite striking. Anna Russell Cole: A Study of a Grande Dame makes it clear that she was quite a striking figure in person. We might have had a hook like:

• ... that Anna Russell Cole (pictured) was known for her brilliance and beauty, called 'The Pride of Georgia', and became a grande dame?

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 thanks for the ping. I did see the issues raised in DYK nom, but I was (and still am) on a wiki break due to my final exam, so couldn't participate in the discussions. To keep it brief, I really appreciate @Hydrangeans for her efforts to adopt the nom and make it pass. She did a wonderful job there. Having said that, I do feel that the blurb could have been slightly better (A + for @Andrew Davidson's comments and hook, it's great), but that's sometimes the case for many DYK hooks where an alternative could have been better. It can't be a reason for removal from main page. I feel this is not the place to raise this concern, rather it's a subjective opinion/feedback and only could have been given during the nom or before the promotion if any effect/correction were to be expected. Regards. X (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

These issues are quite frequently raised and addressed through discussion on Errors, and I’m of the opinion that there’s no bad time to fix a bad hook on the main page. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks, folks, for the ping. I'll mention that in my own review, I pointed up ALT0 (... that Anna Russell Cole (pictured), a devout Methodist, was instrumental in supporting Vanderbilt University's independence from the church, donating significantly to its endowment campaign?) as interesting on the grounds that a typical reader might, based on preconceptions about the relationship between religions and their faithful, find it interesting and surprising that a devout benefactor nevertheless supported the university's independence from ecclesiastical influence. I can't speak to why the promoter passed over ALT0 and ALT0a to promote ALT1 instead. Reread the nomination and noticed that the second reviewer reported preferring ALT1, which is probably why ALT1 was promoted. So what I can't speak to is what the second reviewer's reason for preferring ALT1 was.
  I agree with Andrew that it would've been nice to have Cole's portrait as the lead picture; I also can't speak to the specifics why that didn't happen, since the nomination did include nominating her image, but I suspect folks constructing sets just find they have more nominated images than sets into which to slot them. I'm not as taken with the suggested hook, though. Considering a woman's beauty more interesting than her accomplishments (philanthropy in this case) seems, howsoever inadvertently, unnecessarily objectifying.
  As a last aside, I'm inclined to Amakuru's point about this not being an error, so I'm not entirely sure why it's here at Errors. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The image would not show well at a small size and that is a criterion. We don't base images on someone's looks. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Anti-tourism protests in Spain

• ... that wealth generated by tourism in Barcelona is claimed to be a reason for increased social inequality, causing activists to protest against overtourism?

This is incoherent because wealth in Barcelona specifically is not adequate to explain protests in places like the Canary Islands, over a thousand miles away. And the complaint is not the wealth per se but its alleged iniquitable distribution. The hook has numerous other issues including WP:WEASEL, WP:CLAIMED, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NEOLOGISM. And it's not a definite fact that is unlikely to change per WP:DYKHOOK as the protests and politics are trying hard to change things.

A more definite hook for this issue is

• ... that protestors in Spain shot tourists with water pistols?

See BBC, CNN, Washington Post, etc. for this popular aspect of the story.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging nominator Kingsif. SL93 (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, hooks don't have to be applicable to the entire article, I don't think anyone is going to assume that the wealth equity divide in Barcelona is relevant to the Canaries, that's just looking for a problem. I'd also like to know what Andrew thinks is causing those other issues, too, bearing in mind the need for concision insofar as "claimed" is concerned. Like, especially saying there's a recentism issue when the protests are (shock) recent — you could level that against many DYK hooks if you wanted. But it is a definite fact, these protests were caused for that reason, that's not going to change. Andrew's issues aren't real issues.

All that being said, I don't really care what hook gets run, feel free to discuss among yourselves which one to use. Kingsif (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Arthur Fulton (sport shooter)

... that Arthur Fulton, his father and his son all won the Sovereign's Prize for rifle shooting? There should be a comma before 'and'. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

do we enforce the oxford comma at DYK? not sure that's ever been a house style... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no house style respecting the Oxford comma on Wikipedia, although it is commonly used. In this context, "his son" refers to Arthur Fulton's son. Perhaps the absence of the comma makes it easier to parse. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Never mind the punctuation, the hook fact doesn't appear clearly in the article and requires considerable effort to piece together. It was approved as AGF and seems inferior to the primary hook:

• ... that Arthur Fulton became the first person to win the Sovereign's Prize for rifle shooting three times?

I reckon we can do even better:

• ALT2 ... that Arthur Fulton was a deadly sniper in the First World War and described as "the most famous rifle shot the world has ever known".

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why it was an AGF verification since Oxford Biographies is available for free to all of us via WP:TWL, but FWIW I checked and the hook fact is verified by the Oxford Biographies article (TWL link). Levivich (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I like ALT2! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure that I like the word "deadly" in that hook. It seems sensationalist and superfluous; after all, it is a sniper's job to kill. Other than that, ALT2 is good. Schwede66 18:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

True ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done ALT2 minus "deadly" it is. Heads up to UndercoverClassicist, Johnbod, and SL93 as those users who are listed on the nomination page. Schwede66 23:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ash Street shootout (Definite maybe)

• ... that of up to 300 bullets fired in the Ash Street shootout between U.S. Army Rangers and alleged drug dealers, none were reported to have hit anyone?

As the main instigator has reported that someone was actually hit, this hook seems to be blatantly false. DYK hooks are supposed to present "definite facts" but this one is full of weasels – up to 300 of them! Some militaries tend to prefer "spray and pray" to marksmanship but, at Wikipedia, we aim for accuracy, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin, Rhain, and Bruxton: thoughts on the above issue? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 08:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, none was reported to have hit anyone. 20 years later, one party made a claim to the contrary, and that is given due weight with in-text attribution in the article; but it does not change the fact that no one was reported hit. The hook was worded carefully with this in mind, and I noted it in the DYK nomination. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Off to bed shortly, so I'll just add now, if there really is a feeling that this is misleading, the general flow of the hook could be preserved with ... none hit anyone, according to the police? But I think that would still be significantly inferior to the current hook, and, again, think the current hook, with its operative verb "reported", is consistent with the fact that no reports say anyone was injured. (Even the two articles on Foulk's non-contemporaneous claims to the contrary stop short of making those claims in their own voices.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The source used seems to be from 1998,so would not have known about the 2009 quite by Foulk. Is the consensus view in modern sourcing that there was nobody hit? It all seems a little uncertain to me, but I haven't studied it in depth.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

How is this even a question? Someone has claimed to have been hit. That is a report of someone being hit. Therefore the claim that no one was reported to have been hit is demonstrably false.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Khajidha: I disagree. "Reported" implies some level of third-party endorsement of the claim—either police or media. And note that this isn't Foulk claiming he was hit. This is Foulk claiming that an unnamed ally of his shot one (2009) or multiple (2022) unnamed adversaries of his. @Amakuru: To your question, there's a lot of stuff in Robinson 2009 that had never appeared before in RS, and I kept thinking in writing this article that what it really needs is another deep dive, post-Robinson, that can do secondary analysis of some of the claims made there (which I think of as, essentially, very delayed primary coverage). All I found, though, is Janavel 2022, which is also mostly primary coverage; the only novel claims from Robinson that it touches on are ones that Foulk happened to make in both interviews, not always consistently (as with the number allegedly shot). So I think the many sources from '89 saying no one was shot, and the follow-up secondary coverage from '90 and '98 affirming that finding, do remain the consensus of sources, especially in light of the unwillingness of Robinson and Janavel—both of whom are in general quite credulous of Foulk's claims—to repeat Foulk's contradicting claim as fact. Note that Robinson appears to have made some amount of effort to verify it and failed, instead explicitly citing "unverified gossip ... that the wounded man was treated at a Seattle-area hospital." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

In English as I understand it "rumors" are still "reports".--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

BARF

• " that BARF does not coordinate?" Not sure what this hook is supposed to mean, a clarifying rewording would be nice. Brandmeister^talk 13:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps to keep this hilarous schoolboy hook in place, and to give some context, we could link "not coordinate" to Non-coordinating anion? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  We've had a spate of April Fools DYKs on Main Page recently, on dates that conspicuously weren't April Fools' Day. Is this another one? Please can they stop it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  It's not even accurate. A "non-coordinating" anion, as is even explained in the article, is actually one which does so weakly; the hook should be "BARF only co-ordinates weakly" ... which isn't much of a hook, even a silly clickbait one ... surely a better hook could have been found? (there's nothing wrong with the article btw, even if it is a little jargon-heavy). Laura Jamieson (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  The link suggested by TRM seems a good improvement. I had some difficulty understanding the BARF part and started some discussion about that on the article's talk page. The main author EdChem is active and so I'm notifying him about this too. Andrew D. (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• In the nomination, I offered hooks with and without a link to non-coordinating ion, the promoter evidently chose to use the unlinked version. Regarding the "weak" coordination, they are called non-coordinating anions, it is standard practice, so I would be comfortable saying it does not coordinate in a presentation or paper without fear of contradiction. The hook is chemically accurate, though I concede the schoolboy humour will have an attention-grabbing effect. So, Dweller, I do not consider this an April Fools-type situation, the hook means exactly what it says, though I won't argue against adding the suggested link, as it is also accurate. Laura, thanks for noting that the article is of decent quality. EdChem (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Ba humbugi

... that you won't find any Ba humbugi on Christmas Island? this is not even referenced in the article & more so how can you prove a negative? I would suggest a reword to something like ... that Ba humbugi is not native to Christmas Island? but I would suggest pulling until it's referenced in the article. @The Rambling Man: Seattle (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, not sure what you hope I can do about it though. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Not only is it native to Fiji; it is only found in Fiji. What's referenced is that it's endemic to, i.e., only found in, Fiji—I just made this more explicit—and furthermore that all known specimens have been deposited in museums in either Chicago or Honolulu. The relevant editors who reviewed and promoted this hook are Hawkeye7, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth — hopefully they can weigh in as well. Umimmak (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this too. The Christmas Island aspect might be forgiven as a stretch for today but I don't like the way the hook is couched as a prediction and using the word you, which was complained about recently. It might be better as follows. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

... that Ba humbugi was not found on Christmas Island?

But it's did you know that? DYKs from the get-go are breaking WP:YOU, aren't they? And using the past tense for taxa implies extinction. P.S. Why violate WP:NOTBROKEN? Umimmak (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The hook is logically derived from the article, which says it is only found in Fiji. We've done hooks like this before. It was originally in the quirky slot and moved up. Perhaps it should be moved back. Yoninah (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The entire hook is kind a "meh". In the same way one can state "you won't find any olinguito in the UK" or "you won't find any tigers in France". Brandmeister^talk 15:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was supposed to be quirky, but ended up meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

What about "that Christmas Island isn't where Ba humbugi's been found?"--Wehwalt (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

That does not address any of the objections above and is just a more awkward construction. And no, the hook is not the same as "you won't find any tigers in France" because that would just be a random association, whereas Ba humbugi and Christmas (Island) represent a literary reference, namely to Dicken's A Christmas Carol. I found the hook amusing and I'm sure that many other people - at least, those who made the connection - would similarly have been amused. Gatoclass (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, we'll all find about tomorrow when we see if it got more than daily average of 8 hits. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Begüm Pusat

• ... that Begüm Pusat, a 15-year-old Turkish wheelchair basketballer, was one of the youngest players at the 2019 Women's U25 World Championship?

There's only one youngest and that seems to have been Victoria Simpson who was 13. Just being young at this event is not remarkable because it was an under-25 event and so everyone was young. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This page is for reporting errors. There is no error in this hook as written. RoySmith (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"Youngest" is a superlative which means the most young. The subject was not the youngest; not even close. To make this grammatical, you might reword it as:

• ... that Begüm Pusat, a 15-year-old Turkish wheelchair basketballer, was one of the younger players at the 2019 Women's U25 World Championship?

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not how English works. Examples from a very quick Google search (just ctrl+F "one of the"): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Not an error. Schwede66 15:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Boudica

"... that Boudica's actual name is unknown?"

• This is not what the article says, which is "Boudica may have been an honorific title, in which case...". So, that's quite conjectural whereas the hook is too definite.

The idea that because Boudica means "victory" that it wasn't a real name is just a theory which is not supported by any hard evidence. You could say exactly the same thing about Queen Victoria, for example, but you'd be wrong because Victoria was a personal name,

And Victoria was just one of her names – her first name was Alexandrina. You see, many people have multiple names – I have a family name and multiple given names myself. If you consider a war leader like Churchill then that's a family name. For a leader from another culture like Chiang Kai-shek, it's quite complicated. His article explains that "Chiang used several names throughout his life ... The concept of a "real" or original name is/was not as clear-cut in China as it is in the Western world."

So the idea of an "actual name" is not simple or straightforward and we obviously shouldn't make modern assumptions about an ancient figure without better evidence than an etymology. Most names have an etymology – "Andrew" means "manly" from andros and hence "brave", "strong", "courageous", and "warrior". This proves nothing about my legal name, my birth name, my nom-de-plume and so on.

For yet another example, consider Julius Caesar. What was his "actual name"? Do you mean his praenomen (Gaius), his nomen (Julius) or his cognomen (Caesar)?

So, the reality is that, if people called her Boudica, then that's actually a name. If she had some other names too then that's not unusual but we shouldn't guess about them without more evidence. See our article name and notice that it doesn't use the word "actual". Actual name is a redlink and so is a meaningless concept. See also Haddocks' Eyes.

I usually try to be brief but it's hard to avoid going on at length about how wrong this is. Please substitute another hook.

Andrew🐉(talk) 05:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting Andrew, I agree the wording of our article and source don't support this as a definite statement. I've switched it to "... that the name of Boudica may have been an honorific title?" for now - Dumelow (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I find that I'm not the first to make the comparison with Victoria. "The earliest explicit reference to Boudica and Victoria as namesakes occurred much earlier, in 1853 at the Welsh National Eisteddfod, held in Abergavenny. John Williams ab Ithel proclaimed, “Victoria is peculiarly our Queen – Boadicea rediviva – our Buddug the Second … We can address our English friends: ‘We have … more right in Victoria than thee’, a larger quantity of Celtic than of Saxon blood flowing through her royal veins."" Those Welsh writers have her first name as Aregwedd Voeddig. And it's also interesting to find that there were Celtic princes with a similar name such as Budic I of Brittany. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Canaanite shipwreck

... that a shipwreck in the eastern Mediterranean, dating from the Late Bronze Age, is the earliest deep-sea shipwreck to be discovered?

Not an error per se, but an ambiguity. Is this wreck the oldest one found so far, or was it the first time a diver ever found a ship wreck?

I am easily confused, but I bet there may be others, too. Thank you. [Landlubber that I am, I forgots me tildes!] Wordreader (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the main author of the article, User:Owenglyndur, has been indefinitely blocked, so they can't help with that. BorgQueen (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I looked at this topic. The claim is that it's the earliest wreck to be found in such deep water. Note that it's so deep -- over 1 km -- that you can't reach it by diving and so the work has been done using remote-piloted submersibles. I'm not exactly sure what's ambiguous but perhaps saying "oldest" rather than "earliest" would help. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Capital Bicycle Club

• ... that residents reported the first cycling club in Washington, D.C. (uniform pictured), to the police over concerns that bicycles posed a danger to pedestrians?

The article does not say or claim that this was "the first cycling club in Washington", just that it was "early".

Also, the source doesn't seem to mention pedestrians specifically – just of the "dangerous potential for accidents". Perhaps a concern was the risk of collisions with horses and/or people and property in general?

Note that the hook wasn't checked in the nomination even though it included a first. It was just waved through as AGF.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I added the "first" claim to the article, citing the same source. Pinging Generalissima and BeanieFan11 to consider the other issues. Beanie, we strongly suggest additional scrutiny for "first" hooks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to take some of the blame here, since I promoted the queue. It's especially embarrassing since ranting about "first" hooks is one of the top ways I make myself annoying at WT:DYK. The unfortunate truth is that when I'm processing queues, I don't have time to read every article in full. I generally just read the hook and then search for keywords in the text to verify the facts. Looking back at the article, I suspect I found "the first such club in the country" and didn't notice this was immediately preceded by "Boston Bicycle Club".

I know this has been said before, but Andrew, you have a keen eye for detail and critical reading. These are valuable skills and in great demand at DYK, so thank you for the much-needed quality control. But it would be even more useful if it was done on the #Next DYK and #Next-but-one DYK sections, so we could catch these problems before they hit the main page. RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Different point: the comma after the "(uniform pictured)" should instead come before. So, " ... Washington, D.C., (uniform pictured) to the police". JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Carrie Swain

... that Carrie Swain was possibly the first woman entertainer to perform in blackface?

Per WP:DYKHOOK, hooks "should include a definite fact...". The word "possibly" makes it quite clear that this is not definite. See The Masque of Blackness for an earlier counterexample. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to @4meter4, Dahn, PrimalMustelid, and RoySmith – without comment on this interpretation of the "definite fact" clause, pulled due to the counterexample that seems to check out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. We should just have a blanket rule against running "first" hooks. RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There are more interesting things to say about this woman. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, Theleekycauldron, and Valereee So, was this hook pulled? What happened to it? If it was pulled what can be done now? It should be re-opened at hook review. Regardless, I think this was a bad decision as it is not a fact likely to change given the age and subject matter. The cited policy in context reads "definite fact that is unlikely to change". We could have been cautious and said one of the earliest women to perform in blackface, but that's not actually what the source said, which was she was likely the first. 4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that hook fails verification and have made edits to the article and posted an explanation and quote on the article talk page. Levivich (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, 4m4, it was pulled for failing verification. Valereee (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Carson Hot Springs and SMS Marie

"... that the water source for Carson Hot Springs in Nevada originates 6.6 miles (10.6 km) below the earth's surface?" The water source originates? Sounds bizarre. I would suggest "that the water source for Carson Hot Springs in Nevada is 6.6 miles (10.6 km) below the earth's surface?". Of course, the water will have got to that point underground from somewhere else beforehand, but it's good enough for a blurb. DuncanHill (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• The figure of 6.6 miles is false precision. The source says "35,000 feet" and that depth is obviously vague. Elsewhere one can read that "The springs apparently have their source at the contact between Mesozoic bedrock and alluvial deposits of Carson Valley" and "Depths of thermal and nonthermal fluid mixing, estimated at about 300 feet at Carson Hot Springs ... are reasonable values for the depth of the bedrock-alluvium contact." What seems to be happening here is that you have hot water/steam coming out of cracked bedrock which then mixes with normal water where it meets an alluvial gravel layer before finding its way to the surface or being drilled to. Claiming that the spring appears at some particular precise depth is an over-simplification. Andrew D. (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

"...that SMS Marie (pictured) was the first warship built in Hamburg?" does not seem to be true. Not even the article states that fact to be true. It says "...first time that a Hamburg shipbuilder received a contract for a warship of the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy).", quite a lot different from being the first warship ever built. Given that Hamburg was part of the hanseatic league, it seems very hard to believe that not a single warship had ever been built in the city over the centuries. A quick search even names a prior warship as the "Wapen von Hamburg" launched in 1669. Perhaps there were more even before that. 91.49.87.145 (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There were three other ships by the same name all lauched before 1880 (in 1686, 1722 and 1750 respectively). And other warships were the "Admiralität von Hamburg" launched in 1690 and the "Leopoldus Primus" launched in 1668 (maybe that one would be the first warship built in hamburg then). So, can that hook please be fixed? It is not remotely true as is. 91.49.87.145 (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like, just as we need more DYKs to balance the books, these two hooks both need to be pulled. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've pulled the Hamburg hook (and the image) as being obviously false. I haven't pulled the other hook, but have no problems with anyone else pulling it, as it certainly looks dubious or overstated. I have not bothered with finding another image hook or anything else to balance the main page, I'll leave that to someone more versed and interested in this. Thanks for checking these hooks and noting the problems with them. Fram (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I pulled Carson Hot Springs - best to err on the side of caution with the main page. The encyclopedia's not going to fall over in a heap if we don't have an image for half a day. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

We now need to recycle perhaps three more DYKs to balance out the main page please. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

By "recycle" do you mean just put back an old hook? I'd quite like to bring back Sophia (robot) as one of the most popular DYKs in recent times, but I nominated it and wrote most of the article, so I'm probably biased. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not to speak for The Rambling Man but that is indeed what is meant by recycling. Using hooks that have run previously seems to be common practice in cases like this from what i have seen in the past on numerous occasions. 91.49.87.145 (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I have recycled three DYKs from the past six weeks or so that I thought were particularly "hook" worthy (personal opinion, of course). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

City of London swords

This one's a definite error. All three sources make it clear that the Queen was laughing and joking ("pinch of salt" mentioned in all 3) when she suggested hitting Amin with the sword if he turned up. This is absent from the article but more concerningly absent from our shop front Main page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked this incident up in From Shore to Shore - The Final Years. The Diaries of Earl Mountbatten of Burma, 1953-1979, edited by Philip Ziegler, Collins, 1989. The context is the Jubilee Thanksgiving Service in St Paul's. Mountbatten says "I asked her [the Queen] afterwards why she had looked rather cross and worried at one time and she laughed and said "I was just thinking how awful it would be if Amin (the horrible dictator of Uganda) were to gate-crash the party and arrive after all." I asked her what she had proposed to do and she said that she had decided she would use the City's Pearl Sword which the Lord Mayor had placed in front of her to hit him hard over the head with." So yes she laughed, but was she joking? DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• The issue of the Queen and Pearl Sword is not a "definite error". For example of coverage elsewhere, see The Queen's plot to bash Idi Amin over the head with a pearl sword. That appeared in the Daily Telegraph which seemed to play it fairly straight. By attributing the story to Mountbatten, we don't present this as an absolute in fact in Wikipedia's voice. We should let the reader form their own opinion about how serious this was, rather than making our own assumptions. Andrew D. (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've moved "according to Lord Mountbatten" to the front of the hook, to make it more clear. ansh666 21:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Cocoa cartel

• ... that Ghana and Ivory Coast have been accused of setting up a cocoa cartel?

There's no question about it. The Côte d'Ivoire–Ghana Cocoa Initiative is clearly a cartel as it's a producer organisation openly cooperating to increase revenue and that's what a cartel is. Presenting this as an accusation is a POV, contrary to WP:NPOV. Consider the source, Why the African cocoa cartel is a bad idea. This is from The Economist which is a campaigning newspaper founded to oppose the Corn Laws and traditionally in favour of free trade. So, naturally they present the cartel as a bad idea. But that's normal with cartels -- they are not a sure thing and their economic effects are mixed.

DYK is supposed to present definite facts rather than uncertain accusations. The hook should just state plainly:

• ... that Ghana and Ivory Coast have set up a cocoa cartel?

If blander language is wanted then you can say the same thing as:

• ... that Ghana and Ivory Coast have set up an initiative to raise the price of cocoa?

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Cocoa smuggling

• ... that those found guilty of cocoa smuggling in Ghana face a sentence of five to ten years in prison?

Some might argue that this hook is not an "unlikely to change" fact, referring to laws that are easily remade. Opinions on whether this hook should run are requested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yue BorgQueen (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I see no issue. I have only ever seen Andrew Davidson make such comments. SL93 (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Ghanaian cocoa laws have been pretty consistent over the past few decades, but if it's an issue then I think adding "as of 2024" would be a fine remedy. "... that, as of 2024, those found guilty of cocoa smuggling in Ghana face a sentence of five to ten years in prison?" If one wants to be really picky with the source, they can add "in 2023" instead, but the law hasn't changed since. Yue🌙 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be wider variation in the punishments. From the article, this case indicates that, while one person got a sentence of five years, the other was just fined. In another report, it says "Over the last four weeks, five persons have been sentenced to a total of 19 years imprisonment with hard labour, for their various roles in attempted smuggling of dried cocoa beans to neighbouring Togo." That's an average of less than four years each which doesn't fit what the hook says. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yue ping. BorgQueen (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Lesser penalties are for attempted cocoa smuggling, as in the case of the teacher who got fined, or assisting in it. Regardless, if further contention is with the minimum penalty, then perhaps the solution is to take the original hook and adjust it like so: "... that (, as of 2024 / in 2023,) cocoa smuggling in Ghana carries (carried) a maximum sentence of ten years in prison?" Yue🌙 03:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Commission Directive 91/71/EEC

About the hook "that contrary to popular belief, the EU did not attempt to ban prawn cocktail crisps?" The article says that there was a proposal and there was a directive which would have affected such snacks and that the British had to take action to get them listed as acceptable. If this action had not been taken then they would have been banned. So, the suggestion that this is a popular myth seems quite wrong. As the pro/anti EU campaigners try to make a political point about this, the issue needs handling more carefully to be compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• • The hook seems correct - the article says that this was a procedural oversight by the British government which could have accidentally led to a "ban" as part of broader changes, and not an deliberate attempt by the EU to ban the chips. At most it was a non-prawn chip specific proposal by a commissioner. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Britain is part of the EU and their input, mistakes or whatever were part of the EU process. The net effect was that there was a draft EU ban and so there was lobbying and action to amend it before it went into effect. To claim that there was no such thing seems to be misrepresentation. Presenting the exact bureaucratic details is difficult in such a headline and so we must be extra careful when presenting a politically-loaded story in this way. A more accurate hook might be "... a draft EU directive caused concern about the future of prawn cocktail crisps?" Andrew D. (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the hook as it stands is correct. The word "attempt" implies deliberation, and it seems clear the EU did not deliberately set out to ban crisps, it's just that the UK forgot to put them on the exempted list. Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If I've understood the article correctly, the hook appears to be valid as written. Besides, the fact that this was a myth is specifically cited with sources (though one of them is paywalled so I haven't been able to check, others confirm this). Modest Genius ^talk 15:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• What sources? The only one that uses the word myth is a blog at the European Commission which is neither independent nor reliable. And where is the source saying that this is a "popular belief"? So far as I can see the whole thing was just some light journalism and there's no evidence that the general public paid much attention to it. Andrew D. (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Coulrophilia

• ... that women were 33 percent more likely than men to search for clown pornography in 2016?

This stat comes from a single porn site which is neither a reliable source nor an adequate survey of the entire globe. This is tabloid trash. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• The stat is related specifically to searches on Pornhub, so I have added that qualifier to the hook, otherwise it's simply inaccurate. I'm not too bothered about the whole subject though, Vice is listed as no consensus at WP:RSP, so it's not automatically barred, and I would assume the stat originates from Pornhub itself... (although quite how they would know whether someone searching their site is a woman or a man is another matter). I'd think this meets WP:V and is interesting enough so I'm inclined to leave as is.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I also updated the page to make it clear that Pornhub is also the source of the stat, not some independent source. As for the hook, DYK doesnt seem to consistently provide inline attribution, so I'll leave it to others to determine if that is an issue for this hook. —Bagumba (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  What would Heinrich Böll say? -- Sca (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I always use my weekend alias "Penny" when I search for clown porn... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Do people on Wikipedia really want to know this fun fact? Thundyboi (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Cycling in Turkey

• "... that Kangal can be a hazard to cyclists in Turkey?"

At least three issues:

1. This is ungrammatical – it should be Kangals or Kangal dogs
2. The source is rather blog-like
3. The fact is overstated because dogs of any sort are a hazard for cyclists everywhere. I myself have been bitten by an Alsatian and harassed by terriers while cycling. And you don't even need a bicycle as dogs are a hazard, period. See Category:Lists of fatal dog attacks by country and notice that Turkey is not one of the listed countries.

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this is unremarkable and ungrammatical. Primergrey (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The hook that the DYK reviewer approved was ... that Kangal shepherd dogs can gall cyclists in Turkey? We lost the wordplay somewhere in the prep/queue process. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that and spotting the pun. We should revert to the approved hook and trout whoever broke it. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The nomination and subsequent discussion. It's a bit of unfortunate timing to have a quirky Turkey hook right now. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Reworded. BorgQueen (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Decarbonization of shipping

• "... that maritime shipping is making the ocean more acidic?"

The oceans are alkaline, not acidic (pH 8.1). So, the effect is better described as "less alkaline". But as shipping is said to contribute just 3% of CO2 emissions, the hook seems to greatly exaggerate the effect. You might as well say that using the Internet is making the oceans more acidic (because its CO2 contribution is about 4% of the total currently). Andrew🐉(talk) 15:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

between both, pulled. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Dinosaur teeth

"that you can count lines in dinosaur teeth" - MOS:YOU issue, suggest "that it is possible to count" or something like that. Brandmeister^talk 09:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

MOS:YOU is about phrasing in articles, it does not apply to DYK. After all, it is called "Did you know..." and not "Isn't it interesting that..." Regards SoWhy 09:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• One can use the pronoun one instead of you in such cases but one then risks sounding like the Queen. Andrew D. (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• One most certainly does, We agree. Royal regards SoWhy 14:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Dog & Bull

Nyttend altered an approved hook:

• before ... that in the 1970s a saxophonist led Major Surgery at a pub in South London?
• after ... that in the 1970s a saxophonist led the band Major Surgery at a pub in South London?

This spoils the intended reading of the hook, as conceived by Whispyhistory per the nomination. As this change has been made through protection without consensus, it seems to be improper. I have asked Nyttend to revert but they may not now be awake and time is of the essence. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Undone. Stephen 11:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Please undo the undo. The word "band"! is crucial for understanding the hook. Otherwise it makes very little sense. Also, the band name needs to be linked. Fgf10 (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC time soon on the "quirky hook slot" at DYK. Tradition (just tradition) allows for some non-encyclopedic behaviour to take place in the final hook of DYK, regardless of what day of the year it is. Linking and verbiage are agreed during the process and last minute changes while on the main page are usually frowned upon by those who have carefully worked on the process leading up to it. All that notwithstanding, if the community believe the "final hook quirk" allowance should now be removed altogether, that should be formalised so we don't have the continual debate every time someone dislikes the last hook in the set. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to do with quirky or not, it's simply about making the hook understandable. The current form is confusing to native English speakers, let alone our large non-native contingent. Fgf10 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

100% to do with quirky. Often written like cryptic crossword clues, they are not intended to be inherently understandable, and are not intended to be straightforward to native or non-native English speakers, more it's to make them click on the target. It's the only part of Wikipedia which allows this behaviour. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

They're two different things. Reality is quirky enough it should be possible to find hooks like that without nonsense like this. If the only way to make a hook is interesting is by misleading readers, it has no place on the Main Page. Fgf10 (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, that needs an RFC because right now cryptic/quirky are allowed/encouraged. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The hook in this case is literally true and factual. IMO, it's clearer from the outset than a higher hook which I clicked on this morning because I didn't understand it: .. that High Point has been described as "the severed head of some Japanese giant robot"? I had no idea what High Point was and so clicked through to find out more. That's a good hook and so I expect it to do well when we get the stats tomorrow. A worse example is ... that Canadian social activist and human rights pioneer Charan Gill started his career working in a sawmill? which seems to say it all and so doesn't encourage readers to go further. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, while I do not have a say on this original topic, I was the one who wrote the hook re: Charan Gill and I am not fully appreciative of your citing it as a 'worse example'. There is no where that we mandate that an hook should draw attention for a reader to click only because they are scratching their heads about what a hook means. Please be mindful of intentionally / unintentionally speaking ill about other editors' works. Ktin (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It was not my intent to hurt Ktin's feelings and I respect their contribution. The choice and style of hooks is naturally a matter of taste and we may therefore differ in our opinions. But there are some guidelines at DYK such as WP:DYKHOOK which states, "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article...". The entries are subject to formal review and criticism and there is then a competitive element when they are displayed. The readership statistics are recorded and the hooks which do well are recorded and ranked at WP:DYKSTATS. As many DYK entrants take corresponding care and pride over their hooks, it is therefore best if others don't second-guess their choices and interfere with the selected hooks. If Ktin likes their hook then I'm fine with it appearing as they prefer and perhaps others will like it too – it's not a sure thing and so we have some suspense as we wait to see the outcome. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Outcome

• High Point, Bradford = 11,893 views
• Dog & Bull = 5,821 views
• Charan Gill = 2,478 views

DOMELRE

".. that DOMELRE (pictured) was the first domestic electrical refrigerator in America?" - The article doesn't specify where it was the first. If that is mentioned in the cited sources it should be in the article, otherwise the blurb doesn't make sense. Also, it should be "in the United States" (which I assume America refers to) or the world/Americas/North America/whichever it turns out to be. Unspecified America is a useless term. Fgf10 (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggest the more common usage "electric" rather than the semi-archaic "electrical." – Sca (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Pull It wasn't the first, being preceded by other models such as The Montclair and the Automatic Household Refrigerator which are specifically described as "the first household refrigerators" here. As the nomination raised but failed to resolve this issue, the hook should be pulled. Also note that the device was not a self-contained refrigerator in the modern sense but was designed to be fitted inside an existing ice box. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Of course pull it…and in what may be a first, print a retraction. In the same place, with the same level of notice. As it stands, the wiki Main Page could be named Citogenesis Central without much change of meaning.Qwirkle (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   Removed. Given the apparent lack of accuracy in the hook, and the above comments, I agree that pulling it is best. I haven't reinserted a picture yet, will look for one now.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

OTOH, the Benz Patent-Motorwagen, the world's first production automobile, didn't look like modern cars either. I actually thought the DOMELRE item was interesting. Oh well. – Sca (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

See, that’s the problem here. Interesting =/= True. (Except here on Citogenesis Central, and other poor sources.) Qwirkle (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: this is an interesting one, which I haven't seen before: [12] 😊  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's not much point it being interesting if it's inaccurate. It seems that the DOMELRE does have a place in refrigeration folklore - even Andrew's source above says as much - but it needs to be articulated accurately in both the article and the hook. If someone is able to edit the former and propose a new wording for the latter, which highlights its true place in history, then I'll be happy to reinstate the hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Elena Allen

• "that sport shooter Elena Allen" should be "that the sport shooter Elena Allen": the definite article is needed in BrEng. – SchroCat (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• The ed17, I don't know why you felt the need to remove the definite article from the blurb, but please put is back in. As this is in formal BrEng, the lack of definite article is lazy and slipshod. It's fine in informal English, journalese or other variants of English, but it should be used in encyclopaedic writing. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• This is not an error; it's just a matter of style or taste. I don't agree that this is a matter of national language difference (I'm British) and prefer that we leave out the definite article in such hooks as they are supposed to be brief and journalistic in style, like headlines, to catch the attention of readers. This hook was reviewed and approved per our standard process. We should not now have admins edit-warring over this, using their tools to push their personal preferences. As I count it, we have had three admin edits pushing this back and forth and so this is wheel-warring. Andrew D. (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• It certainly is not a matter of taste: it is a matter of formal or informal English. This is an encyclopaedia and, no, DYKs are not designed to be lazy and slack-jawed: the additional three letters does not make this too long, or any less of a hook. The fact that any one hook or other has been reviewed by someone who may not know the finer points of good formal British English is no excuse for sub-standard language. As to the wheel warring, I have no idea why The Ed reverted the change: perhaps he had not seen the first change - you will have to ask him. The second revert, by TRM, was entirely correct to ensure we had a gramatically correct version on the front page. - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• It's not a personal preference, I just prefer the main page to contain encyclopedic material. If you want try to convert the Wikipedia into the Daily Mail or The Onion, feel free to try, but I won't be letting it happen on my watch. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. For example, see the BBC which routinely has "Welsh shooter Elena Allen" and "Welsh skeet shooter Elena Allen" without a definite article. The BBC is quite a respectable British organisation and if they find such usage acceptable, we should not be claiming that it is erroneous. To do so is pushing pedantry too far. And, edit-warring over this on a protected page is quite unacceptable. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, and of course you are entitled to your opinion; hereby noted with thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• And we've already accepted that it is used in journalese: not good formal English. The BBC, for all their many strengths, will write as the journalists they are, not as the writers of an encyclopaedia we strive to be. This isn't pedantry: it's having standards and aiming to maintain them. - SchroCat (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• There was an interesting article about such pedantry in the Economist recently: Get over it: "When it comes to language, some users are more peevish than others". I still oppose the hook change as improper. This is not an error. Andrew D. (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• You are entitled to your opinion as to what constitutes good formal British English: the lack of the definite article isn't an example of that. - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Emmanuella Atora

• ... that Olympic taekwondo practitioner Emmanuella Atora described her career as "I hit people for a living"?

According to the source, what she actually said was "Je tape les gens pour vivre". This was not translated by the source and it's not clear what she meant by it as Taekwondo is not usually a professional sport while she appears to have a career as an aspiring professional model. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Also, the line was a meme already, having been used by MMA fighter Francis Ngannou a year earlier [13]. Black Kite (talk) 07:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well spotted. Francis Ngannou is a successful professional fighter and so the boast works better for him. There's merchandise too... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Environmental impacts of artificial intelligence

• ... that researchers estimated that training the model for ChatGPT used the equivalent energy footprint of "driving 123 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles for a year"?

The word "estimated" immediately tells us that this is not a definite fact, as required by WP:DYKHOOK. So I checked on its origin. This turns out to be a paper in arXiv: Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Training.

So far as I can tell, this has not been peer-reviewed, validated or confirmed. arXiv papers are considered unreliable here per WP:RSPS. But, in this case, the paper's estimate was picked up for an essay in The Conversation and that was then reprinted by Scientific American.

And when you look at the detail, you find that, while the original paper presented the estimated energy cost as equivalent to 3 round-trip jet plane flights from NYC to San Francisco, the essay writer chose to present this as 123 "gasoline-powered passenger vehicles driven for one year". Such conversions depend on your choice of jet plane and passenger vehicle, of course. And, literally YMMV!

So, we see that there has been a chain of estimates and conversions which make the computation fuzzier at each stage. And now this fuzzy data is in Wikipedia where it will be used to train the AI models! Is this science or is it churnalism?

Andrew🐉(talk) 14:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Esther Arditi

Must we use "plane" in the blurb? It's not encylcopedic and "aircraft" is a much better word. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. "Plane" may have been a slang word at one time, but it's in mainstream usage now, and is more specific than "aircraft".  — Amakuru (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"Plane" is just a short form and avoids the need to choose between airplane (US) and aeroplane (British). Anyway, I was curious as to the exact type and have established that it was a Mosquito so we could add that detail if we think it would help:

• ... that at the age of 17, Esther Arditi saved a pilot and a navigator from a burning Mosquito?

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Exeter Theatre Royal fire

Exeter Theatre Royal fire (nom)

• ... that C. J. Phipps, the leading theatre architect of the age, was found responsible for the worst-ever UK theatre disaster?

I wouldn't recommend the use of the word "worst" – "deadliest" is more objective and straightforward for wikivoice. It also makes it clear that this was a disaster that involved death, and not a disaster like my school's production of Hamilton :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 13:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Amended as suggested. Schwede66 16:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That's quite a long and remarkable article with an exciting picture (right). That should really be the picture hook in that set as the current picture of Wilhelmine Key seems quite drab and boring and doesn't illustrate its hook so well. Can they be switched now, please? Andrew🐉(talk) 18:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I for one don’t support that request, Andrew. The DYK team that assembles hook sets has quite some authority and I would not like to interfere with their good work unless there’s an error-based reason. Such a lead hook change discussion should be held at DYK talk and if there’s consensus before UTC midnight, then I would action a swap. Schwede66 19:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not an error. If you want to help us build sets, you're free to choose whichever nommed images you like :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

On the day, the views were: Exeter Theatre Royal fire = 20,330; Wilhelmine Key = 15,685

feed a cold, starve a fever

• ... that the old adage "feed a cold, starve a fever" was first published in a 1574 dictionary?

The dictionary just said to starve a fever and said nothing about colds so that wasn't the complete adage. And the general idea is commonly attributed to the humoral theories of ancients like Hippocrates and Galen who were much earlier. For example, "Galen (AD 129–c.216) deduced that fever could result from an excess of yellow bile, black bile, phlegm or blood. Instead of the earlier Hippocratic treatment of fevers by starvation (feed a cold and starve a fever), Galen advocated ...". The source used by the article is The Straight Dope which doesn't seem to be especially high-quality. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton BorgQueen (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson and BorgQueen: I believe Andrew is correct about Hippocrates ideas. I did some quick research and uncovered some references. Our hook is probably not wrong, because it is about "first published in a dictionary". But the Hippocrates idea is not in the article. So I will go there and add the information now. If you are unsure about the hook, we can use ALT1 from the nomination. And thanks Andrew for discovering the missing information. Bruxton (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC

Flyover (book)

• ... that Flyover, a 2023 science fiction novel by an American author, portraying a dystopian future where part of the US becomes a theocracy, was published in French but not in English?

There are several issues with this:

1. The published title of the book was Et c'est ainsi que nous vivrons (This is How We Shall Live). If you're going to make a big thing about it being published in French then you should use the French title
2. It appears that Flyover is the planned title for an English-language publication. When this happens the hook will no longer be correct. DYK hooks are supposed to be "a definite fact that is unlikely to change".
3. What initially attracted my attention was that the hook talks about "an American author" without giving his name or linking to his article. This reads oddly and it took me a while to realise that the issue was the language.

To fix this, we might have an ALT like:

• ... that Et c'est ainsi que nous vivrons, a dystopian novel about a divided US, was originally written in English by Douglas Kennedy but then first published in French?

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• If there's an issue with the name, we could just pipe the bold link à la "a dystopian novel" or "a 2023 science fiction novel". I don't see the problem with the author-related wording. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• On the first point, I think readers would find a book with a French title being published in French less interesting. Second, when Flyover is published in or after 2024, will it really invalidate a hook that is clearly about "a 2023 science fiction novel"? Third, that's pretty common writing and it emphasizes the weirdness of the book being in French. Also, the first and third thing aren't even real policy errors? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  The first item is a gross error. The article shows the cover of the published book and the title is clearly Et c'est ainsi que nous vivrons which doesn't mean "flyover" or anything like it. Unless and until the book is published in English, the book's title will therefore be the French one. And if it's published in English then the hook is wrong. You can't have it both ways. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:EN, The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language. The author, Douglas Kennedy, announced Flyover as the English-language title of the book (its non-correlation with the French-language title notwithstanding), and English-language reliable sources call the book Flyover (e. g., The Irish Times). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  The author said that is the English title, so no, the book's title does not therefore need to be the French one. We also go by what reliable sources call it, not someone on Wikipedia. SL93 (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Fridge smuggling

• ... that a £142 wine fridge was smuggled into Downing Street on 11 December 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom?

Per smuggling, this is illegal transportation. But the delivery of a refrigerator by an ordinary supplier seems to have been quite open, normal and legal. The word "smuggled" comes from a headline in a British red-top tabloid and this is not an acceptable source for an accusation of crime. See WP:TABLOID, WP:HEADLINES, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• ALT3 ("Wine Time Fridays") is now fine as an alternative, as I've added an extra cite so that it's not just the Mirror. (However said red-top tabloid was the one that broke the Partygate story and I don't believe any of its reporting has been challenged, so it's probably OK anyway). Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• The nomination had a fraught history and was previously pulled by AirshipJungleman29 for violating WP:DYKHOOKBLP. I agree that there are significant WP:BLP issues here. And the page is poor quality as it's not a properly balanced article; just a WP:PROSELINE collection of newspaper headlines. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • That is the typical format of a Wikipedia:Timeline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Smuggled" does not have to mean "illegal", just "illicit". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"Illicit" means much the same thing. The point is that having a refrigerator delivered is not and was not any kind of crime or immorality. The tabloid was just trying to milk the story because it had a photo of the delivery. The photo shows that it was quite open and not clandestine in any way. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Illicit does not mean the same thing, because WP:BLPCRIME is not then involved. At the height of the pandemic, when indoor gatherings were banned, the delivery of a wine fridge for use in indoor gatherings was very much immoral, although not in itself illegal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

But who's to say it's immoral? The Paymaster General defended the Downing Street fridges in a formal statement,

Downing Street is a working building, including catering facilities and offices for staff; as is common in workplaces including the House of Commons, refrigerators are provided for general staff use. One refrigerator was purchased in the financial year for a Downing Street meeting room, and one to replace an existing refrigerator that had reached the end of its working operation. Notwithstanding, I can confirm that no such public expenditure was accrued in relation to the matters considered in the investigations by the Second Permanent Secretary or connected with associated media reports on this matter.

So, where's the reliable source establishing that this was illicit or immoral smuggling? All we seem to have is a tabloid headline. 14:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Andrew🐉(talk) 14:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the paymaster just saying there are fridges that they pay for, but the wine fridge was not paid for with public funds? Which means this was an off-book fridge. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that there would be "off-book fridges" in a secure place like Downing Street. If you have some evidence for this which is better than a tabloid headline, please share it. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying the paymater is. It does not seem unlikely at all that people bring or have delivered things to their work, especially busy powerful people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Geostationary orbit

• "... that satellites in a geostationary orbit appear stationary in the sky to a ground observer?". This is debatable because it all depends on your frame of reference. What's really happening is that the earth is spinning and the satellite is orbiting at the same rate. What's comparatively stationary are the fixed stars, which are so-called because they appear fixed in the same relative position. How this appears to an observer depends on how they are viewing the sky and their perception of what they see. If they are using a telescope with an equatorial mount or digital tracking, then this is specifically designed to hold the fixed stars in position and the satellite would then appear to be moving across the sky. The way the hook presents this seems too geocentric.

In any case, I much prefer the ALT1 hook about Arthur C. Clarke which seems less controversial. Andrew D. (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought the ALT1 hook would have been chosen as more interesting too. This strikes me as a "...that red apples look red to an observer of the apple" type hook. But this is already on the main page, editor and reviewer and promoter have made a judgement call, and the blurb is not wrong (I disagree with Andrew's point above). I'm inclined not to second guess a non-wrong editorial decision when a hook is already on the main page. Won't lose any sleep if another admin disagrees, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's a NASA video which shows how they actually look, "Because they all move with the Earth's rotation against the background of stars, the satellites leave trails that seem to follow a highway across the celestial landscape. The phenomenon was captured last month in this video showing several satellites in geostationary orbit crossing the famous Orion Nebula." Andrew D. (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

A car parked on the side of the road looks like it's moving relative to the cars driving by. It can still safely be described as parked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yep, agree with Floq. "Appearing stationary" is clear enough, it's cited and matches what most people would probably expect it to mean. Happy to leave this as is.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Eppur si muove" Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Glass eye

• ... that New York Mets executive Jay Horwitz did not publicly reveal that he had a glass eye until he was in his 70s?

Oddly (and improperly), someone chose to add the word "publicly" before "reveal." That's simply not what the source says; nor was it in the proposed hook, which was accurate. The source says "Having one glass eye is something he never revealed until now."" The word "publicly" should be removed, to be true to the RS ref .. pretty much WP 101.

2603:7000:2101:AA00:84F5:FEA5:49CC:5E0 (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That was done here two days ago:

"... that New York Mets executive Jay Horwitz did not reveal that he had a glass eye until he was in his 70s?" - revealed to whom? His eye was removed in sixth grade, so presumably his parents knew, as well as whoever sold him the glass eye, and any optician giving him an eye test over the years. DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for the report. I've added "publicly" to the hook. RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's what the man himself said about this:

I was born with glaucoma, and had a blue eye and a green eye. Naturally, kids in grammar school could be pretty cruel. They made fun of me and I was subject to a lot of ridicule. So in about fifth or sixth grade, I went to a great eye doctor and he said, “Listen, if you don’t take the right eye out, the glaucoma could spread to the left eye.” So I had the surgery and they put in an artificial eye. Up until when I finally decided I was going to write this book, I was always embarrassed to tell people I had an artificial eye.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

And he said something about his glaucoma to the WSJ in 2011 when he was 66 but that's behind a paywall for me. Note that he calls it an "artificial eye" as ocular prosthesis says that these are normally made of plastic rather than glass. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

We follow the RSs. We have the man's own words. It's a bit odd that an editor would assert that "he" revealed to "whoever sold him" the glass eye (or to his parents, or optician doing an exam of him) that he had a glass eye. That "presumably" makes little sense. The doctor inserting the eye doesn't have to be told by the patient that now he has a glass eye. Nor do the parents have to be told - they bring their child in for the operation and arrange payment for it of course. The word "publicly" wasn't in the RS, wasn't in what he said, and the "rationale" for putting words in the man's mouth is .. unconvincing. Let's stick with wp values, and follow the RS, rather than make things up based on baseless supposition. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:84F5:FEA5:49CC:5E0 (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

And yes - as our article on ocular prosthesis states in its very first sentence, it is called variously: "An ocular prosthesis, artificial eye or glass eye." They all refer to the same thing.2603:7000:2101:AA00:84F5:FEA5:49CC:5E0 (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No they don't. Artificial eye is imprecise as it also covers to visual prosthesis. WP:COMMONNAME likely suggests we stick to glass eye. Bazza 7 (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, I agree we should keep glass eye because in addition to what the WP article says, and commonname, it is the phrase that was used in the source itself. The problem with the hook is not at all that. It was the addition of the word publicly. With what we now know, from the above, was a strange assumption of "I the editor believe the boy must have told his parents .. when of course parents know this information from the surgeon when they send their child in to surgery. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:84F5:FEA5:49CC:5E0 (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

"I was always embarrassed to tell people I had an artificial eye" does not say he never revealed it to anyone. It says he was embarrassed to tell people about it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Grant's Tomb

• The DYK states that "no one is buried in Grant's Tomb", which is seemingly as clever wordplay since they are not below ground. However on Wikipedia, entombment redirects to burial, suggesting the term is also used to describe being placed in a tomb. Either we should clearly distinguish burial from entombment, or this DYK is potentially misleading. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia redirect logic doesn't really affect our readers. I think this has an amount of misdirection that is interesting without being problematic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is a famous trick question. I'm not particularly worried. Vaticidalprophet 02:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Famous to visitors to New York, perhaps; but not the rest of Wikipedia's users. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Redirects are sometimes targeted to a related term, which doesn't necessarily imply that the terms are equivalent. I agree that the hook should be considered independent of the redirect; free free to be bold and improve the redirect.—Bagumba (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Pull When I browsed the main page this morning, I read the hook and took it at face value, supposing that the tomb was empty for some reason – just a memorial or cenotaph. If Grant's body is actually in this place then I feel quite cheated or misled. I didn't click through until just now but this doesn't help much because the article is huge and so too long to easily clarify this particular issue.

It would be better to send readers to a page saying "FOOLED YOU!" As we're not going do that, we should pull the hook to minimise the misleading of our readership.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• It's editors childishly prioritising showing off their own "cleverness" over clarity. Evidenced by responses above praising misdirection, which is quite frankly appalling. It's an ongoing problem on DYK, which I've long given up on trying to fix. This hook should obviously be pulled or improved, but it won't happen. Fgf10 (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree; this was a joke made by Groucho Marx, not by editors. When I nominated the article for DYK, I specifically proposed numerous other hooks, but none of these were selected. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Rephrase. If Grant & his wife are in fact inside the tomb, then I too was misled by this blurb. Deliberate misdirection is fine in a comedian's joke, but not in a DYK blurb (except on 1 April). Rather than the drastic action of pulling it, simply rephrase to avoid the confusion. I see two options:
  a) make the blurb explicitly about the joke, so something like 'Groucho Marx joked that no-one is buried in Grant's tomb', or
  b) clarify that a specific meaning of 'buried' is intended e.g. 'no-one is buried below ground within Grant's tomb'.
  Modest Genius ^talk 10:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

   Done I've picked the option B. BorgQueen (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• FYI, the OED gives the primary meaning of bury as "To deposit (a corpse) in the ground, in a tomb; to inter." So, if Grant is interred in Grant's Tomb, it is quite normal and correct to say that he is buried there. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• It's accurate, but the phrase "below ground" in the revised version kinda takes the bite out of the hook. It's such an old joke anyway that it might be best to swap it out. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we can do better as the nomination lists lots of ALTs. The point of the riddle is that the answer is obvious (Grant) and so it's nicely absurd that this doesn't work any more. It's quite funny that Anouk Aimee wondered whether it was Cary!

• ALT5: ... that by the late 20th century, many tourists did not know who was entombed in Grant's Tomb?

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson, yeah honestly ALT5 would have been my first choice (I should've put that hook first). ALT1 was available in case anyone was confused about ALT0, but I guess the promoter decided not to select that. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the promoter btw: @Bruxton: BorgQueen (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hack Fall Wood

There's several issues with the current picture hook:

Lemon slug

• ... that Hack Fall Wood in North Yorkshire, England, hosts the rare lemon slug (example pictured)?

1. The picture shows a slug in Moravia which is in a different country
2. The image species is stated to be Malacolimax tenellus whereas the source has Limax tenellus. Neither of them mention a "lemon slug"
3. The source states that "Two locally rare animals, Limax tenellus ... have been recorded in the site". As they are rare and the sighting was some time ago, there's no guarantee that there are any there now and so the word "hosts" is overstating the known facts.
4. The article has plenty of other better pictures which actually show the subject, such as a painting by Turner. I suggest a replacement:

"Hackfall near Ripon" by Turner, circa 1816

• ... that Hack Fall Wood (pictured) was painted by Turner?

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding #2 they are the same species. I don't think #1 is a problem especially as it says "example pictured". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ham and eggs

• No necessarily an error, but with available images for HMS Active, Quintinia verdonii and Teresa Feoderovna Ries, what encyclopaedic benefit does a picture of ham and eggs actually have? – SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  I suspect it's clickbait. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  The content of the article is really super poor. In summary, it's saying [famous person] once ate lots of this dish when he was very hungry. Shouldn't be in the article, shouldn't be on Main Page, but as it's not an error, I shouldn't be posting this here. So I'll suffice by saying that the picture is silly, but also not an error. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  Agreed. It's not exactly what one expects from an encyclopedia, but it is DYK, after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  One issue is the legibility of the image when it's a small thumbnail – the ham and eggs work fairly well at this scale. The other images suggested don't sound any better but I was curious to see what the "sculpture of a nude witch snipping her toenails" looked like and have tracked it down on Pinterest. I don't suppose that has a free licence though. Andrew D. (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hampi

I don't know how this escaped notice during the selection process for Hampi's DYK hook, but it is currently very misleading:

... that before its destruction, the UNESCO world heritage site Hampi (partly pictured) was the center of the world's second-largest medieval city after Beijing?

As written, this implies that the heritage site for the city was destroyed, presumably in the very recent past; I was actually upset to read this ("damn it, another heritage site gone..."). But what is actually being referred to is the destruction of the city in the late 1500s. The central ruins of the city now form the heritage site. I suggest the following:

... that before its destruction, Hampi, whose central ruins (partly pictured) are now a UNESCO world heritage site, was the world's second-largest medieval city after Beijing?

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Changes as suggested. Vanamonde (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Too much unnecessary and confusing verbiage. We're writing a hook here, not the entire article. Just make it shorter and focus on the key fact, as follows. Andrew D. (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

... that Hampi (pictured) was the center of the world's second-largest medieval city?

⇒ Beijing is a very well-known place and needs no exposition, but Hampi is not. My first question was, where? Some indication that it is or was in India would be appropriate.

Also, I wonder whether the term medieval really applies here, as it's an adj. relating to the European Middle Ages. The article uses the compound adj. "medieval-era" – a bit awkward – but never mentions the Middle Ages (defined at disambiguation as "the European historical period from the 5th to the 15th century"). Sca (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hooks are supposed to invite questions so as to encourage the reader to click through. TLDR exposition is therefore quite wrong and tangents such as the bit about Beijing, nearly 3000 miles away, are quite inappropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Headache vine

• Why isn't the quote in the headache vine item in quotation marks? Or does it only affect men? Stephen 04:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Bryan Garner says:

One … he. This expression, though historically condemned as inferior to one … one, actually predominates in AmE usage. […] But its future probably isn't bright: one … he bothers strict grammarians as being less than fully grammatical, and it bothers other readers as being sexist."

I might add that "One...he" is sufficiently rare in BrE to be read as a simple mistake. Per MOS:COMMONALITY one might change it to...:

cause one to feel as if one's head is "exploding" ... making one forget all about one's headache?

...but better still would be using the quote that's actually in the article:

cause one to feel as if one's head is "exploding ... such that the initial headache was quickly forgotten"

jnestorius^(talk) 09:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this vine hook ties itself in knots. How about:

"... that fumes from the headache vine (pictured) are so pungent that the sufferer forgets their headache?"

Andrew D. (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I've gone with a longer version that hopefully fixes the gender problem; given how unbalanced the page is at the moment, a radically shorter hook is not ideal. The extended quotation is also a bit tricky because of the tenses; "exploding ... such that the initial headache [is] quickly forgotten" would be ok if anyone prefers it? Espresso Addict (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Headless priest

• ... that a headless priest is said to have cursed León Viejo with earthquakes?

User:Andrew Davidson believes this type of hooks is not a "definite fact", contradicting the requirements of WP:DYKHOOK (see that ongoing discussion), and should be pulled. Opinions on whether this hook should run are requested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact hook, but a similar one was considered acceptable recently because the subject in question is a myth. SL93 (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a weasel. Who exactly says this?

As an example of how to do this properly, consider the similar article beheading game, which I started. When this appeared at DYK, the hook was

• ... that Laura Ashe believes the Gawain Poet used the beheading game to criticize the emptiness of chivalry?

This provides clear attribution to a specific authority and doesn't just recount the fiction/myth/legend in a credulous way. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Attribution has since been added to the article, and weasel has never applied to such hooks if it the article itself has attribution. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added according to a local myth to the hook. BorgQueen (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Great, but it wasn't needed. SL93 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@SL93 Whenever we feature beliefs that are unscientific, fringe, or possibly superstitious on Main Page, I think it's a good practice to make it clear that it's only a myth. BorgQueen (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It's obvious though. It's not helping our readers because they aren't that stupid. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This is now on the main page with the following hook:

• ... that, according to a local myth, a headless priest cursed León Viejo with earthquakes?

This doesn't tell the full story and elements seem to be quite historical. Here's how another source explains it

In 1550, a crime shook León Viejo and, according to beliefs at the time, made it the subject of a curse. This event was the murder of Antonio Valdivieso, a Franciscan monk thought to have played a central role in bringing Christianity to the country. From then on, Leon Viejo fell into decline and suffered high inflation. In 1578, the eruption of the nearby Momotombo volcano drove away many of its citizens (at its peak it had around 15,000 inhabitants), followed in 1610 by a major earthquake which destroyed much of the city’s infrastructure, and the remaining inhabitants decided to relocate the city in a referendum.

So, it wasn't just earthquakes but a variety of disasters which followed the killing of the priest. Note that we have an article about the him – Antonio de Valdivieso – which says that he was the bishop, has a picture of his head and tells the story differently. The Spanish Wikipedia has an article about him which contains a lot more detail. It indicates that he was assassinated by stabbing and doesn't say that he was beheaded. He was buried and his remains have been exhumed so perhaps his head has been accounted for. And there's now a campaign to have him beatified. And there's more details about the "punishment of heaven":

Since its founding, the city had been growing and becoming more opulent, and since the great sacrilege committed by Contreras in killing its prelate, it began to feel the punishment of heaven with great plagues and disastrous deaths: women did not give birth to their children, and those that were born were not conceived; the neighbouring volcano gave off great thunder and roars […] having the Holy Sacrament taken out into the middle of the square, asking God for mercy and to postpone his just wrath, and to appease it they would leave that cursed place, where such a great murder and sacrilege had been committed, violently killing their prelate and pastor.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice research, Andrew. The article certainly could use some of those details. BorgQueen (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure they fit well. The headless priest seems to be a generic trope but the article is written as if it's a specific spirit. The story of Valdivieso, León Viejo and the Momotombo volcano seems quite distinct and the headless aspect seems rather weak in that case. Another famous person who was actually decapitated in Leon Viejo was Cordoba but he was a conquistador, not a priest. I suppose their stories have been confused and conflated. Such creep is common in the case of myths and legends and this makes it difficult to present them as definite facts. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hildebrand Harmsworth

Hildebrand Harmsworth ... gave money to a charity fund after his chauffeur killed a boy while driving Harmsworth's car?

"Killed a boy" sounds like he was multitasking – steering with one hand and mudering with the other? Suggest something like, "after a boy was killed by Harmsworth's car, driven by his chauffeur." Sca (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced anyone on the planet would interpret this to mean anything other than he hit the child with the car. Seems fine as is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It violates the Sounds Funny rule. Why not say what we mean, rather than relying on the lazy man's "they'll know what we mean" fallback position? Sca (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't sound funny to me at all. Must be ENGVAR because it's a British English hook which sounds perfectly normal to my British English ear. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't like "Harmsworth" appearing twice in the hook, but other than that it makes perfect sense. Do you honestly think the chauffeur was committing murder with one hand while keeping the other on the wheel? Jeez..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

'Course not. It's just imprecise writing. "Killed" ('to kill') connotes murderous intent. The chauffeur didn't kill the boy, the car did. Sca (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me but that's semantics at its worst. The chauffeur killed the boy, that's common English. This is not an error. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I see the implication Sca is concerned with, we're assuming that everyone uses the Occum's Razor interpretation (eg what Floquenbeam states) but we should be a bit more precise. Instead, maybe "..after a boy died from a motor accident with Harmsworth's chauffeur-driven car?" --MASEM (t) 16:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Semantics is not in and of itself a pejorative term, it's a field of study. Clarity is a virtue in writing of the expository, informational sort. Sca (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Would 'ran over/hit (as appropriate) and killed a boy' resolve the (perceived) ambiguity? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

From what I can tell, how the accident and death happened is not clear, only that something involving his car, driven by his chauffeur at the time, was what led to the boy's death. I was thinking of "run over" type language to make it more succinct but I don't think we can assure that's what happened (even though its the most likely situation) --MASEM (t) 17:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

What would be wrong with "after a boy was killed by Harmsworth's car, driven by his chauffeur" – ?? Sca (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hit/run over (or 'a boy died after being ...) makes it clear that it was 'an action involving the chauffeur driving the car' that was the direct cause of death, rather than 'the chauffeur doing something else while driving the car.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

That could mean the car sentiently chose to kill a child while being driven by a human. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It's 100% clear as-is, and all proposed changes make it sound worse, with zero increase in understanding or clarity. Why not comment, instead, on the OTD item below, where I am actually completely unsure of what we should do (if anything). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, after all I posted the error below and have suggested this assertion here to be incorrect, at least as far as British English is concerned. There's probably nothing wrong with the suggestion other than it's bloated and unnecessary, given the consensus that there's absolutely no chance that someone would read that sentence and assume the driver was "multi-tasking". I'm afraid it seems like a solution in search of a problem from my perspective, but then I'm British so this whole issue is a non-issue for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

As I assume everyone realizes, I wasn't seriously suggesting the "multitasking" notion, just critiquing the sentence structure. Sca (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• The word "charity" is inaccurate as this suggests a public benefit whereas this money was held in trust specifically for the mother of the boy and was in the nature of compensation. But Harmsworth was generally thought to be blameless in the matter. He hadn't been in the car himself so got his secretary to ask the chauffeur whether there had been an accident after the hit-and-run had been reported in the papers. The chauffeur lied and it only came out later after further inquiries and it was Harmsworth who then went to the police. As it was the chauffeur at fault, it seems wrong that this matter should appear in the hook as a slur upon Harmsworth, while the chauffeur is nameless (he was Rocco Cornalbas). As a by-the-way, note that the speed limit was 20 mph at this time, having been recently raised from 14 mph. Such speeds were thought to be "furious" at the time and there was indeed much carnage as the populace wasn't used to motor cars and so children were free to run around in the roads. In this case, the boy dashed out from behind a cart, and it appears that the car clipped him with its mudguard, causing him to fall and crack his head. The chauffeur was convicted of manslaughter. Andrew D. (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If this was the case, then instead of "killed a boy while" we can say "fatally hit a boy with" or "fatally clipped a boy with". That increases the precision without suggesting the possible "multi-tasking" scenario. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    • There's really no ambiguity in the current phrasing. I'm not sure "clipping a boy" actually increases precision. In fact, I'd argue that it makes it less accessible to certain varieties of English. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    • But Andrew, thank you so much for your interesting input. I sincerely hope that you'll find time to add that, if it's not already there, to the target article, along with appropriate sourcing. It would certainly embellish the article! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

In a blurb, we can't explain exactly how the boy was killed, but we can say he was killed by contact with the car. Still haven't heard why "after a boy was killed by Harmsworth's car, driven by his chaffeur" wouldn't be acceptable. But no matter, cycle's fast waning. Sca (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This is stupid. I'll sound pointy but there was nothing wrong in the first place and this conversation is unnecessary.Correctron (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hôtel Gabriel

• ... that the Hôtel Gabriel was rebuilt identically after its destruction in World War II?

This didn't sound right so I looked into it. The article itself says that "the building was restored to its original state but the interior fittings were altered" so we can immediately see that it was not identical. As the building complex had a long and varied history, it's not even clear what identical would mean.

The supposed source is a tourist guide. This says "L’extérieur des bâtiments est reconstruit à l’identique". This confirms that just the exterior was recreated.

The paragraph about the destruction during WW2 has a footnote but that has a {{citation needed}} so that bit isn't so well supported.

Note that the article is a translation from the French by someone who seems to be Spanish. One issue I noticed is that the article talks about the Royal Navy, the French Navy and the German Navy. You might think then that the Royal Navy is the British navy but no – it's an easter egg which means the French navy too.

As a quick fix, I suggest dropping the word "identically" to give:

• ALT ... that the Hôtel Gabriel was rebuilt after its destruction in World War II?

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ve done as you suggested. But we have the most bland hook imaginable, but at least it’s correct. Open to suggestions for something more exciting. Schwede66 08:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Something along the lines that it has been used by both the German and French Navy? Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• ... that Hôtel Gabriel has cannons on either side of its gateway?
• ... that Hôtel Gabriel has a cannon that was taken as a war prize?

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I like the first one. [[User:Edw

IBM Advanced Computer Systems project

... that although it was never built, Lynn Conway notes that IBM's ACS-1 would have been the premier supercomputer of the era?

"Would have been" is a counter-factual weasel and so this is not a definite fact as required by WP:DYKHOOK. Conway was part of the project and so is not independent. And it's easy to make grandiose claims for projects that were not completed. And what does "premier supercomputer of the era" actually mean? An era suggests a long period but computer technology has advanced rapidly per Moore's law which has a doubling every two years. Even if it had been completed, it would soon have been overtaken by newer models. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to @Maury Markowitz, SL93, AirshipJungleman29, and Amakuru. I also have no idea what "premier" means and don't think such a claim from someone within the project is admissible. pulled as a non-viable hook. If someone wants to come up with and verify another one before this set cycles, they're welcome to, but the article needs to be cleaned up to void the same claim. Or, if it turns out there's no error, we can restore it, but that seems unlikely to me at this time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If we do not do it "before this set cycles", what happens then? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Another admin would be free to reopen the nomination, although i personally would recommend against it given that it has already had a substantial run. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy for it to reappear, but at the point it left, so from 8:23 onwards.--Launchballer 18:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Applying the faint hope clause: "... Lynn Conway produced a simulator for IBM's ACS-1 that was used to develop out-of-order execution?

Lynn passed only days ago, it would be a shame to not mark this event with some mention of her earliest work. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: still out there? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Hey! While the hook certainly points to a notable achievement, I think it would fail on WP:DYKINT grounds. I don't see how the hook leave[s] the reader wanting to know more. Would you have any other suggestions? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The project seems to have had lots of interesting human factors. Apart from Lynn Conway (who is currently posted at ITN's RD), there was a feud for design control between Amdahl and Bertram while Earle was remarkably difficult to work with and got beaten up!

Conway had to understand the logical design to simulate it but found this difficult as the different engineers had their own shorthand notations which were not consistent and they kept these close to their chest as a form of self-defence.

This all seems quite like Wikipedia where editors feud over design decisions like infoboxes and insist on using their preferred citation and ENGVAR styles.

It's too late in the day to turn this into a hook but what really matters for the long term is the article.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Iloilo Central Market

• ... that the demolition of the Iloilo Central Market was criticized as being unlawful?

According to the article and its sources, the claim that this recent demolition was unlawful is a controversial allegation and the process of adjudicating this is still ongoing. WP:DYKBLP therefore applies and so this should be immediately pulled. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• ...come again? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think Andrew's point is that whether the demolition actually was unlawful is currently sub judice, and therefore we should be careful about posting a hook which might be taken as choosing a side in that case. Personally, I'm not sure that WP:DYKBLP does apply to that situation, and as there's no suggestion that this is the subject of an ongoing criminal trial, there is no danger of (for example) contempt of court, which would be a legitimate concern. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  The hook is clearly an attack on the mayor, Jerry_Treñas, and that article makes it clear that the accusation is hotly contested, resented and unresolved. This offends against WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPCRIME. And the general point of WP:DYKBLP is that DYK should never be used to make negative attacks of this sort as DYK is supposed to be even stricter than WP:BLP. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Because you said that the hook is clearly an attack on the mayor, I will ping the nominator TheNuggeteer about your allegation. SL93 (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I call your stance nonsense because the hook doesn't actually say that the demolition is unlawful. Pointing to BLP policies does not help your case, along with assuming bad faith against the nominator. Plus, there is only 59 minutes remaining, so you really do appear to be in the minority. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Island

• ... that islands are home to 50 percent of land species at risk of extinction?

I raised this at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#More_examples yesterday but there's no direct response there yet. I traced the statistic back through the article and sources and it seems that it went from 41% to "just under half" to "almost 50%". And now the hook has it as exactly 50% rather than 41%. And that 41% calculation was published in 2017 so the figure may be different now.

And the original author was just counting vertebrate species -- amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles. But now the hook has it as "land species" which would include countless plants, insects, invertebrates and micro-organisms.

So, a more precise wording of the hook would be:

• ... that, in 2017, islands were home to about 41% of land vertebrates at risk of extinction?

That's not what the article says though so I'm going to edit it now.

The nomination has some ALTs but note that there was extensive discussion of ALT1 at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Island and that seemed too problematic. ALT2 looks fairly uncontroversial:

... that Polynesian navigators discovered new islands without the use of navigational instruments?

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: the line you removed from the article about it being "almost 50%" appears as if it was cited in [14] with the text reading "Due to the large range of insularrelated vulnerabilities, almost 50% of terrestrial species presently considered at risk of global extinction also occur on islands". Other than the "almost" part (which I've just amended in the hook itself, along with re-adding the line you removed), this appears correct. Unless you still think the figure in the cited source is not accurate based on its own sourcing?  — Amakuru (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Explained later in the source, "Islands also have higher densities of critically endangered species, hosting just under half of all species currently considered to be at risk of extinction (Spatz et al., 2017a; 2017b), hence making the loss of terrestrial biodiversity and related ecosystem services a KR [Key Risk] (KR3) for small islands." CMD (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I traced back to Spatz and found their original figure to be 41%. Is 41% almost 50%? If one is rounding, then I'd it expect it to be rounded down to 40% rather than rounded up to 50%. Better to give the exact number which the original review calculated. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru's revision now reads

... that islands are home to almost 50 percent of land species at risk of extinction?

This addresses the percentage to some extent but doesn't clarify what is meant by "land species". The Spatz paper was solely concerned with vertebrates and they are just a small fraction of all species. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrew has presented a very strong argument, backed up by a published source. I see no reason not to write "an estimated 41% of land vertebrates at risk of extinction". JMCHutchinson (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson @Jmchutchinson  Done BorgQueen (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Janaki Ballabh (First!)

• ... that sinologist Janaki Ballabh was the first Indian to be given a long-term residency in China?

I just recently pointed out that claims of being first are a WP:REDFLAG. In this case, the claim is absurd because India and China are neighbours and so there is a long history of Indians moving to China and setting up entire communities there. This goes back thousands of years – see Indians in China. See also WP:RECENTISM. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Could we please change it to:

• ... that sinologist Janaki Ballabh was said to be the first Indian to be given a long-term residency in China along with his wife?

The source this is attributed to repeats the part about "along with his wife" twice, so it probably shouldn't be taken out of context; she was also a translator of Chinese children's texts into Hindi. @Ktin, Juxlos, and 97198: Changing it in article now. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Pulled. As noted in the linked article above, Indians have been moving to China for centuries or even millennia.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  Right, probably not even the first in the People's Republic of China. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  OK to add "along with his wife". I am sure this migration goes back thousands of years, but, did not see reasons to pull. Anyway, I am ok either way. This one seems a particular kind of residence permit. Ktin (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Jan Kryst

• ... that the terminally ill soldier Jan Kryst made a fatal assassination attempt on Gestapo members during the German occupation of Poland?

The wording "made a fatal assassination attempt on" is rather clumsy and confusing, why not simply say "assassinated"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the point is that he died, not that he killed them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the wording be "a suicidal assassination attempt" in that case? ENEvery (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It was more than an attempt as he killed several of them. It sounds quite cinematic, like a similar shootout in Inglourious Basterds. How about:

• ALT ... In revenge for the torture of Polish prisoners, the terminally-ill Jan Kryst walked into a restaurant and started shooting members of the Gestapo?

This creates some suspense as the reader will then want to know what happened next. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. What makes it even more cinematic is that the location was the Café Adria which was so glamorous that it was often used as a movie location. I've now started an article about the place so please could you link to it in the hook:

ALT ... In revenge for the torture of Polish prisoners, the terminally-ill Jan Kryst walked into the Café Adria and started shooting members of the Gestapo? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It would perhaps have been best, before proposing more drastic changes to hooks than a simple trim, to ping those involved with the nomination as a simple courtesy (@Marcelus, Piotrus, and CSJJ104:). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The hook is not live yet so it's all good. The Café Adria is coming along nicely but could probably use some help from Poles with a good command of the language and access to more sources. For an evocative video of the scene, please see Pre-war Warsaw in Colour. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The final @Andrew Davidson proposition sounds very good. Marcelus (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Jenny Hurn

• ... that Jenny Hurn (pictured) in Lincolnshire, England, is said to be haunted by a boggart that crosses the River Trent in a dish propelled by oars the size of teaspoons?

"is said to be" is a definite weasel not a definite fact. As we are supposed to avoid such vague wording, try recasting it, e.g:

• ALT ... that boatmen feared the boggart of Jenny Hurn (pictured) and Queen Victoria forbade them from lingering there?

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's ask the team: Dumelow (as nominator), Lajmmoore (as reviewer), AirshipJungleman29 (as promoter to prep), and RoySmith (as promoter to queue). Schwede66 07:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up @Andrew Davidson - sounds good to me Lajmmoore (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

wait... our solution is to claim that boggarts are real? Of course it was "said to be haunted", it wasn't haunted because boggarts aren't real. "Said to be" isn't a weasel here, it's a "Legend tells of" – an acknowledgement that we're conveying what people thought was true, but isn't. That belief is what's interesting.  Not done. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

+1 Andrew would do well to read the second paragraph of WP:WEASEL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "is said to be" has no place in an encyclopedia. It is vague and unspefific and, in this case, carries a false implication that the fact in question might be true. This should be reworded to say "according to legend" or "according to myth" or something, which is how the article phrases it.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t feel like such a change would be made in service to our readers considering it’s common sense that it is a legend. SL93 (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is (full disclosure: I promoted this set). We're talking about a legend, and from what I can see in the article there are multiple WP:RS that talk about the legend. It's kind of an essential part of legends that nobody knows who started it. If the hook had been written with "according to legend", that would have been fine too, but it's hardly necessary. RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with other commenters: WP:WEASEL would be misapplied here, as we are talking about a legend, and reporting (as verifiable fact) that the story is told. The current wording is good. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

... that Jimmy Carter claims to have seen a UFO?: Use of claims seems contrary to MOS:CLAIM. Is there basis for WP to add doubt to his report? Also pinging DYK participants @ExcellentWheatFarmer and Pi.1415926535:.—Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, there's a lot wrong with this. Apart from the violation of MOS:CLAIM:

1. Use of the present tense suggests that this is a current claim whereas the incident happened over 50 years ago.
2. The hook links to unidentified flying object suggesting that Carter still claims to have seen an alien space craft.
3. We actually have a separate article about this – Jimmy Carter UFO incident – which makes it very clear that Carter does not claim to have seen aliens; just an unidentified and unusual light (which may have been a barium cloud from a sounding rocket). The hook does not link to this detailed explanation and the links it does have do not make it easy to find.
4. The overall effect is quite derogatory and this is a BLP. DYK also has a specific rule that "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." This is clearly very undue as we're talking about a former President here. Andrew🐉(talk) 05:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This hook should be pulled so that the choice of hook can be reconsidered.

Andrew🐉(talk) 05:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ugh. Of all of the potential hooks that could have been run for this article, why was that one chosen? Hog Farm _Talk 05:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I suggested few hooks, from which this one was chosen during the nomination by the reviewer as it is attention grabbing. We literally had a hook 1-2 days ago about James McDivitt seeing a UFO .... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The hook links to unidentified flying object suggesting that Carter still claims to have seen an alien space craft. No. UFOS are literally "unidentified". It's not a BLP issue because some readers might incorrectly interpret it as green people and whatnot.—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright so first off, apologies for any misunderstanding, this was actually my first DYK so I'll try better in future. When it was proposed on the DYK nomination page I didn't really see a lot of the issues brought up here, particularly it being derogatory (I don't really get how saying that he saw lights in the sky one time is an "overly negative aspect"?), but I can understand how they could be interpreted that way. There were two other ALT DYKs on the nomination page, so maybe instead of pulling them we could just replace the current DYK with one? – ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'd have just said change it to "that Jimmy Carter once claimed he had seen a UFO?". I don;t think it's a BLP violation, people claim things all the time and I don't see it as derogatory. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson – I suggested this, but I still see no issues. Firstly, how is someone claiming to see a UFO a BLP violation? And Jimmy Carter doesn't just claims to see a UFO, he has officially filed a report to the International UFO Bureau for investigation. It is clear that he indeed has seen something which he claims as "UFO", and that is what the hook very directly says. I see no issues why it should be removed, however, any grammatical errors should be corrected. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What's strange is that it's the second UFO hook this week,[15]. It's still not an error though. I think the only dubious thing is the "claimed" part. Perhaps we should change it to "has said" or something. Otherwise, there's no real issue.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @The C of E and Kavyansh.Singh: My original point was that claim casts doubt on what Carter saw, per MOS:CLAIM. It would be more neutral to use report e.g. "that Jimmy Carter reported sighting a UFO?".—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bagumba – Although no one is sure whether Carter really saw a UFO or not, rephrasing it as "that Jimmy Carter reported sighting a UFO?" seems fine to me. Moreover, it is really attention grabbing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have changed "claimed" to "reported"  — Amakuru (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: The hook still links to unidentified flying object which has flying saucer imagery and specifically states that it's "widely used as a stand-in for extraterrestrial spacecraft-aircraft". This link should instead go to Jimmy Carter UFO incident which is much more specific and which provides a sensible scientific explanation. This would represent Jimmy Carter's actual views on the matter more accurately. The hook would then be:

... that Jimmy Carter reported that he had seen a UFO?

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. OK, your first point here is not a valid one. The UFO article specifically defines one as "any perceived aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified or explained" in its opening sentence. So there's no implication that the term in question only covers "aliens", "extraterrestrial spacecraft-aircraft" etc. The Jimmy Carter UFO incident article itself links that page in its first sentence. However, your suggestion that it's a more relevant link target is a valid one, so I have made the change. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

New link comment FWIW, linking to Jimmy Carter UFO incident is likely counterproductive to showcasing and driving readers to the bolded page.—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The main article about Jimmy Carter says little about the incident while its lead and contents don't even mention it. So, if we're going to tease readers with this tale, we have to give them a way of finding the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The main article about Jimmy Carter says little about the incident while its lead and contents don't even mention it: It's undue for the lead. Surely there was mention in the body, otherwise the hook would have been rejected. The same UFO link has been in Carter's page since 8:16 UTC.—Bagumba (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And if this is going to happen, I'd pipe 'seen a' in the link. Something like "... that Jimmy Carter reported that he had seen a UFO?" Although, I don't think the current version is that misleading. A UFO is an "unidentified" flying object, even if it has a flying saucer image in its infobox, or majority of the people associate it with aliens..... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I have been using one dictionary's definition of "a mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found", but it seems some other online dictionaries say it especially applies to saucers. One's interpretation of the basic meaning of UFO will impact your perspective on BLP.—Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it was really Billy who saw it. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Jonny Pelham

... that the comedian Jonny Pelham is one of only 200 people in the UK to suffer from popliteal pterygium syndrome?

This is contrary to the general guidance of WP:DYKBLP that "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." The condition is a disfiguring mutation and so quite negative.

The fact is also biomedical information per WP:BMI – "Number of people who have a condition" – but does not have a source satisfying WP:MEDRS. The condition is part of a spectrum of genetic mutations which cause a range of disfiguring disorders and so classification would not be so exact. The number 200 is suspiciously round and I suppose that it's a guesstimate from the common statistic for incidence in the literature of 1 per 300,000 which will likewise be a rough approximation. Presenting this as if these 200 people are known individuals is quite misleading.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice way to insult and stigmatise people with this condition. Having a condition or disease is not a "negative aspect" of a person. Fram (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a hook I would have chosen, but that certainly isn't because I think it's a negative aspect of a living person. There was an ALT0 at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonny Pelham, and I would have chosen that, but can see why it wasn't chosen. Pinging AirshipJungleman29, in case there are non-obvious factors. CMD (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't think I spent too much brainpower choosing a hook—both looked fine, so I picked one and promoted it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Seconding the observation that having a physiological condition is not in itself a "negative aspect". Claims that conditions necessarily are negative aspects come across as rather ableist, and I would object to changing the hook on such grounds. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There remains the criticism that the "200 people" conveys a misleading precision. How about "an estimated 200 people"? JMCHutchinson (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an improvement, switching the hook is also an option per AirshipJungleman29's response. That said, this is not the worst hook. CMD (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done – it now says "an estimated". Schwede66 16:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Józef Ignacy Kraszewski

• "one of the most prolific writers in the world" does not sound like a definite fact to me. Srnec (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  There are two reliable sources that back up the claim. Would you like to be a bit more specific why you think there's something wrong here, Srnec? Schwede66 01:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  There have been discussions on WT:DYK about the need to move to move away from superlatives. This seems a good example, the fact is the "hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels", the "making him one of the most prolific writers in the world" is just vague puffery not adding much. CMD (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, there have been discussions about the need to move away from poorly-sourced superlatives, which this is not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  The discussions encompassed all superlatives, they started because of the identification of claims that didn't seem true. At any rate, the sources in this case are "which must be reckoned among the highest outputs ever on a world scale", which is a statement that pretty much says it is not the result of an analysis, and a second source of which the closest text I can find to supporting the claim is "a lifetime of unparalleled productivity". The article body text from this was "arguably one of the most prolific writers worldwide", which became "one of the most prolific in world literature" in the lead and "one of the most prolific writers in the world" in the DYK, losing a small caveat at each step. CMD (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Some of those discussions were around being "the first", which people sometimes have doubt whether the author only considered their country or the Western world. "One of the" gives more leeway, as it's ambiguous what percentile is referred to. —Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, leeway to indicate the definite fact is not known. The article states the fact supporting the status of "the most prolific writer in Poland" (a smaller corpus than the world) is calculated "by the number of published editions of his works", which is an unexpected way to define it, as presumably each edition is not a whole new work of writing, especially not the ones after the author's death. CMD (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have a suggested rewording? @Piotrus, Gerda Arendt, and SL93: Pinging you from the nom.—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict, Bagumba:) I had criticised the hook for speaking only of quantity but nothing came up, - with no image we don't even get a hint at his period. We could cut the claim, - 200 novels should be impressive enough for those who don't care about content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see a problem here. The sources verify the fact, and they are high quality sources. This just seems like an "I don't like it" complaint rather than an actual issue.4meter4 (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  The source says "which must be reckoned", how is that a verification? CMD (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  The wording for the rest is fine, remove "making him one of the most prolific writers in the world" and the remaining hook is a definite (and impressive) fact. CMD (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflicts, saying the same) The "fact" - in many words - is rather redundant to the high number, almost no surprise (at least to me). - Hook possibility: just have the question mark after "novels", in case of doubt what I meant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The hook in question is:

• ... that 19th-century Polish writer Józef Ignacy Kraszewski authored hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels, making him one of the most prolific writers in the world?

We used to have a List of prolific authors and this appeared at DYK in 2011 with the hook

• ... that while some prolific authors use pen and paper or typewriters, Philip M. Parker has used a computer to write more than 200,000 books?

So, that's a thousand times more than Kraszewski. There have been lots of authors who wrote hundreds of books without computer assistance including, Barbara Cartland (700+ books); Isaac Asimov (470+ books); Ryoki Inoue (1,000+ books); L. Ron Hubbard, (1,000+ books)... The latter holds the Guinness World Record and so has a good claim to the title. Kraszewski is just an also-ran and so we should remove the claim, shortening the hook to:

• ... that 19th-century Polish writer Józef Ignacy Kraszewski authored hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels?

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There was an interesting discussion at WP:ERRORS about the current hook

• ... that 19th-century Polish writer Józef Ignacy Kraszewski authored hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels, making him one of the most prolific writers in the world?

Guerillero "removed the superlative"

The hook has been trimmed now but the discussion was illuminating. In particular, notice that there was a DYK nomination for the list of prolific writers in 2011.

The discussion has been zapped at WP:ERRORS now so here's what you may have missed. One thing I'm still wondering is who is the most prolific author of DYKs?

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of Józef Ignacy Kraszewski at WP:ERRORS

"one of the most prolific writers in the world" does not sound like a definite fact to me. Srnec (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC) There are two reliable sources that back up the claim. Would you like to be a bit more specific why you think there's something wrong here, Srnec? Schwede66 01:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC) There have been discussions on WT:DYK about the need to move to move away from superlatives. This seems a good example, the fact is the "hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels", the "making him one of the most prolific writers in the world" is just vague puffery not adding much. CMD (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC) No, there have been discussions about the need to move away from poorly-sourced superlatives, which this is not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC) The discussions encompassed all superlatives, they started because of the identification of claims that didn't seem true. At any rate, the sources in this case are "which must be reckoned among the highest outputs ever on a world scale", which is a statement that pretty much says it is not the result of an analysis, and a second source of which the closest text I can find to supporting the claim is "a lifetime of unparalleled productivity". The article body text from this was "arguably one of the most prolific writers worldwide", which became "one of the most prolific in world literature" in the lead and "one of the most prolific writers in the world" in the DYK, losing a small caveat at each step. CMD (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Some of those discussions were around being "the first", which people sometimes have doubt whether the author only considered their country or the Western world. "One of the" gives more leeway, as it's ambiguous what percentile is referred to. —Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Indeed, leeway to indicate the definite fact is not known. The article states the fact supporting the status of "the most prolific writer in Poland" (a smaller corpus than the world) is calculated "by the number of published editions of his works", which is an unexpected way to define it, as presumably each edition is not a whole new work of writing, especially not the ones after the author's death. CMD (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Do you have a suggested rewording? @Piotrus, Gerda Arendt, and SL93: Pinging you from the nom.—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict, Bagumba:) I had criticised the hook for speaking only of quantity but nothing came up, - with no image we don't even get a hint at his period. We could cut the claim, - 200 novels should be impressive enough for those who don't care about content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC) I don't see a problem here. The sources verify the fact, and they are high quality sources. This just seems like an "I don't like it" complaint rather than an actual issue.4meter4 (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC) The source says "which must be reckoned", how is that a verification? CMD (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC) The wording for the rest is fine, remove "making him one of the most prolific writers in the world" and the remaining hook is a definite (and impressive) fact. CMD (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC) (edit conflicts, saying the same) The "fact" - in many words - is rather redundant to the high number, almost no surprise (at least to me). - Hook possibility: just have the question mark after "novels", in case of doubt what I meant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC) The hook in question is: ... that 19th-century Polish writer Józef Ignacy Kraszewski authored hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels, making him one of the most prolific writers in the world? We used to have a List of prolific authors and this appeared at DYK in 2011 with the hook ... that while some prolific authors use pen and paper or typewriters, Philip M. Parker has used a computer to write more than 200,000 books? So, that's a thousand times more than Kraszewski. There have been lots of authors who wrote hundreds of books without computer assistance including: Barbara Cartland (700+ books); Isaac Asimov (470+ books); Ryoki Inoue (1,000+ books); L. Ron Hubbard (1,000+ books)... The latter holds the Guinness World Record and so has a good claim to the title. Kraszewski is just an also-ran and so we should remove the claim, shortening the hook to: ... that 19th-century Polish writer Józef Ignacy Kraszewski authored hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels? Andrew🐉(talk) 07:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt is, per Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. Silverseren^C 07:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I've looked at that list before and wondered where I stood in the rankings (my count is ~180). I found that I wasn't in the list because it is not maintained automatically and so it is not complete. Perhaps there are other prolific DYKers who haven't been added? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, I just took a look... DYK Bot says I have 679 nominations, and only 613 are identified on that page. Given I was retired for seven years, I'd hazard to say that the list is woefully out of date.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the most prolific reviewers, promoters, and queuers(?) of DYK. I believe there is a tool to check individual promotions, but am unaware of if there area any aggregate stats. (Okay, reviewers may differ very little to DYKs due to QPQs, but the other two seem worth separately celebrating.) CMD (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKPC tracks the promoters. Pretty much no way to track reviewers, and queuers would be difficult but not necessarily impossible. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

A good proxy for a p2q promotion count is the statistics at [16]. —Kusma (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Only slightly undercut by the fact that BlueMoonset is in eleventh by number of edits, despite never having been an admin – but yes, it is generally a decent estimate :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, if I recall correctly, my edits to NextPrep were fixes when promoting admins forgot to increment it after moving a prep to a queue. This has fortunately disappeared as an issue now that automated tools are used for prep to queue promotions. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

[...] so substantially impactful users such as BorgQueen were too early for this list to accurately display their contributions. Thanks for the courtesy mention. I'm certainly one of the ancients, perhaps from the mist of prehistory... BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Judge Lu

• .. that according to Ren Xiaoping, the first reference to a body swap occurs in the Chinese short story "Judge Lu", in which the titular character performs a head transplant on his friend's wife?

The Judge Lu story is dated 1766 but according to body swap appearances in media, they were "first popularized in anglo-saxon culture by the personal identity chapter of John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding." and that was earlier in 1689. Ren Xiaoping is a Chinese surgeon who plans to do this for real. That's interesting but he has a COI and cultural bias and so is not a good authority on who was first to speculate about this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

[the entry rotated off DYK without any response]

Justly Watson

• ... that Justly Watson died suddenly in 1757 from the effects of poison administered in his coffee, it was believed, by a black female servant?

@Ficaia, Yakikaki, Bruxton, and Z1720: I'm not sure I like the wording of this hook, as I stated in the nomination (Yakikaki, I think that most users would appreciate a ping when their tag is replaced, for future reference). To me, it reads as unequivocally reductive to give the race and gender of someone we're highlighting only for being a murderer. Even if reliable sources talk about this, 200 characters is not enough room for that nuance. Suggesting that the hook be changed to:

• ... that Justly Watson died suddenly in 1757 from the effects of poison administered in his coffee, it was believed, by his servant? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  Not that it will change things here, but when I read the hook I thought: do we have nothing else to say about what Watson did, only how he died? Just for the clicks?? - I agree that "female black" makes it worse. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, Ficaia had written in the DYK nom: I just thought the most interesting thing about his life was that he was murdered by a black female servant, because history usually ignores that kind of person.—Bagumba (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  I feel this argument's somewhat undercut by the fact that the article spends precisely three words describing the poisoner. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  Current posted hook size: 139 characters.—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  Given the historical context (Watson's last job before going to Nova Scotia was surveying the British forts along the Slave Coast of West Africa) I think the racial element is significant and certainly makes the hook more interesting. This is a case of a black person of low social status turning up in the historical record. Just because it's a negative reference doesn't mean we should disguise it, in my view. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  And that'd be great context for the article, but you simply can't explain that in this 200-character hook. The vast majority of people who read your hook probably won't click on it, as with any other hook – and when you write a hook, you gotta make sure they don't walk away with the wrong impression. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how this creates a "wrong impression". If anything, knowing that the servant was black will only make the reader more sympathetic and therefore more likely to read the article. The hook summarises everything we know about the event, and it's not for us to disguise an important part of it. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  Or maybe she was unjustly framed and was a convenient target due to her social status. There just isn't enough information to say either way. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Removed "black female", as it's deemed superflous to the hook as currently written, and seemingly insignificant based on its weight in the current bio. Feel free to discuss enhancements, if needed.—Bagumba (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  I suggest: ... that Justly Watson died suddenly in 1757 from the effects of poison administered in his coffee, it was believed, by his black servant? -- I think the link gives appropriate context, and I maintain that race is significant here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  that would fall afoul of WP:EGG, I believe. If I were to click that link, I would expect an article on the person. I ran a hook on a fictional character yesterday, and if the link to "her portrayer" went to Actress, that'd be kind of misleading. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how that's an unintuitive link. There's an obvious connection between the role of the individual and the institution. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  The article refers to her as a "servant", not a "slave". Others have argued that both the hook and article would need more context for a reader to understand why their gender and race is relevant. —Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  On 25 December the hook "that despite running against a former general, Danny Setiawan received implicit backing from military officers in his 2003 gubernatorial bid?" was run, even though there is almost no information about the former general mentioned in the hook in the article. I don't see much difference in principle here. I maintain that the original hook was not only OK but good, for the reasons given by @Ficaia here and in the nomination. @Theleekycauldron, I did not notify you since I was under the impression it is up to the DYK reviewer to confirm or not that the hook is eligible. And I still cannot find any tangible faults with this one, compared with other things that have been posted here. Yakikaki (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• The hook seems inadequate because the article does not substantiate the claimed poisoning and the sources provide no details either. The state of forensic toxicology at this time was quite poor and there was a general background of "poison panics" – see Poisoning Crimes and Forensic Toxicology Since the 18th Century – plus other plausible causes such as food adulteration. I think we need better evidence and certainty to make such a claim. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales

• ... that a man who fatally shot a Florida woman waving a gun at him from her front yard after a road-rage incident was not charged in connection with her death? does this focus too negatively on a living person? Therapyisgood (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The man did shoot Sara-Nicole Morales and was still not charged with a crime per many reliable sources. It's not negatively covering the person as meant by the BLP guideline (and it isn't a BLP), but rather only stating the facts of the killing. Wikipedia guidelines also don't stop the creation of articles on notable criminals as well or them being shown on the main page as long as they are convicted. Although the man was not charged with a crime, it is a known fact that he did fatally shoot someone. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure the nominator Daniel Case can explain it better. SL93 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Some fatal shootings are justified as self-defense. This was one of them. I don't think that reflects negatively on the person who did the shooting. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not an error. Schwede66 03:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, Florida's stand-your-ground laws are unique in a rather unpleasant way, which makes the shooting even more interesting for our readers. I wonder if this would have merited added emphasis in the blurb. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This hook is on the main page now where I noticed it. It does read like a true crime report and it certainly reflects negatively on the parties. I agree that it violates WP:DYK: "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." Andrew🐉(talk) 14:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That rule, as I understand it, has historically been interpreted as relative to the person's overall notable aspects. So running this hook in a BLP about a notable musician who, incidentally, shot someone once, would be a problem. But if a person's only claim to fame is that he shot someone, it's not undue to talk about the fact that he shot someone. All that said, I have a separate BLP concern here, which is: Does the article really need to name him? This is a private individual who only entered the spotlight because he was—at least as far as the local prosecutor sees it—the victim of a crime. Is that a person we should be naming? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Nobody comes out of this looking good – not the parties, the authorities, the legislators and especially not Wikipedia. Per true crime, "The genre is often criticized for being insensitive to the victims and their families and is described by some as trash culture." Andrew🐉(talk) 15:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'd probably support a restriction on DYKs about recent violent crimes without any particular broader significance. But that's a discussion for WT:DYK; I'm just saying I don't think this violates the rule as written. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK has had such articles run before and no one batted an eye. We can remove the name, but that won't satisfy everybody. SL93 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I've removed his name from the article, but that doesn't really address Andrew's broader concern. I'm also not sure it's accurate to say "no one [has] batted an eye" about "true crime" hooks in the past. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is the first time I have seen an article compared to true crime. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

For a similar recent example, see Killing of Alexis Sharkey, "The article reads like a tabloid newspaper report ... I'm just saying to pull it ... in general Wikipedia's coverage of modern true crime is just awful -- overdetail, tabloid writing, poor sourcing, etc ... there do seem to be a lot of articles on murders and other crimes that don't seem to stand out as being particularly notable" Andrew🐉(talk) 18:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm of the belief that we shouldn't pull a hook if there is no consensus to pull a hook, which there isn't. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I've removed several more significant BLP violations from the article, including statements about the shooter's wife sourced only to a police report and original research through a Google Maps link to the house where the deceased's mother still lives. Hook issues aside, this was not ready for the Main Page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The article sat at the nominations page for two months. I really wish all these editors crawling out of the woodwork now had gone and addressed these issues during that time. I have withdrawn a couple of nominations in the past when people expressed this concern during the nomination. As it I feel played. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

My comment above was to highlight a failure in the process, not to lay the blame at any one person's feet. I do find it alarming that, to get this through DYK, outright oversightable information needed to be removed from the article, and that that still left info with serious privacy implications—but I'm not going to say that's exclusively your fault as author. Win as a team, lose as a team. I'd be happy to discuss further at WT:DYK what can be done to avoid situations like these. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Articles naturally attract attention when posted to the main page and this is the whole point of nominating them for DYK. Such attention may naturally play both ways as either criticism or praise. There was a strong clue that this would happen during the nomination process, "I really don't think it's what we want to be running on the homepage, out of respect for the families of the people involved. Leave that for the supermarket tabloids." Daniel Case responded, "Not once before has anyone raised this as an objection." Now the objection has been made by multiple editors. So it goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In other cases where things like this have happened, though, the article had been approved fairly quickly, so I understand. But we had a long vetting process here. I would have been receptive to withdrawing the nomination if there was a consensus for not running the article on the Main Page—as I said, I have done that on other occasions.

Perhaps we need to make it clear in writing somewhere that there might be extra scrutiny for articles about true crime involving non-notable people where the events in question occurred within a certain time frame prior to the article's creation. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Daniel should consider trying the ITN section. At ITN, the conventional wisdom is to ignore the amount of views that articles get (which is the main metric at DYK). Instead, they are especially interested in death -- the more the better. And ITN could use more submissions while DYK has a surfeit. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how serious you are being, but this kind of article has no chance of ever being posted at ITN.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by this "kind of article". So far this year, ITN has posted just 2 general news stories and 18 recent deaths. This 90% focus on individual death seems typical of ITN's activity. For the broader news items, the more dramatic deaths they have, the more likely they are to be posted. Of course, YMMV, as I'd agree that US shootings have a higher bar, as they are so common. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Recent Deaths section, this would not be eliigble as it is focused on the event not the person. By this "kind of article" I mean what has already been defined above, a "true crime" story on an individual without wider significance. Such items do not get blurbs. Generally mass shootings or accidents with a high number of casualties are the only "death" blurbs to get posted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, given his centrality to the event, the fact that every cited source uses his name, I see no reason why we should be acting like it's a big secret ... as for AVOIDVICTIM, there are people who still aren't convinced of that (usually because they don't have the full set of facts, which was one reason I wrote and researched the article). I can understand leaving it out on the basis that he has not spoken publicly about the incident, but only that, and writing around his name has resulted in awkward phrasings like "the man who fired the gun", which I've had to condense to the more elegant (ahem) "the shooter" (Perhaps we need a guide to writing around BLP concerns ... it's a lot easier to take information out of articles than it is to repair whatever damage is done; as I've said in the past more editors know how to cut than how to suture).

It's a different matter when someone is peripheral to the story ... i.e. we've kept George Santos's boyfriend/husband's name out of the article, along with his ex-wife, because it's enough for the reader to know that both individuals exist without knowing their names. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Two of the cited sources [17] [18] do in fact omit his name. Regardless, I'm happy to defend my decision to remove it at WP:BLPN if you'd like to discuss there; I erred on the side of caution per standard practice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It would probably be better to restore it in the future should he decide to speak about it (or be compelled to in some capacity, like a legislative hearing) or after a certain amount of time has passed, à la the way BRDP naturally expires after two years unless there is consensus to keep applying it past that point. Maybe ten years after the incident?

I mean, this looks a little hypocritical of us when we have a redirect that points right to a section of Trial of Michael Jackson that names the victim of the alleged sexual abuse, who was a minor at the time and whose name was not published in American newspapers (although the court later deanonymized him), it had been published by the European media and the trial article had it in there from its creation when it was forked from Michael Jackson. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oh, and a more straightforward error here: Shouldn't that be "her mother's front yard"? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • It was her mother's house but she also lived there, so I don't think its inaccurate to say it was also her front yard.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

    Whilst I said "not an error" above, I won't stand in the way if others decide to change this or even pull the item. Schwede66 21:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Lady Angela Forbes

The first hook says: that the poet Edith Sitwell described Lady Angela Forbes (pictured) as "an elderly gorilla affected with sex appeal"? -- really?? we featuring a man insulting a woman a sexual insult of a woman on the front page?? Heard of #MeToo?? There was really nothing else that could have been put in the hook? Like her helping wounded soldiers? WTF?? Renata (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Did you know & strike out "man". Renata (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Being bold, changed it myself to that the British socialite Lady Angela Forbes (pictured) organized soldiers' canteens in France during World War I? Renata (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Revert (ec) The hook was the suggestion of the editor who went to the trouble of creating this article and we should defer to the considered judgement of this contributor and the various reviewers, especially as the complainant didn't get the basic facts right and their new hook is comparatively dull. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored and the original hook seems reasonably jocular. Edith Sitwell was a famous character and we should also respect her legacy. Renata should please revert their improper use of admin privilege to edit through protection as they are WP:INVOLVED. Andrew D. (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Replied at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Renata (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

An admin has just unilaterally crafted their own DYK hook out of thin air and posted it to the Main Page, simply because they didn't personally like the existing one. The two are nothing alike. This looks like a completely out-of-process admin action, and it should be reversed on that basis. Modulus12 (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Once a hook is on the Main Page, it should be discussed here on ERRORS; if there are obvious mistakes or any other disqualifying factors, it should simply be pulled rather than having a new hook invented unilaterally, which is against the consensus building model and renders the entire process moot. This was an inappropriate action, but I am unwilling to revert since I was involved in approving the set. Alex Shih (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The admin in question should be strongly admonished for abuse of the tools (modifying through protection material to a personal preference). Plus while this new version remains, please someone change organized to organised. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"Organize" in Oxford. Bazza (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"Organise" in conventional BritEng. Irrelevant now in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

There is still time to remove this sexual insult from the Main Page (even if editors would rather spend their time discussing Oxford spelling: there are plenty of synonyms that avoid the "ise/ize" spelling issue entirely: established, arranged, set up, ran ...) 213.205.240.161 (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If the subject of the hook was a man, would it still be a "sexual insult"? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes it would. If the subject of the hook was not a long dead upper class white British person it would much more of a problem. If this hook stays I want it to be clear this is not a precedent for future hooks featuring gorillas with sex appeal. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I see, so the "bunch of men" thing below and "sexualised slur of a woman" is completely unnecessary? It's about the "sexual insult" to a human being? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The subjects gender should not matter. I think this is a matter of basic human dignity. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I doubt this particular slight would have been cast by Edith Sitwell (who, let us be clear, delighted in her well-deserved reputation for cruelly acerbic criticism, of both men and woman), or repeated with such delight, if the subject was male. But in any event, the Main Page should not be repeating a remark describing anyone as a gorilla with sex appeal. Can we just change it please, the sooner the better. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Reverted. Original hook wasn't wrong, as a bonus the original objection was unfounded, change was imposing personal preference (with the added bonus of editing through protection to impose this). Correcting hooks is a valid use of editing through protection (even without discussion here or at WT:DYK), but no correction was made here. If there is consensus for a change, feel free to implement it of course. Fram (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that a bunch of men have had their opportunity to grumble about process (plus several others of indeterminate gender, but I suspect at least one and probably the others identify as male too) - and no doubt you will all protest this is nothing to do with gender when it plainly is - can we please address the substance of the complaint, which is that there is no reason to include this sexualised slur of a woman on the Main Page without any context (I'd also argue that there is insufficient context for this in the article too, at present) particularly when there are plenty of alternative hooks available from this woman's interesting life.

Along with a couple of people who replied at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, I prefer the version that Renata posted, with the spelling altered to British English. Or another alternative might that she "was ordered to leave the British Army base at Étaples in 1917 due to her swearing and because she washed her hair in a canteen". 213.205.240.161 (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't realise that the hook was promoted by a female editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said let's not obsess about process, and focus instead on the substance, which is that it is unnecessary to use this sexualised insult on the Main Page. The source of the quotation appears to be Sitwell's autobiography, and it is picked out without much context by one of the references used in our article on Forbes. I have posted more at Talk:Lady Angela Forbes. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Sitwell's full comment comes from her own autobiography,

  ...Lady Angela Forbes, a bad hangover from the Edwardian era. This household pest strongly resembled, in colour, figure and profile, and in general, an impression of tattered hairiness, an elderly gorilla afflicted with sex-appeal. In her autobiography, which she was so unwise as to publish, she proclaimed that she was 'the despair of a good-looking mother,'...

So, what Sitwell is saying is that Lady Angela was unkempt and hairy, but was still attractive to men. Sitwell was perhaps being waspish or bitchy but so it goes. This still doesn't seem so shocking that we have to pull it to avoid scaring the horses. As this was the selection of the article's main author and was reviewed and approved by due process, it's not the business of WP:ERRORS to second-guess that formal peer review. Notice also that the suggestion about swearing and washing her hair seems similar in tone and so is no improvement. As that hasn't been formally verified and approved, we should not change lest we make matters worse by introducing an actual error of fact. Andrew D. (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew for providing some of the context that is missing in a one-line hook. I trust you found my comments on the talk page and the link there useful, but you omitted Sitwell's next line about Forbes being referred to by young men with two words of one syllable, one biblical and the other veterinary, so there is clearly a sexualised context there. The acid nature of Sitwell's autobiography was recognised in the reviews when it was published posthumously in 1965. Another reason for us not to headline her extreme views on the Main Page.

Don't get distracted by the hair, it was just a possible alternative. I'd much prefer a hook that focuses to this woman's real actions and achievements, such as the buffets for injured soldiers, rather one limited to her non-conforming behaviour or sexual attractiveness. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Did anyone think to ping User:Moonraker or User:Caknuck? I thought the WP:WPWIR participants might have something to add. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I pinged the main author Moonraker when this fuss started. I do DYKs myself and have one up in the same set today – One-armed versus one-legged cricket – a hook about hooks! As an author, I take great pains over the choice of hook because this is a major element of the DYK process – choosing a good hook which intrigues readers so that they click-through. My father is visiting today and so I'll be showing him and others my handiwork. It is really annoying when busybodies tinker with hooks which have been carefully prepared. If others think they can do better then they should participate in the DYK process themselves, doing the hard work of writing articles, making QPQ reviews and coping with all the bureaucracy. So, I feel very strongly that Moonraker should be consulted and that we should not lightly change this hook. As for Sitwell, I'm not sure what two words she was hinting at. One Biblical and one veterinary – Holy cow? Andrew D. (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: no, the two words were said to be of one syllable. And I suspect they were used separately rather than in combination. Perhaps this and this?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• I fail to see why this is acceptable. Notwithstanding any sexual content it is dated to refer to people as gorillas, niggers, or any other victorian insults that noted literary critics may have used at the time. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it is about untidy clothes and hair, so more about gender than race, but just as unacceptable. As the link shows, it is also a misquotation by Anita Leslie (the source used in the article): Sitwell wrote "afflicted" not "affected", and "sex-appeal" with a hyphen. So those were real errors in the live version until they were corrected a few moments ago.

Can someone please just change to "...that the British socialite Lady Angela Forbes (pictured) set up soldiers' canteens in France during World War I?". Thanks. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I gotta say - referring to a female as a gorilla on the main page, without the context given above, is really not very good. Would we allow this if it was someone from Africa? It's derogatory and nasty and utterly lacking in context. I thought one of the rules of DYK was to avoid featuring negative hooks... just because the person referred to is dead doesn't make it less derogatory. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with you, we should have picked a better hook for this article. By highlighting this fact above all the others we're subtly implying that this is the most noteworthy thing we could say about her. That probably is a matter for DYK regulars to hammer out rather than an error that should be "fixed" by an administrator though. And as an aside it is interesting that both the insult in question and the editor who brought the matter to DYK in the first place are female. Not everything is as obvious as it seems. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It was also a female editor who promoted the DYK to a prep set. What should have happened is that this should have been pulled back to noms rather than see an abusive use of admin tools to set a personally preferred hook. I also asked above if the issue would be considered the same if the subject was a man (i.e. a man referred to as a gorilla without context). If not, why not? If so, why has this devolved into such a divisive discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Asked and answered, and here we go with the process again. Coulda shoulda. Why is there such resistence to changing this clearly abusive hook? Would it be simpler to remove it, or replace it? 213.205.240.161 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, no-one has answered why the divisiveness when it's nothing to do with gender. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Interesting hook which drew me into reading three different articles. The hook did its job IMHO. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 14:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the best comment so far. Pity the article doesn't do a better job of putting this insult into context. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Would have been nice to know why there was so much animosity between them. Was a pleasure to read about them both, especially as one if from my hometown, which I had no idea about! New thing every day. -LÒÓkingYourBest^(Talk|Edits) 15:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can edit the article. Feel free to do so IP, to make it say what you prefer. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Societal change isn't retroactive. History is what was, and the quote is apparently what was said at the time. However, for current public consumption (out of context) it's a poor DYK choice, as it's likely to engender animosity. Sca (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Renata did what she thought was best. I'm no fan of the hook either, but having had more experience than Renata at WP:ERRORS, I'm aware that DYK is often more about clickbait than about respect for other humans. Renata can be forgiven for not knowing this basic fact, no need to hyperventilate about abuse of tools. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The relevant "basic fact" here is that Main Page content is created through various processes, not administrative fiat. I'd think administrators should be capable of recognizing that. The "abuse of the tools" happened when they put their own creation on the Main Page with zero consensus to do. Removing a problematic hook is not the problem. Modulus12 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we're not allowed to raise concerns over the abuse of the tools, especially as any attempt to do so is characterised as "hyperventilation" by one of her colleagues. Hush now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The whole idea that an alledged encyclopedia’s articles are so deficient that they have to be pimped out with cheap clickbait is depressing and disgusting.

The idea of describing the process for selecting them as “peer review” rather than the more obvious “blind leading the blind provides some comic relief for it, though. Qwirkle (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Tell me why we have WP:DYK again? I don't recall "hooky hooks" being part of Wikipedia's mission, nor, as others mentioned above, rolling out clickbait.--WaltCip (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The idea is that, if we have this newly-created or recently-improved-to-GA articles in a section of the Main Page, first it demonstrates that Wikipedia is constantly growing and dynamic. Second, it might persuade people who haven't edited to start doing so once they check out the article—if not directly, then indirectly.

I don't see how you get people to do that without giving them a good reason to click, which is why we have the hook I had proposed for the Schoharie limousine crash right underneath this one at present—I thought it would be more interesting than just the "deadliest transportation accident in the U.S. since the 2009 Colgan Air crash" that I had also submitted, and at some point someone agreed.

Yes, some hooks go too far—I've had plenty rejected on those grounds; see this nom from earlier in the year, for which if I had had my druthers we would have used the first hook, but that's I guess why we have reviewers.

While I should say that I personally don't like hooks of this variety, which consist of something X said about the subject, since it's more about X and the clever things they say rather than the subject, I nevertheless do not see wheel warring here as the solution. Those of us involved with DYK for a long period of time recall the mess that was created years ago when Bedford and another user, both admins, similarly wheel-warred over a DYK hook that the other user thought was rather cheesecakey. Bedford wound up being desysopped by Jimbo, one of the last times that happened IIRC, after he called the other user a feminazi, and the whole thing left a rather bad taste in everyone's mouths. We really ought to avoid regular, or even irregular, replications of that such as this incident. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh man, I remember that. That was a complete shit-show and then Bedford turned out to be a total nutjob. —howcheng {chat} 00:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

What a beautiful illustration of the differences between theory and practice, and between prescriptive and descriptive definitions. In theory, perhaps, you’ve described what WP:DYC should be about; in practice its a way to feature deficient articles for improvement or simple mockery. Qwirkle (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you meant WP:DYK (was that AutoCorrect? Can't blame it on the standard QWERTY keyboard layout ...)

I think years ago there was a time when we put a selected article for improvement on the Main Page; after a few months or so it was discontinued because there didn't seem to be any appreciable bump in edits to the article in question.

Perhaps we should be more encouraging of nominators to develop the article further than "bare minimum stub surrounding a clever hook fact"; not all do this, of course, but we could forgive the ones who do who then think that's all that's expected of them. I, for one, work to develop any article I nominate to DYK to the fullest extent possible; and when you have a lot to work with it's easier to suggest alternate hooks when problems like this arise. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No, Qwirkle meant DYC, i.e "Do You Care?" The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Renata3 shouldn't be criticized for removing a misogynist hook; any admin would remove a racist one. That's not "personal preference". Given all the discussions we have about representations of women, surely no one can argue that the most interesting thing about this woman was a rude remark about her appearance and a sexual slur. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  I think we covered that claim already a few times. And editing through protection to install a preference is not acceptable. Removing the hook for discussion would have been borderline appropriate. And ironically, because of that poor judgement which somewhat detracted from the matter at hand, the arguments have continued here while the hook remains in place. And I still find it interesting that the hook was actually promoted by a female editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  You've pointed out already that it was promoted by a female editor, without explaining what difference that makes. Women can overlook or misread misogyny just as much as men can; we're all raised with it, and we all absorb it until it becomes almost invisible—just the way things are. There's a global effort to change that. It's unfortunate whenever the English Wikipedia seems not to be part of that desire for change.

  As for the argument that the hook should have been left out rather than swapped for another, I can't comment on that, because I don't know what the usual practice is. But I'm glad Renata3 removed it and disappointed that it was restored. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  It means that none of you are "right" or "wrong". The only thing that was categorically "wrong" was the abuse of the tools I'm afraid, must be the season for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Here we all are, gazing at our navels while that odious quotation decorates our Main Page. Whether it was written by a woman, or repeated by a woman, or promoted by a woman, is irrelevant. It is a sexualised insult about a woman, akin to slut-shaming. It is shameful that no admin has stepped up to remove it or replace it with something better. Are there any objections to the alternative the Renata3 provided 18 hours ago, except spelling (dealt with above) and process? Please, someone, do something about it. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is that there's no real consensus to support any changes. That it has divided the few users that lurk here, both male and female, is precisely symptomatic of something which draws in readers to articles (as mentioned above), which is a goal of DYK. It is also symptomatic that there is no right or wrong here, everyone has their own opinion on whether or not this is insulting or "slut-shaming" or something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone considered pinging @Caknuck: (OK, I just did) who approved the hook in the first place? No other ones were submitted; a more sensitive reviewer knows that these things will be on the Main Page for 24 hours and should at least have insisted the nominator come up with some other ones; I think, after reading the article, that there were other possibilities (probably too late at this point to swap one in)? Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was done some time ago, and Moonraker too, but neither has been editing today.

Seeing this, I don't wonder why. Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What, exactly, are the objections to replacing the hook, as suggested above, with something entirely factual, and well sourced, about the actions this woman took in providing provisions to wounded soldiers during the First World War? Why insist that the Main Page continues to repeat (and by implication approves of) that sexualised insult published 50 years ago about this woman's appearance? (Edith Sitwell certainly intended it as an insult. Or perhaps some think being described in this manner - bad hangover, household pest, tattered hairiness, elderly gorilla... - is a compliment? Just read that page of her autobiography, and take note of Sitwell's reputation for acid criticism. There is a review of the autobiography, for example, in the Illustrated London News in 1965 pointing it out.)

We now have a procesion of people agreeing this not appropriate and that we can do better. I encourage any passing admin to do the right thing and not leave this as it is. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No, there are a handful of people complaining, some of whom are claiming "misogyny", some are claiming "not the right thing directed at either gender", some are saying "could do better" (which is DYK's tagline), and some are saying "meh". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the discussion has been tainted somewhat by the fact that, like the whole Bedford situation, this began with an exercise of administrative authority in a domain where it has traditionally been considered acceptable only in extremis situations, and usually on the heels of some discussion. Had we discussed this first I don't think there would be this level of resistance. Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I am slightly surprised to see anyone defending this casual misogyny. There is no need for the "scare quotes" to see that comparing a woman to a sexually appealing gorilla might be problematic (comparing a man to a sexually appealing gorilla would be problematic too, but we can deal with that problem when it occurs). I find it deeply troublng that people are choosing to do nothing about this - indeed, some are choosing to defend the status quo, when there is are some very good alternative, about which I don't see any objection, apart from some paperwork not being filled in correctly. WP:IAR. 213.205.240.161 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess it's being defended because there are so many different opinions about the hook, what it represents and what can be interpreted from it. That's why there's been no consensus all day to change the hook. That's my guess anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Why hasn't this been pulled from the main page so that this discussion can take place without the stress of 'this is currently live and being viewed by millions of people'? It's clearly a big issue that means that this hook needs to go back to the discussion stage. So why can't we do that - and if it turns out after that discussion that it is OK, then it could always be posted again at a later date? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  No, that should have happened before it was posted. Or immediately afterward, rather than completely rephrasing it with no consensus at all through protection. Now it's been on the main page this long, it doesn't get another run, simple as that. We haven't had a single complaint from anyone who isn't a regular user with the exception of the IP her, not a dickie bird... Now, you post an image of a nude in a Renaissance painting, and boy, the "think of the children" brigade are on it like nobody's business... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: But that discussion apparently didn't happen before it was posted. A single editor rephrasing it without consensus is a distraction - it should just have been pulled. There have been several editors above that have complained - you can always count my post as a complaint if you want. Take it back to the discussion stage, please. Mike Peel (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps you're not up to speed with how DYK works. It's nominated by one editor, reviewed by another, added to a prep set by a third and promoted to a queue by an admin (i.e. a fourth editor). So this had plenty of discussion and opportunity for debate en route. As noted, it's not going back to "discussion", it's had it's time. If it gets pulled now, that's it for this one. That's how it works. Incidentally, editing through protection to implement a personal preference against something which had been accepted through that multi-stage DYK process is far from a distraction, it's directly against policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: My first DYK was a decade ago, my latest was a year ago - I know how the process works. Something went wrong here, though - somehow this got past those four editors, and caused a controversy on the main page. So it needs to go back a step. Let's do that, and then argue about whether that means "that's it for this one" amongst the other issues. Mike Peel (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  No, just those four editors (and some here) hold a different opinion from a number of other editors here. That's what happens around here. And as noted, not one soul beyond the IP other than regulars has complained or "caused a controversy". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  It needs a wider discussion, and the space to do that. That's all I'm asking for - so why are you objecting to that? Mike Peel (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  I didn't say that. I said that this article won't get another run at DYK again. If you want to start a generic thread at DYK relating to hooks which some people find offensive yet others don't, that's a different matter altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: OK, so the article can now be pulled from the main page, and we can discuss this - even if it won't appear again at DYK? Mike Peel (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yes in principle of course it can be pulled because that's the rogue action that took place earlier today. It was then replaced. In the meantime this discussion has generated a lot of heat, and not really any consensus. As noted, until such a consensus exists, there's no justification to pull again. In fact, that would be en route for wheel-warring. The article certainly won't appear at DYK again. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  OK, I've removed it. Let's see how the discussion goes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  So just to be clear you reverted another admin's revert without consensus to do so? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  So, embarrassingly, I read the first part of your reply ("Yes in principle of course it can be pulled"), and went with that... But I stand by my edit as it was appropriate in this situation. Let's see how things turn out. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  Not at all, it was definitely inappropriate, as was Renata3's. If there was a strong consensus to revert the other admin's revert, sure, but there wasn't (and isn't). But there seems to be a sea change around right now where admins are just being given free passes to do this kind of thing, so you'll be just fine, I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  I'm also not at all sure it was appropriate. There certainly wasn't a consensus in this discussion to pull, and the removal was already reverted once. It's also surprising that you're basing the decision to pull on whether or not TRM gave you permission to do it. Perhaps it qualifies for IAR under the "remove contentious material first and ask questions later" clause, we shall see.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Which, to put it another way, is to say the “discussion” should be in the hermetic confines of WP:DYC, surrounded by the True Believers who approved this dreck in the first place? Yeah, lemme know how that works out. Qwirkle (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't think anyone is suggesting that. DYK was just a suggested venue to which all the people here could centralise their dismay. Nice try though. Feel free to suggest another location. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you actually believe, outside of these sorts of incidents, that there is anywhere on Wikipedia where anyone cares about this? Good luck with that, too. Qwirkle (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what gave you that impression either. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If nobody is prepared to put their money where their mouth is and actually establish a new guideline to cover this, and DYK regulars of multiple genders and experience all sign it off, what else can we do? Incidentally this lasted a lot longer on the main page than the smelly poo hook. I'm not sure what that says about the situation...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• What the heck is going on here? Alex Shih promoted this hook to the queue two days ago. Renata3 modified it, removing the hook Alex had promoted. We then have two further edits to the same hook, by Fram (who reinstated the original) and Mike Peel (who pulled it altogether). These last two edits are both questionable from a WP:WHEEL perspective; why did this mess get this far? Are we going to have to go to ARBCOM because an inappropriate hook was modified rather than pulled? Also, what does the gender of the people approving this have to do with anything? Vanamonde (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  No, only Mike Peel's edit is wheel-warring while Renata3's edit was simply misuse of the tools. Three such events in a week, it really is the season for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  Renata should absolutely have pulled rather than modified: the former is within admin discretion. You're wrong about the wheel warring. If Mike Peel was "repeating a reversed admin action" by removing a hook which Renata3 had replaced, then Fram's action of reinstating a hook which Alex Shih had promoted (and which Renata3 subsequently replaced) is also questionable. Furthermore, the only admin action which completely reversed a previous admin action was Fram's, not Mike Peel's. They're both on shaky ground. Vanamonde (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• First, I will recognize the irony of a human woman called "Gorilla" commenting here. Now that that's out of the way, this should never have been allowed onto the front page. There are certainly more interesting things to be said about her, and I'd like to think we're better than putting insulting hooks like this on the main page just for clicks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should pay more attention to DYK then before it hits the main page, its been pumping out clickbait crap for years despite TRM, Fram's and others best efforts to keep it presentable. As it stands, this was at least correctly sourced in the article and hooky enough to make people take notice. That people want to jump to 'OMG misogyny!' when it was a woman, writing about a woman, and the hook was promoted by a female editor is typical of the pitchfork mentality here. "I dont like it" is an objection that should have been made before it was promoted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Individuals can’t watch everything, which is why sometimes whack-a-mole has to have the mole whacked permanently. This isnt just about tweaking the current process, its also about outside intervention when things go wrong. At this stage, this isn’t a WP:DYC problem, it’s a nainpage problem.

Yes, the clickbaiting (Clique bating?) has long been out of respectable bounds, I sometimes think someone should just write “Insurance Companies in Hometown hope readers don’t learn about Edith Sitwell!” And yes, the accusations of misogyny are overblown...but around here, they almost always are, and the pitchforks are always out (although it often seems than only some people get stabbed). But as long as them who runs WP:DYC can insulate their decisions from anything but procedural changes, the status is gonna stay quo. Qwirkle (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

One of the reasons I no longer actively participate in DYK is that it has devolved into a place where policy overrides sense. In what world does derogatorily comparing any human to a gorilla not become offensive? It was meant as an insult when it was first written and is clearly objectionable. We point above to the guideline not censored, but apparently basic civility and refraining from name-calling do not extend to the subjects of articles, only to the editors of them? Let's don't even mention how it violates NPOV. That this hook appeared on the main page, makes one question the educational value of the encyclopedia. So many things that could have been said about the subject of the article and this is what passes for a "hook"? I am truly astonished that it made it past multiple reviewers without question. SusunW (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're the one saying "misogyny", not me. I wouldn't support someone of any gender being described this way on the main page. And if hooks are not meant to be touched once they're promoted to the main page, what's this whole page for then? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Its for errors. This wasnt an error. If ERRORs was used everytime someone saw something they thought was objectionable on the main page, we might as well scrap the main page altogether. (also the misogyny was not in reference to yourself, but previous posters). Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you threaded the comment under mine, then, if it was directed towards other users. If DYK is regularly featuring "objectionable" content like this, then maybe it should be scrapped, but that has not been my experience with most of the DYK hooks I've read in the past. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• RE: Wheel, you can attempt to make a wheel argument but the place for that is Arbcom. WP:WHEEL is very clear that it is the second reversing/redoing of an admin action, not merely reverting another admin. Promoting to the main page is a technical admin action in that its required to be performed by an admin - there is very little thought, page is set to go, it gets promoted. Renata then BOLDly altered it - this is not a revert or a redo and so counts as the first admin action. Fram then reverts which counts as the first reversal. At this point any further admin actions over the content become WHEEL. Now if someone *really* wants to waste everyone's time, they could argue that the first admin action was the promotion to the main page, but its not going to get anywhere since it a)wasnt reversed or reverted, b)its stupid. Regardless, Mike Peel certainly should not have pulled it absent consensus to do so given it was already under discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Someone tried to get the N-word on the main page not long ago. It didn't happen because lots of people stopped the multiple attempts. We're much better at dealing with (and recognizing) racism than sexism. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, because it hasn't been stated in so many words yet, the proper course of action here should have been: Take the hook out of the set and start a discussion about its appropriateness. Replacing it with a different one is optional. If the removal caused an imbalance in the layout, that could have been resolved by shortening ITN or OTD. —howcheng {chat} 23:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this has been pulled from the main page, so I don't know that there is anything more to discuss at this point, but I just wanted to thank Renata3 for boldly taking action here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Can everyone stop bickering about process for a second, and provide a single valid reason why calling someone a sexy gorilla is acceptable? Or even preferable to a benign hook or no hook at all? Renata (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask Edith Sitwell... Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

But the main reason that this has turned into a big brouhaha is because of process. Setting aside the reason why you did what you did (this is applicable whether there was a copyvio in the article, the article was getting nominated for deletion, or any other reason why the hook should not have been in DYK), people got upset because you stepped on their toes, in effect declaring that your judgement is superior to theirs. I agree that the hook is atrocious, and there is probably some institutionalized sexism taking place here where the misogynistic tone of the hook wasn't immediately recognized by people. Still, taking it out and saying "Hey, this hook is no good and this is why" is closer to the spirit of BRD IMHO. —howcheng {chat} 00:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

As Renata has repeatedly indicated, I would be less concerned about the process which led to this hook being on the main page in spite of administrative intervention, and more concerned about the fact that there are two schools of thought surrounding this blurb - those who clearly see it as offensive, and those who view it as "jocular". The latter decided that this blurb was suitable for the Main Page. This is problematic for multiple reasons. WaltCip (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

If it still maters, I also do not think that was a good entry for this page, basically along the lines of others (insult and without any context making it look like just, what's the nastiest thing Wikipedia could justify to say about this woman). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ling Nam

• ... that Tomas Fung founded the predecessor of the restaurant Ling Nam with only 3,000 Philippine pesos?

The restaurant founded with only 3,000 pesos was not the Ling Nam but was the Wa Yan restaurant which was founded five years earlier in a different place. That was a separate business with different partners and staff and it was sold off and so has a separate history. The only connection seems to be one of the partners. So, this is not a significant fact about the subject topic and so violates WP:DYKGRAT which states that we should "avoid hooks that are primarily about an incident the subject is only tangentially related to".

Note that this was pointed out when the hook first tried to claim that the fact was about the Ling Nam. When this falsehood was detected, the hook was fudged with the "predecessor" addition. The problem seemed to be that the nominator was not the author of the article and so didn't fully understand the topic. The actual author said that "This DYK is not true" and so is not culpable.

Note also that 3,000 pesos was worth over a thousand US$ back in 1945 and this seems a reasonable amount of capital for such a venture then. So, it's an unremarkable fact about a different restaurant and we shouldn't distract our readers with such trivia. I spent some time drilling down on this hook when I wondered what it meant by "predecessor" and feel that this is a wild goose chase contrary to the spirit of WP:EASTEREGG.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Masurian Canal

• ... that according to rumour, the Masurian Canal (abandoned lock structure pictured) was built to serve a U-boat facility?

Per WP:DYK, "The hook should refer to established facts...". Rumours are, by definition, not established facts. This rumour sounds especially weak because

1. Plans for the canal go back to the 18th century before U-boats existed
2. The canal was not actually built and the article tells us that construction was halted during WW2.
3. The German language source says "Legende sagt, dass die Deutschen den Kanal angeblich zum Transport von U-Booten vorgesehen hätten, die in Mauerwald hätten hergestellt bzw. repariert werden sollen. In historischen Urkunden gibt es jedoch-wenigstens bis heute- keine Beweise dafür zu finden. (A legend says that the Germans allegedly intended the canal to transport submarines that were to be manufactured or repaired in Mauerwald. However, there is no evidence of this - at least up to now - in historical documents.)" So, no evidence means that this is not an established fact.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts? user:MIDI (nominator), user:Jengod (reviewer), user:BorgQueen (prep promoter), and user:RoySmith (queue promoter). Schwede66 09:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson @Schwede66 switched to an established fact. Hope it's better now. BorgQueen (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It's now as follows which is fine by me, thanks. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• ... that the construction of the Masurian Canal (lock structure pictured) was paused for the World Wars and hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic before being abandoned?

Y Resolved. BorgQueen (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Max and Shirley Crabtree

• "... that English professional-wrestling promoter Max Crabtree created the Big Daddy gimmick?"
  • Professional wrestling doesn't have a hyphen in it and also, because it's a British hook it should be "that the English..." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It should have a hyphen in it when used as a compound modifier. That is particularly the case here because otherwise one could parse the meaning as a wrestling promoter who does the job professionally. As a Brit, I would find the extra "the" more natural, but don't find its omission particularly grating. Jmchutchinson (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it was the other way around actually. Americans usually insist on putting "the" in places where Brits wouldn't, such as "I'm flying from the Los Angeles international airport". I know a few grammar nerds claim that omitting "the" creates a false title or something, but that's never been part of the Wikipedia MOS as far as I'm aware, and I don't see a need to change anything here.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• The main shame here is the missed opportunity for a better hook. The current hook is poor because it tells you exactly what the subject was and doesn't make the most of his brother's curious name. Consider:

ALT "... that Max Crabtree's "Big Daddy" was his brother, Shirley?"

And we certainly have more work to do as the name "Shirley" is not yet explained. I'm on it.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: That certainly is much better, I hadn't done something similar because I worried about the no-fun police. I'd be happy for that to be switched in. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I'll probably get shot at dawn for this, but Andrew's hook looks good to me. And since the DYK nominator The C of E has also approved it and it's an alternative rendition of what's already approved and sourced in the article, it seems like it has consensus. Will cross-post at WT:DYK in case this ruffles feathers.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This is far inferior, as it doesn't make clear what the hook is actually about. It is in no way an alternate rendition, as it has removed crucial information. The original hook should be restored. I'm baffled it was considered poor because it was informative. I could do with some more explanation on that front. Fgf10 (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:DYKHOOK advises that "When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say "Obfuscate information"? Fgf10 (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That's the accepted definition of "hooky". It's a requirement that the hook does not mislead people or convey inaccurate information, but there is certainly no need for it to describe everything that is found in the article. The purpose is to get readers to click through to the article, not to give them everything in one line.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between "hooky" and misleading and confusing. But I know the DYK regulars have no interest in actually informing people, and are more interested in showing off how "clever" they are. Yes very well done, you're all very clever. Great work. Fgf10 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I try to be both clever and informative and so have just updated our article about Shirley Crabtree. There's still more to do but I need to go shopping for some milk now. Big Daddy drank a lot of milk too – pints of it! Andrew🐉(talk) 15:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The new hook is neither misleading nor confusing. The term "Big Daddy" is given in quotes, so there is no possible confusion that the dude was actually his father. I'm generally on the cautious side when it comes to DYK hooks, and I'll be the first to say they go much too far sometimes, particularly on April Fool's Day. If someone had proposed something like "Max Crabtree's daddy was his brother", then I would have protested. But this one has just the right balance of accuracy and intrigue.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Mick Jagger

• The tail hook currently is "... that the Hells Angels once plotted to murder Rolling Stones frontman Mick Jagger, but ended up swimming for their lives when their boat nearly sank?" This doesn't make much sense -- if the boat didn't sink, why would they swim?. So, I looked into it. The sources for this in the article seem quite weak -- typical churnalism in which a story is repeated by the media without corroboration or investigation. There's a better source at The Smoking Gun which has a record of the actual interview with the FBI's informant. This still seems to be a weak source as the informant says that he was not present or even part of the NY chapter but was told this story by other, unspecified people. Presumably this never went to court because it's just hearsay -- a rumour which might easily have been invented or exaggerated. So, the chain of sourcing seems to be a Hell's Angel rumour which was told to the FBI which was told to the BBC which was then reprinted in a few newspapers. And now it's on Wikipedia's front page. Anyway, back to the boat. The FBI report says "a storm blew up capsizing the boat and sinking it. MILLER stated as a result of the storm members of the HAMC barely escaped their lives. (sic)". So, that report says that the boat was sunk but it doesn't say that the would-be assassins ended up swimming. Maybe they were able to wade ashore or maybe they were rescued by another boat. Or maybe the whole story was made up. As we are asserting that the serious crime of attempted murder took place, we need better sourcing, right?

This article is appearing at DYK because it was rated as a GA. But while I was looking through it, I also noticed a simple spelling mistake. I fixed that but it doesn't inspire confidence. I suggest that a GA reassessment be made.

Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I have pulled this hook per rule 4a : "... hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." - this should not have been promoted as a DYK hook, full stop. In the GA review, I said, "Can we get one other source re: the Hells Angels attempted murder? This doesn't sound particularly significant and if another independent source doesn't cover it, I think per WP:BLP it should go" but since citations to Rolling Stone and The Daily Telegraph were supplied, and there was no other comment from anybody, so I didn't feel I had consensus to do anything about it. Having taken another look at it closely, cross-examining the Telegraph and Rolling Stones sources, it seems that the story does not actually check out properly at all, so I've removed it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Microcracks in rock

• ... that microcracks in rocks are oriented roughly parallel to the maximum applied stress?

I looked at this because it wasn't clear what it meant. Having looked at the article and the supporting source, it appears that the orientation is random if there is no stress. As the stress increases, the cracks tend to align with the direction of maximum stress but that this relationship is quite statistical and so individual cracks might be still in any direction. In the example given, the average alignment is 30 degrees from the direction of maximum stress but that's not roughly parallel as 30° is a significant deviation. We also read that "Using different configuration and loading scheme, fracture properties of the same rock including microcrack behavior can be various. The most suitable specimen configuration and loading scheme are still on debate." So, this seems to be quite a young science and we should not be over-simplifying its complexities to make tenous claims. @Graeme Bartlett and Montanabw: Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Miss Indigenous Canada

• ... that Miss Indigenous Canada contestants are judged on ambassadorship, character, community service, and cultural involvement?

Some might argue that since this fact is not "unlikely to change", as the scoring of the contest might change in the future. Opinions on whether this hook should run are requested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera: ping. BorgQueen (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If needed, we can use the ALT hook that I proposed alongside this hook. That should be fine. I don't have too much of an opinion on the matter either way, so if it is safer to do so I wouldn't mind. Ornithoptera (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Switched to the alt.  Done BorgQueen (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The original hook was fine. Anyway, I feel like this was posted to make a point about Andrew Davidon's ERRORS comments. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually I felt the original hook was generic and uninteresting anyway. BorgQueen (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That is not how things are done. You don't just change it when your issue of "generic and uninteresting" wasn't brought up before. You discuss it first. SL93 (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@SL93 Do you want me to revert? BorgQueen (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, until we get consensus. We have plenty of time. SL93 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

According to the article, the event is new and has only been held once and so, per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot yet be sure that it's a regular thing. The hook would be better as:

... that the first Miss Indigenous Canada contestants were judged on ambassadorship, character, community service, and cultural involvement?

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Nighat Arif

... that BBC Breakfast's resident doctor Nighat Arif has advocated for more women to be given vibrators for medical reasons?

This is contrary to the general guidance of WP:DYKBLP that "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." That's because this is sensational and salacious and so might be considered scandalous in the conservative Punjabi community from which she comes. For comparison, a more respectable fact is that she is one of the deputy lieutenants of Buckinghamshire.

As the hook is also advocating for a fringe medical treatment, there are also WP:MEDRS issues. The source is just an opinion piece in a newspaper which was written by the subject and so is nowhere near MEDRS standards.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Er, what? Nearly everything may be considered "scandalous" somewhere, by that reasoning we may e.g. not post hooks about a Muslim woman doing, well, anything really, as some groups find that scandalous. Well, these groups probably find it just as scandalous for non-Muslim women to do activities outside the house, so let's ban all hooks about women perhaps? Or alternatively, don't raise such silly objections. Fram (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

a Muslim woman doing, well, anything really, as some groups find that scandalous. Well, these groups probably find it just as scandalous for non-Muslim women to do activities outside the house, so let's ban all hooks about women perhaps—I can't help but think there's a less orientalist (in the Edward Said sense) way to disagree with the criticism of the hook than reinforcing stereotypes of Muslim communities as distinctively misogynist contra other parts of the world (i. e. implicitly the global north, since we're on English-language Wikipedia which overrepresents the global north).

To the OP I would say that this concern that Arif's activities might be considered scandalous in her community seems paternalistic. Arif herself hails from her own community; who are you or I to say that what she's proposing is scandalous and inappropriate for a Punjabi woman? Characterizing the view as scandalous implies, whether inadvertently or not, distrusting her judgment and agency. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Taliban cs, which is as far as I know about the most women-unfriendly regime in the world. I refered to Muslims because Arif is a Muslim. But perhaps should have said Taliban immediately, instead of using more vague words. Fram (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Would we expect this item to be discounted because her opinion piece in inews fails WP:MEDRS? If it's a fringe treatment, then would MEDRS be expected to cover it anyway? Perhaps it's the word "medical" that's the problem. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Oxford Blue

• As per WP:TIES I've amended US gals to imperial gals, for the quantity of waste whey, at Oxford Blue (cheese). Should the hook follow suit? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  I don't understand; isn't the primary unit of litres used in the UK, and the parenthetical gallon conversion meant for the US? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  No, we have imperial gallons. Litres are for Europeans and we are soon to be no longer part of that club. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  Martin has a point but it's shocking to discover that this cheese is made by a Frenchman – Sacré bleu!. Andrew D. (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  Oh no, Andrew. I've been out-cheesed here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Physics Physique физика

• ... that physicist John Clauser discovered Bell's theorem because the journal that printed it bore the unusual title Physics Physique физика?

Clauser didn't discover Bell's theorem – it was obviously Bell who gets the credit for that. What Clauser discovered was Bell's paper but calling this a discovery seems to be over-egging it. Presumably, as a physicist, Clauser read many physics papers. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, the word "физика" should be capitalized as well ("Физика"), per main article. Brandmeister^talk 14:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I've swapped the hook for ALT0, the other approved hook, which correctly credits Bell's theorem to Bell. Someone has moved the article as well, although I'm a little sceptical whether we should be using those Russian characters at all... maybe an unusual IAR case, given that the title contains three different languages in one... Courtesy pinging Bobamnertiopsis and XOR'easter, who reviewed and nominated the DYK so they know this change has been made.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I had wondered if "discovered" was the wrong verb and contemplated suggesting a change to "encountered" or "learned of" or something like that, but it seemed too fine a hair to split, what with Bell's theorem being linked right there and the rest of the sentence explaining that "discovered" here means "became aware of". I don't think the swap with ALT0 was necessary, but I'm fine with it. Not a big deal to me either way. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "a journal sometimes called by the unusual title Physics Physique Физика" is misleading. That was the journal's actual title, but phrasing it that way makes it appear that it had some other real title, and Physics Physique Физика was a nickname. It would be much better to replace "sometimes called by" with "with". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Except that insofar as the articles within the journal were concerned, the name was just Physics. Many citations to Bell's paper did the same. It wasn't until the APS decided to republish all the content under the trilingual name that it gained what one might call official approval. XOR'easter (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Poetry for Neanderthals – "We must play this!"

... that the creators of Poetry for Neanderthals faced difficulties during its release because they needed a way to manufacture inflatable clubs?

The rule of the game is that you must use words with just one sound and so we should do this. Ug!

They had a way to make the clubs – send a wish to the land of the Chin who make them all. And this is what they did. They just had to send more than one wish to fill the need. Duh!

Here is an ALT:

• ALT – In a new crude game, "all of your small wrongs can ... end up with a smack round the head"? (Source)

'drew🐉(talk) 06:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I get your thoughts on this one, but I'm scared that the ALT might sound too much like fluff :) is there an ALT that makes one sound on each word but keeps the same fact? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we could just stick with what we've got, as I think it's not too bad. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

You do not get it. The hook is wrong. They had a way and they used it. 'drew🐉(talk) 06:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It says they faced difficulties, it doesn't say they were completely unable to manufacture the clubs. That's correct, and I suggest we leave it as it is. Also, it's a little ironic, Andrew, that after this, you're now advocating for an unattributed quote as part of the hook ☺  — Amakuru (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That was just off the top of my head. I plan to pick up a copy to bring to the next meet. We shall see who has the most hard head! See here how it goes... 'drew🐉(talk) 10:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Is a four-year-old game really "new"? And I'm not sure newness is "a definite fact that is unlikely to change", since even if it is still new, it eventually will stop being new.

In any case, I'll admit to feeling surprised that the original hook doesn't involve the No! Stick or the central monosyllabic mechanic. But that's a preference, not an error. I agree that difficulty is not the same as inability.

More tangentially, while I get and appreciate the bit, calling China "land of the Chin" reads... weirdly. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done this is not an error. RoySmith (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Polis (board game)

• ... that the ancient Greek game polis is one of the world's oldest strategy games?

@Piotrus, Generalissima, AirshipJungleman29, and TheSandDoctor: the Royal Game of Ur is 2,000 years older. One of the oldest is only true because so few survive, not because it was chronologicallmy close to the origin of these games. Fram (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Fram: would "...one of the world's oldest surviving strategy games" work better? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I went with "oldest known", which matches what's stated in the article. I'm not saying this solves the issues, but it's at least an incremental improvement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Fram, the source makes it clear that race games, such as the Game of Ur, are not wholly strategy games, instead falling into the category of "race games", which combine luck and strategy. By contrast, games such as polis were entirely strategy driven. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The article on Ur calls it a strategy game, and our article on strategy games also includes things like Warhammer, which are also partially decided by dice, or Contract bridge, which starts with dealing cards randomly. The entirely strategy driven section (things like chess and checkers) seems to be a very small part of the much larger group of strategy games as usually (and by us) described, and the correctness of a hook shouldn't depend on the definition given in one source but contradicted by others (and e.g. our articles). Fram (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The source cited at Royal Game of Ur classifies games into categories like "racing" and "strategy", and classifies the Royal Game of Ur as a "racing" game (Botermans 2008, p. 713). "strategy" could be made more specific as "pure strategy", but the hook doesn't appear incorrect. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I looked into it when writing the article. Sources that call Ur strategy are usually not very reliable. That aside, "one of the world oldest" is confirmed by sources and I don't see how one can see that claim as problematic. Indeed, polis claim to fame is that it is one of the world olest, if not the oldest, pure strategy game (as in, ones that did not involve luck through random generators like dice or cards). As for "so few survive", you may be right, but there are no sources for that, and certainly not any discussion of stuff that might have existed but did not survived. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

PS. We should also give weight to reliable sources, not often iffy and undersourced or unreliable classifications or typologies or claims in our articles. And here we have an expert (Thierry Depaulis) saying - as cited and quoted in the article - that "The two earliest attested games of 'strategy', Greek polis and Chinese weiqi (go) appear between 450 BCE and 300 BCE." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Oldest" is a superlative and so, unless there's a tie, there can only be one. The phrase "one of the oldest" is therefore weaseling and so is not a "definite fact" as required by DYK. The hook can be simplified without loss of information:

• ... that polis is an ancient Greek strategy game?

To make it a bit more interesting, I suggest:

• ... that polis is an ancient Greek strategy game which resembles checkers?

Poozeum

• ... that the Poozeum holds fossilized dinosaur feces (pictured) which may have come from a T. rex?

There are multiple issues:

• The copyright status of the image is not quite clear and is currently being challenged.
• WP:DYKHOOK specifies that hooks should be a "definite fact". Words like "may have" and "possible" are not definite.
• The sources in the article for the Tyrannosaurus rex connection are not respectable or reliable, being ClickOrlando and Thrillist. For example, Thrillist says that this is the "largest discovered coprolite" but it isn't because it forgot the word "carnivore". That site feels quite unsafe and so we shouldn't be using using it when there are more respectable sources like the BBC. Notice that the BBC also reports the "largest coprolite found that belongs to a carnivore" too but is more careful to not add the T. Rex hype.
• The coprolite is named Barnum. P. T. Barnum didn't actually say "there's a sucker born every minute" but instead that you should "Preserve your integrity".

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gobonobo: pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I trust that the image was uploaded by the copyright owner mostly based on this exchange. The crux of the deletion argument is that it is not similarly marked as CC-BY-SA on the website. To the guideline requiring a definite fact that is unlikely to change, we could say it definitely could be a T. rex coprolite, and that uncertainty is unlikely to change. Truth is, it is notoriously difficult to ascertain the creator of a coprolite. We know it was from a carnivore and that T. rex were found in the same area. I know of no larger coprolites. gobonobo ^{+ c} 10:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Guinness World Records accepts that this is the largest known carnivore coprolite so why don't we just give that well-supported fact? The T. Rex maybe is not needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson I tend to agree. BorgQueen (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Praefectus vigilum

• "that no contemporary source identifies the fire chief of Rome during the the Great Fire under Nero?" - small grammatical error — Chevvin 00:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Fixed. BorgQueen (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Passing by this entry to enter the canal, I find that the article is called Praefectus vigilum (prefect of the watchmen). That's a cool title which we here at WP:ERRORS will especially appreciate. It's a shame that the hook hides this behind "fire chief of Rome" which sounds more mundane and modern and so less exciting. I wouldn't have given it a second look if I hadn't had other business here. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ve had a go at working the Latin title into the hook. Feel free to applaud, further improve, or revert. Schwede66 09:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

And just in case that we decide to pull this hook, I’ve uploaded a freely licensed photo to the Bolor Ganbold article (what was there was likely a copyvio) and protected the photo. Schwede66 10:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Schwede66 pull praefectus vigilum? You must have meant the other one. BorgQueen (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Haha. Indeed. Schwede66 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

...the Great Fire under Nero. Made me smile, so leave it as is. Bazza (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Y Resolved. BorgQueen (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The hook is now as follows. That's better, thanks, but "fire chief of Rome" doesn't quite capture the full range of responsibility. I suggest further tweaks from

• ... that no contemporary source identifies the praefectus vigilum—fire chief of Rome—during the Great Fire under Nero?

to

• ... that no contemporary source identifies the praefectus vigilum who commanded the night watch during the Great Fire of Rome under Nero?

Y So fixed. BorgQueen (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Prusa i3

The next DYK set (Queue 1), the first item is a 3D printer with (pictured) but it’s not a picture, it’s a video. I’m not sure what’s correct/normal here. (video shown) perhaps?

"Depicted"? GRAPPLE ^X 21:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Films are also known as motion pictures, so "pictured" does not seem unreasonable. Edwardx (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Grapple X: and @Edwardx:, I agree but couldn't find any previous examples where a video had been used, depicted seems a sensible alternative. --John Cummings (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the video: File:Prusa_i3_MK2_printing_farm.webm, and it seems to have license problems too. It asserts it has a free license but the only source is a now non-working Youtube link, and it is marked for license review. Pinging John Cummings who uploaded it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne:, thanks for spotting this, I don't know why it was removed.... I will investigate but the person who made the video is in Europe so won't be able to fix it before tomorrow, can this just be run on a different day instead? Thanks John Cummings (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it made it to the main page with the dubious video intact. I've commented out the video link for the time being. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• So just use another picture from the article such as the lead image (right). Andrew D. (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• As long as it's protected from vandalism, you go for it. I don't have the time. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:, @Andrew Davidson:, @JohnBlackburne: I fixed the source, please can the video be reinstated? John Cummings (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Public Security Directorate

"... that the country of Jordan was the first Arab state to recruit women to its police force?" - "the country of" is unnecessary and impedes the flow. Suggest "... that Jordan was the first Arab state to recruit women to its police force?" DuncanHill (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• The claim does not seem accurate. Jordan's date for this seems to be 1972 while the Royal Oman Police had women from its start in 1970 and makes the same claim: "Oman was the first Arab country to have women police officers". Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yep, looks dubious. Pulling. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Radio Yerevan jokes

... that the Armenian Radio jokes are neither about radio nor are they Armenian?

What the article actually says is "They are not really related to Armenian culture, nor do they have much in common with radio specifically." This uses the weasels "not really" and "much" and so this is not a definite fact as required by WP:DYKHOOK. Having read the article, the hook might equally be turned about and presented in the opposite way:

... that Radio Yerevan jokes are presented in the style of provincial radio and Armenian stereotypes are often the butt of the joke?

Note also that the title of the article is plural contrary to WP:PLURAL. See Joke, Ethnic joke, Hindu joke, Polish joke, riddle joke, etc.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Right, so, WP:WEASEL doesn't mention what you're talking about here. It's a guideline about attribution. Also, reading the source reveals exactly what we mean: they have nothing to do with radio, and were popular among Russians, who were using Armenian riddles as a punching bag source of inspiration. So, they were neither about radio nor Armenian. Perhaps, if you're interested in correcting errors, you could help out by updating the article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to @Szmenderowiecki, Piotrus, and AirshipJungleman29. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, Andrew Davidson, the original says this:

This last genre [Armenian Radio joke] may be confusing for an outsider. These jokes have nothing to do with radio, which in Soviet times was as severely censored as any other means of mass communication. They are also not really Armenian.

So I reflected exactly what Draitser was saying: not about radio, not really Armenian.

As for WP:PLURAL, I wasn't exactly aware about this, so maybe yeah, I can change it to singular, though it's weird to my ear as a native Russian speaker. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the other suggested hook is a non-starter, nobody will click on it and besides it's false. Armenian Radio is not presented in a provincial radio style, and it hardly ever imitates it - they do pretend we have a radio studio but that's kind of a plot device. It can imitate Armenian stereotypes, but that's a different thing and it really only was done because the radio is Armenian and not, say, Kazakh. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

R. J. Mitchell

• ... that R. J. Mitchell helped design the Supermarine Spitfire?

This is damning with faint praise as Mitchell did more than help – he was the chief designer leading the team that established it as a success. This exact same point was made during the nomination and ALT2 was agreed as better. So, why are we now running with this misleading version?

• ALT2 ... that R. J. Mitchell was the leading designer of the famous Supermarine Spitfire?

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- tariqabjotu 22:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

River

... that rivers form up to 23% of international borders?

The phrase "up to" is wrong, making it sound like the statistic is not a definite fact or that it oscillates. The source states this firmly – "rivers make up 23 percent of international borders". So we should use definite language too, i.e.

• ALT – ... that rivers form 23% of international borders?

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It probably does oscillate. Some rivers dry up seasonally, others change course on various timescales. CMD (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Ronin (film)

• " test audience hated it?" the article states much more objectively that "the test audience objected to this ending", nothing about "hate" at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't have the access to this audio commentary; I suppose the phrasing is to make it more hooky; changed to "objected to" as it reflects the article better and doesn't diminish the quirkiness much hopefully. Alex Shih (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it objectively reflects the encyclopedic content of the article rather than just making stuff up. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's is easy to verify the original hook as Frankenheimer explicitly said "We tried that ending, and the audience really hated it.”[19]. Alex Shih should please revert as there is an existing consensus for that hook. @Alex Shih, Cwmhiraeth, LlywelynII, and Slightlymad: Andrew D. (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The hook needs to be reflected in the article, so that needs addressing. You can't just make things up that aren't in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• It is already reflected and sourced in the article. We do not need to use exactly the same wording each time we report this. There is not an error here and so Alex should please revert. Andrew D. (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• DYK rule 3: "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." (my bold). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Andrew Davidson: (edit conflict) Thanks. As compromise, I have incorporated the "hated" quote in the article, and will revert myself after seeing that direct quote from the page you provided. Would that be fine with you? Alex Shih (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Updating the article is fine, thanks, as that's a work-in-progress and not protected. It's the hooks which require consultation and consensus to change because they are specifically subject to approval and protection. Andrew D. (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, that's not true, especially if they fail to meet the rules that DYK imposes and if the consensus has arisen without people checking the article, the hook, the referencing and the rules correctly. No consultation with any one individual is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've fixed quite a few DYK hooks which contained errors which were reported here. Where they do, and an issue is identified, they need to be fixed, surely? Fish+Karate 12:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, you've done the right thing. Andrew Davidson is incorrect, if errors are posted then there needs be precisely no consultation or consensus to change them. That is not, has never been and will never be the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Edits through protection require consensus. See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Blurb_changed_without_informing_nominator_-_why? for another recent case. Andrew D. (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• And that change was properly made, whether the nominator or anyone else likes it. To say without qualification that someone sets something on fire is to imply a deliberate act. --Khajidha (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• I feel a hefty dose of WP:NOTBURO needs to be applied here.--WaltCip (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Rotten tomatoes

Everything but the kitchen sink

• ... that many enthusiasts say that a good tomato sandwich is so messy, it should be eaten over the kitchen sink?

The opening to this triggered my weasel watch.

Looking at the nomination, this started with a more definite hook, "... that the best tomato sandwiches are so messy they may need to be eaten over the kitchen sink?" Someone decided that we couldn't say this in Wikipedia's voice because it's not actually a definite fact; it's just an opinion. Instead of finding an actual definite fact, a weasel was found to introduce the debatable opinion. But who are these enthusiasts and are they notable or reliable?

You see, every time I see this weasel wording, I imagine it to be said in the voice of Jeremy Clarkson who would always introduce The Stig like this. Here's a compilation of "Some say..." examples. Delivering absurd facts in this way is a good joke but that's not what we're about, is it?

Bondiola Sandwich

Andrew🐉(talk) 15:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the involved, @Valereee, CurryTime7-24, and Theleekycauldron: Understand your point. Not sure if it is a weasel but it is probably true of any sandwich. When I saw the article I thought back to my own sandwich article with the hook Did you know... that the bondiola sandwich (example pictured) is a popular street food in Argentina? I enjoyed the tomato sandwich article but I see your point about who the "enthusiasts" are. Myself, I am a sandwich enthusiast but I would need more than just tomato to satiate myself. Bruxton (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Anybody who has ever grown tomatoes of their own will understand that a tomato sandwich is a waste of perfectly good bread and mayo. Nothing beats a good vine-ripened tomato, still warm from the sun, eaten just as it is, with the juice dribbling down your shirt. You want some heirloom variety, not the modern hybrids, genetically engineered to have smooth skin and a spherical shape, strong enough to stand up to bouncing around in a truck for a couple of days, and a flavor more akin to cardboard than anything else.

An acceptable variation is thickly slabbed, with a slice of mozzarella on top (the good stuff, freshly made by the deli, not that horrible crap that comes wrapped in plastic), topped with a fresh basil leaf (also from your garden) and some balsamic vinegar. RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Myself I spent 150 bucks on supplies and I grew $4.00 worth of tomatoes. They were good and I made a BLT (minus the L) last night. It was superb and not messy at all. I imagine the bacon held the tomato from slipping around in the mayo and the bread was toasted so it had some grit. Bruxton (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, speaking as someone who has eaten the kind of tomato you're talking about both standing in the garden (I grew up carrying a salt shaker out to the garden where I'd eat tomatoes like apples) and sliced thick, slathered in Duke's, and sandwiched between two slices of soft white bread, leaning over the kitchen sink, I'm going to have to argue that it's a waste of bread and mayo. Two different experiences, both fab. Valereee (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's true that many enthusiasts make this recommendation. The article supports that assertion. I think the hook is fine as is. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Enthusiasts are, by definition, fanatically in favour of their enthusiasm. You can run anything as a supposed definite fact by using enthusiasts as your weasels. For example:

1. ... that enthusiasts say that the Earth is flat?
2. ... that enthusiasts say that Donald Trump won the 2020 United States presidential election?
3. ... that enthusiasts say that people are really powerful aliens trapped in a human body?

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Well not "anything", but yes, interesting statements by enthusiasts can make good hooks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We've got more such on the main page today: the "coolest person on the planet" and "the loneliest boy in the world" according to "journalists". All we're doing here is echoing clickbait and hype rather than presenting definite facts. And these don't stand close inspection. For example, the "coolest person on the planet" has soon been surpassed by another sports shooter who is even more of a brief sensation. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ru ware

The hook "... that in 2012, a small Ru ware bowl from the Song dynasty was sold for US$26.7 million?" was discussed at WT:DYK#Prep 5 (Ru ware) where The Rambling Man pointed out that the sale was in Hong Kong dollars and so should be listed as such. Nothing was changed and it is now on the main page. I think the hook should be changed to address TRM's point, and also (perhaps) to note its rarity (from the Sotherby's reference: "This finely potted six-petalled flower-shaped bowl, probably intended for washing brushes after writing, is reminiscent first and foremost of contemporary lacquer forms, but similar shapes were also produced by other northern kilns. It is particularly rare among Ru wares, where only one other companion piece is recorded, formerly the pair to the present piece and now in the collection of the British Museum, London") and age (article confirms all production was within a range of times around 1100 AD), as something like:

• "... that a rare, six-petal flower-shaped Song dynasty Ru ware bowl from around 1100 AD was sold for HK$207.86 million (US$26.7 million) in 2012?

The context, IMO, makes the reasons for its importance and price clearer. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The proposed hook seems too bold. The article doesn't describe the bowl as "six-petal flower-shaped". The British Museum describes it as "slightly foliated", which means leaf-like, not petal-like, The BM also says "Shallow dishes of this shape ... have been found in some quantity at the Qingliangsi excavations" which indicates that they are not so rare. Specifying the date is unwise because the article indicates that the sources differ when dating such work. Andrew D. (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The rarity of Ru ware is beyond question, that other dishes of a similar shape exist in quantity is a different matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• No. Ru ware is pottery produced at the Ru kilns. This was produced in batches of different quality. The rare stuff is guan yao – imperial ware. The common stuff was min yao – people's ware. So, saying that it's Ru ware is not enough to establish rarity. Andrew D. (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well the article says "In 2012, Sotheby's identified 79 individual complete survivals...." so I'd say that was pretty rare. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sotheby's describe the auction item as "Mrs Alfred Clark’s Ru Guanyao Brush Washer". The qualifier of guanyao or Imperial is required to make it clear that we're talking about the rarest, high-quality stuff. See here where it indicates that 90% of the finds have been of lesser quality. Andrew D. (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm simply reporting what our article says, with only 79 complete individuals it is rare. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• The point of the original hook is that this bowl sold for lots of money. The valuation quantifies this precisely. Terms like "rare" are comparatively subjective, like "small", and the hook doesn't need such embellishment. Andrew D. (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we're debating the point of the original hook. The hook doesn't need anything other than bare facts, but some people like to argue that a hook should be hooky. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

As for the dating, well even the British Museum agrees that it's from around 1100AD, it sits approximately in the middle of the year range they state on their website ("1086-1125") after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

On the issue of the currency, the source seems to be Sotheby's and they just give "207,860,000HKD". We should not be performing our own currency conversions without a source. Simply changing the figure to "HK$ 207.86 million" would be best and it's impressive enough to work as a hook. Giving other unsourced values just confuses matters. Andrew D. (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the point raised noting that many wouldn't be aware of what 208 million HKD means is perfectly reasonable. It could be like the old Turkish Lira where 208 million would be equivalent to a fiver. It's relatively simple to find reliable sources that back up the $26.7m conversion, e.g. The Daily Telegraph. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I find that you can click deeper into the Sotheby's source to find the $27.6 million figure. The original hook can therefore be left alone as there's not really an error here. Andrew D. (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I changed the hook to give the original currency (plus the US$ one in parentheses), to avoid too much of a US-centric bias. Fram (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fram. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Salt marsh snake

• "that salt marsh snakes (examples pictured) can be as short as 15 inches (38 cm)?". This is blatantly incorrect because of course they are very much shorter when they are young. The statement on which the hook is based is, "Salt marsh snakes grow to a total length (including tail) of 15–30 inches (38–76 cm)." So we don't even know whether they become adult (sexually mature) before reaching 15 in. I suggest to change the hook to "that salt marsh snakes (examples pictured) can be as long as 30 inches (76 cm)?". JMCHutchinson (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Why don't we say that "adult salt marsh snakes" can be as short as 15 inches? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• 15 inches seems long enough to be scary – my wife would be paralysed by fear. So describing this as "short" is POV. And, as the length seems quite arbitrary and ordinary, I reckon a completely different fact is required. Here's a suggestion. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrew Davidson: It's not describing the snake as "short", it's describing its minimum length ("as short as"). So there's no POV. Having said that, your suggestion below (which seems to have become separated from your comment) is a much more interesting. Bazza (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• ALT1 "...that salt marsh snakes (examples pictured) drink only rainwater?".

Seems a very good suggestion to me: much more interesting. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Someone needs to action this; a good alternative was found half a day ago. Schwede66 16:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Samuel Bacon

• ... that Samuel Bacon, government agent on the first American Colonization Society expedition, died of "actual exhaustion" soon after arriving in Africa?

The Memoir of the Life and Character of the Rev. Samuel Bacon makes it fairly clear that he actually died from fever exacerbated by exposure to the sun. Presumably this was the same African fever which the other colonists died from. For example, "His fever had now attained a degree of violence which ... But his disorder was hastening rapidly, to a fatal termination." (pp 277-8). Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I also found issues with the stated date of death and so have started amending and rewriting the article. The hook fact no longer appears there. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sefer ve Sefel

• ... that Sefer ve Sefel, an English second-hand bookshop and landmark of Jerusalem, stocks more than 26,000 titles?

The bookstore is "a Jerusalem landmark", not an actual landmark. Not sure why someone edited the language, but it should be reverted. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"landmark of Jerusalem" and "Jerusalem landmark" have exactly the same meaning. If the metaphor is confusing then it should be dropped altogether. Another issue is that the shop is not English – it was founded by Americans in 1981, long after the British had left Jerusalem. How about:

• ... that Sefer ve Sefel, a second-hand bookshop in Jerusalem, stocks more than 26,000 English-language titles?

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds fine, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I've fixed this, fingers crossed I interpreted the request correctly --valereee (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The version now on the main page still uses the word "landmark". The place is not a physical landmark – it's on the second floor of a nondescript building down an alley. "landmark" is specifically listed by WP:PEACOCK as a word to watch. As it is misleading because readers might take it literally, I have removed it from the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed - I've removed landmark, and just noted that it's in Jerusalem, to match the new article text.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Software maintenance

• ... that some estimate that maintenance of existing software costs up to nine times as much as creating it in the first place?

This is another blatant weasel – who estimates this? And it's obviously not a "definite fact which is unlikely to change" as there are a range of estimates. The hook discussion started with the figure of "three times" and it appears that such estimates are unreliable because the article repeatedly says that the topic has not been well-studied. Other issues include:

1. The ceiling is obviously a lot higher than 9 and I reckon the sky's the limit. Consider the case of Wikipedia. This was developed on a shoestring using open source software. But now the WMF has a large staff and a huge budget. As I understand it, the staff headcount has gone from half a person to over 700 – that's a factor of about 1,400. And much of the code is still the same legacy stack.
2. Deciding what is development and what is maintenance is often an arbitrary accounting decision. For example, consider Vector 2022. Is that new development or maintenance of the existing system? The article indicates that it would be considered "enhancement" and so classified as maintenance but it's all still a matter of subjective definition.
3. Changes are often incremental and so there's the Ship of Theseus problem. At what point is a system a new creation?
4. The supposed hook fact does not seem to be clearly stated in the article. I've searched for "nine" and "9" and can't find it.
5. The idea that you can generalise in a definite way about such varied activity and systems is inherently suspect. See all models are wrong.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

0. "Who estimates this?" Ulziit, Bayarbuyan; Warraich, Zeeshan Akhtar; Gencel, Cigdem; Petersen, Kai. If you look closely, you'll realise that the definite fact is the estimation, not the costs.

1. "I reckon the sky's the limit. Consider the case of Wikipedia." Well, if you happen to note these considerations of yours in a reliable source, we can take them into account. Until then, we prefer to avoid original research.
2. "it's all still a matter of subjective definition" Yes, that's why we leave it to reliable sources to do the research.
3. See above notes on reliable sources and original research.
4. I would suggest reading the article, not just using ctrl-F. You may find the hook fact in the "Software life cycle" section. WP:2+2=4 may be useful.
5. See 3). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

   AirshipJungleman29 seems to be referring to this source:

   Ulziit, Bayarbuyan; Warraich, Zeeshan Akhtar; Gencel, Cigdem; Petersen, Kai (2015). "A conceptual framework of challenges and solutions for managing global software maintenance". Journal of Software: Evolution and Process. 27 (10): 763–792. doi:10.1002/smr.1720..

   On the cited page 764, this states

   The maintenance phase is the longest part of software lifecycle and, in most cases, also the most expensive. For the last several decades, the cost of software maintenance is continuously growing. In the 1970s, the costs were around 60%, while in the 1990s and 2000s, the reported costs increased to about 90% and more.

   Note that this says "90% and more" and so the hook is clearly inconsistent by stating "up to nine times". This hook should be pulled as the source does not verify it but instead contradicts it. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

   i tried to fix this hook in a hurry (the previous one didn't verify at all) and came out with this one, my bad :) how about we change the wording so that the hook matches the source? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

   I noticed that theleekycauldron correctly challenged the original hook which was "... that maintenance of existing software is estimated to cost more than three times as much as its development? ". The source for that wasn't quoted in the nomination and failed verification and we have the same problem with the version that's now on the main page. As I noted above, these generalisations are too fuzzy to be presented as definite facts and they are very subject to change as the technology and techniques move fast. Just pull it, please, and we should then start a post mortem. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Solo Per Due

• "... that Solo Per Due claims to be the smallest restaurant in the world and only serves meals for two?"

There are many claims of this sort – see Kuappi, which we ran at DYK with a similar claim just last year, for example – that also appeared at WP:ERRORS. And they will always be dubious because there are innumerable small eating establishments such as hole-in-the-wall, street vendors and takeaway places with limited seating. DYK is supposed to be for definite facts not promotional hype per WP:NOTPROMO. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Andrew, i was also unsure about whether or not this hook should run, and had raised my concern at wt:dyk here [perm]. dying (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm on mobile now so can't handle it myself, but yeah, pull it. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Pulled.  Done BorgQueen (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Substructure search

... that you can search Wikipedia or a database of more than 37 billion compounds by substructure?

Per MOS:YOU, we should "Avoid addressing the reader using you or your, which sets an inappropriate tone". It suggests alternatives such as

... that one can search Wikipedia or a database of more than 37 billion compounds by substructure?

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, Stephen 11:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Stephen, but I've reverted that. The name of the section is "Did You Know". All the hooks are explicitly and intentionally addressing the reader as "you", so this is a case where the MOS doesn't apply. RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Tina and Milo

• In hook 3 today, "Tina and Milo has" should be "Tina and Milo have". Bsoyka (t • c • g) 00:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Now resolved — thanks @Firefangledfeathers! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 01:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• The hook now reads ... that Tina and Milo have been described as the "first openly Gen Z mascots"? This doesn't attribute the description and so it's a weasel. Which reminds me of the riddle: "Q. What's the difference between a weasel and a stoat?" The traditional answer is "A. One is weasely identified while the other is stoatly different!" Basil Brush would then say "Boom Boom!" but he's a fox.

More seriously, this description is promotional hype from the organizers in which they gush that they must be Gen Z because "They have an active and proactive character, an ingenious and inventive attitude, a vital and resilient spirit" and so on. The children that actually designed these imaginary stoats noted that "they are a symbol of innocence and purity, they are dynamic ... and their two colours represent duality and diversity." Who knew that fictional cartoons could mean so much? I reckon that this is a violation of WP:DYKFICTION and WP:PROMO. A more factual hook might be as follows.

• ALT ... that the mascots of the 2026 Olympics were designed by schoolchildren?

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson  Done with a slight rewording. BorgQueen (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

While normally a stickler for the rules, I don't agree with this one. MOS:WEASEL has never applied to DYK hooks, as long as the relevant quote is attributed properly in the article itself. My only slight doubt was that the quote was from the organisers themselves rather than an independent source, but other than that I think we should have stuck with the original hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No, the people who use this as mascots for their own organisation, are not a disinterested third party when it comes to describing these with a claim like "the first" whatever. It would be something else if they had e.g. said "they were chosen because they represent Gen Z" and the hook would "that they were chosen because they represent ..." but as written, it is a promotional claim by the organising committee, posted as DYK hook as it is a neutral or at least independent description. Fram (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not just the weasel but the fantastical notion that these are Gen Z stoats that bothered me. The Olympics now likes to sell lots of merch but we shouldn't just echo their marketing. The original hook got a good run of half the day and it won't hurt to try a more sober ALT too. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I have always read that DYK hooks can have such quotes, as long as the article itself has attribution. I don't know why it bugs you when it has never applied to DYK hooks with such attribution. SL93 (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think this hook should be pulled. It is, at 1545 characters, barely long enough for DYK, and a good trim of the more promotional language would send it under the limit. EDIT, oops, didn't see some of the above. Pings to n/r/p @Di (they-them), Bsoyka, and Hey man im josh:. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Tiny the Wonder

An entry indicates that "Tiny the Wonder" had the skill to "kill 200 an hour". This is vague. 200 what? Rodents?--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 11:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. It presumed the reader would draw the conclusion that Tiny was killing the rats, but it was awkward wording. — Maile (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding "rats" is mere redundancy, especially as it is the image hook. Brevity is to be preferred, and our readers are not stupid. Edwardx (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• The phrasing is not quite right because it suggests that 200/hr was the rate of rat-killing. But the essence of the feat was to kill 200 rats in less than an hour. The pit was filled with the target number of rats and the clock would stop when they were all dead. The article also says that "He once held the rat killing record, with 300 dead in just under 55 minutes." so it's not clear why we are using the mundane figure of 200 rather than the more impressive record of 300. If we are sure of this record then the hook might be better as follows. Andrew D. (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

... that Tiny the Wonder (pictured) once killed 300 rats in less than an hour?

I agree with Andrew. The current wording also gives the impression that "Tiny" could keep killing rats at a rate of 200 per hour, but there are no records to support this claim. An honest "per hour rate" cannot be established without a continuous record from which an average can then be properly calculated. The current wording is a "guesstimation" at best. Andrew's proposed wording is more accurate to the evidence.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 14:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Tom Cox (highwayman)

In re: Tom Cox (highwayman), why is the ordinary, Mr Smith, identified as a priest? He is not in the article nor either cited source. His honorific "Mr" would tend to indicate that he was a civic officer and not ecclesial; even if he were the latter, an ordinary is typically a bishop and not a priest. My suggestion? Simply conform with what the article says. 98.176.128.60 (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Having looked at it I agree, though the fact he was there to lead Mr Cox in prayer suggests he was ecclesiastical in some way. We have an article covering the role, ordinary, so better to use that and link to that, for readers unfamiliar with that usage.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 06:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. It's probably unnecessary to mention the ordinary by name, which confused me at the beginning with the biographer. I've removed the name to conform with the lede and the article, thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I beg your pardon: his name, and the content of the article, was never the issue, and your edit is unconstructive. The issue is the wholly unsourced and unverifiable assertion on the Main Page that the ordinary was a priest. 98.176.128.60 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, especially if you believe our own article on "ordinary". It might have been that he was definitely not a priest. Fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• The IP is incorrect. The ordinary for Tyburn was the chaplain of Newgate and so was a priest. There was no error and so the change should be reverted. Andrew D. (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• As long as that's referenced in the article, brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• I have added a citation to the ordinary's official account of the matter, also correcting the date of the execution. It seems apparent that the comments above are speculative and so the supposed correction was too hasty. Stephen should please revert. We should consult the article's principal author, Philafrenzy. Andrew D. (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's great Andrew Davidson, but it should have happened several days/weeks ago before it was on the main page. With less than 75 minutes to go, I'd be surprised if anyone cares enough to make any changes. Feel free to review the DYKs before they get promoted to the main page in error, as they regularly do. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• I have also created a redirect – Ordinary of Newgate - which leads to a better explanation of the title and position than the current link ordinary, which is too broad and confusing. If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well, so let's have this done properly please. Andrew D. (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• And nowhere does it mention priest. Stephen 23:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• The section referred to by Ordinary of Newgate starts, "The Ordinary of Newgate was the Newgate Prison chaplain. He was always a clergyman of the Established Church..." Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• So I’m supposed to know that those roles are equivalent to priest in that religion? Stephen 23:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• If Stephen doesn't understand such things then he should please not rush to change the main page on the say-so of an IP editor. Anyway, to help us all understand the matter better, I have started an article about the priest in question: Samuel Smith (clergyman). Happy New Year. Andrew D. (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Stephen, and I, were not incorrect: the fact of the matter is that the article and cited sources never said anything about a "priest" (and neither do yours, recently added) and the policy of DYK is to conform to the main articles. At this point in time, it may be independently verifiable to confirm that this particular "clergyman" of the Established Church indeed held the rank of priest and not bishop or deacon, but from where I sit, it still appears to be a bit of WP:OR active. 98.176.128.60 (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. It would be best if Davidson made no assumptions about other editors’ understanding, but rather, in all his bluster, actually add something that referred to a priest. Stephen 00:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, so it failed the DYK requirements of having that information cited in the target article? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's great Andrew Davidson, where were you when this was all nominated? Talk about "after the Lord Mayor's Show"!!!!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• "priest, n.", Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, June 2017, A person whose office is to perform public religious functions

Torture in popular culture

• ... that efficient and professional torture is found only in fiction? two hooks about torture (this one and torture) ran relatively close together. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• From what I understand, this isn't an error if it's not in the same set. This applies to any topic such as the common radio stations, German musicians, etc. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Pull The current hook is as false as a forced confession.

The article in question is torture in popular culture. Studies of fictional torture are obviously of little use in telling us what happens in the real world. And the article doesn't actually make this absolute and extreme claim – it uses the word "often" rather than "only".

If you read our article on interrogational torture, it tells quite a different story. Firstly, note that it distinguishes torture used to extract information from other cases where torture is used for other reasons such as punishment, deterrent or sadism. The fictional article fails to make this point even though there are plenty of examples in fiction. And then our article about the real thing has a section about effectiveness which provides examples showing that "research on the history of torture suggests that torture has, at times, proven quite effective". As for professionalism, the book Torture and the Military Profession indicates that real torturers often adopt professional attitudes as a form of self-justification and self-righteousness.

So, as this is an IPC article, it should stick to fiction rather than making unlikely claims about what actually happened throughout history.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging nominator Buidhe, reviewer BuySomeApples, and promoter Kavyansh.Singh. SL93 (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Darius Rejali is one of the top scholars of torture in the real world, who has also written about fictional torture. It's true that torturers often pretend to adopt "professional" or "scientific" attitudes, but most sources agree that this does not reflect the reality, in which torture is a pseudoscience that leads to erosion of professional skills (see the last paragraph of Torture#Effects). If you read the article, interrogation is not the main reason for torture anyway and claims about effectiveness compared to other means of obtaining information are impossible to test and highly disputed. (t · c) buidhe 08:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If such claims are "impossible to test" and "highly disputed" then we should not be making absolute and sweeping statements about them. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

All sources agree that in real life, torture is never effective in the same way as depicted in popular culture and the drawbacks are rarely portrayed. As the popular culture article states, "Torture can be a convenient plot device to extract information, and when the hero is the torturer, it almost always works, usually quickly." In real life, torture is certainly not convenient in obtaining accurate information, often takes a long time to work if at all, and does not produce accurate information in most cases (if that's even the goal). (t · c) buidhe 09:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

These are massive generalisations which reek of WP:RGW. Are these sweeping statements true throughout all of history? Consider the Gunpowder Plot, for example, which is a featured article. Torture was used against the conspirators and this seems to have been both effective and professional. There are countless examples throughout history and it seems to absurd to claim that they have never, ever been effective. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The words "effective" and "professional" do not appear in the article. I think we should go with what the RS says rather than rely on original research. (t · c) buidhe 10:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The words "found only in fiction" do not appear in the article in question and so the hook is not supported. It's a basic breach of DYK rules which require "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article ". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Train 18

• ... that India's newest train has no engine?

The train has several engines – its electric motors and other machinery. What it doesn't have is better described as a locomotive. Also, it's not clear that it is now the newest train as there's more recent news items about a new Buddhist train which does seem to have separate "power cars". So, the superlative might be dialled down a bit to:

• ... that India's new train has no locomotive?

@Bobnorwal: I could get behind the "India's new train" change—the hook was written a couple months ago when it was the newest train but that's obviously not the case. As for the "no engine" bit, I'm standing behind it. In many fields and locations, the term "engine" is reserved for a device that provides power by combustion or some other chemical change to the fuel source, and the term "motor" (which applies here) is reserved for a device that provides power by electric or non-combuative, mechanical means. It's a good phrasing for the "quirky" spot, in my opinion, since it makes the readers go "huh?" cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if you could support this claim with examples, since -most- “ rail motors” are IC? Qwirkle (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

United States' Telegraph

• ... that the chief editor of the United States' Telegraph allegedly gouged a rival reporter's eyes inside a Senate office?

DYK hooks are supposed to report definite facts but the weasel word "allegedly" tells us that this is not definite. The allegation was made by the rival whose article says "The Intelligencer reported that Green viciously assaulted Sparhawk, while the Telegraph insisted that any physical altercation was minor and that Sparhawk has barely been hurt." It doesn't appear that any serious injury was done, the complaint was not upheld and so the sensational talk of eye-gouging appears to be improper and unbalanced. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

MOS:ALLEGED says: ...although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. The page could be updated to state the source of the allegation. Otherwise, I see this as more of a problem if it was WP:RSBREAKING than for something in the 1800s thats still (presumably) being described as alleged by a modern source.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

University College London

"that the rivalries of University College London students have led to pitched battles with other institutions involving rotten apples, castration, and the embalmed head of Jeremy Bentham?"

Another example of poorly vetted (rush to publish) DYK. Come on, people, would it have been that hard to insert THREE more words to clarify "castration OF A MASCOT" to make this less macabre? Martindo (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Martindo, do you have any evidence for your poorly vetted (rush to publish) statement? I'm asking because when I look at the nomination, I see no evidence of that whatsoever. Nominated on 21 April 2023 and approved on 24 June 2023 doesn't give me a sense of rushing. And frankly, I see nothing wrong with the hook. But let us ask for input from Robminchin (who brought the article to GA), Onegreatjoke (nominator), Evrik (reviewer), AirshipJungleman29 (who first suggested the "castration"), Edge3 (promoter to prep), and RoySmith (promoter to queue). Schwede66 08:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I did notice this during my review, but when I looked up "emasculation" I found a number of sources calling it a synonym for "castration", at least in some senses. I have no strong opinion either way about making a change to what's currently on the main page. And, yes, the last ("quirky") slot is generally given a bit of latitude for humor. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Reggie and one of his balls

• There is an issue here because the source describes it as "emasculation", which is not quite the same as castration. Note that we have an article specifically about the rivalry which gets this right. There's also a picture of the victim. (right). Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oh no, a macabre DYK! Whatever next, an interesting one? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• Agree with Martindo. In context with students, "castration" certainly – and erroneously – does imply castration of human beings. – Sca (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'd personally take this as intentionally but playfully misleading: in a similar vein, on 22 June, we had "...that angels are perched atop the Bayard–Condict Building?" In both cases, the reader is supposed to recognise that the surface reading is surprising and almost certainly not the full story, and so to read the article to find out why. It's fairly common practice for the last hook of a DYK set to be similarly teasing. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• I think a little intrigue is fine for a hook, but I'd support a change from "castration" to "emasculation". A little more accurate to the source and still salacious. 13:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
• I'm okay with whatever the group decides. --evrik ^(talk) 15:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
•  Done – emasculation it is. Schwede66 17:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

White House COVID-19 outbreak

• "...that a COVID-19 outbreak at the White House infected at least 35 people, including the President, First Lady, three senators, and a governor?"

There are several problems with this:

1. the hook states as fact that the outbreak infected a specific list of people. The trouble is that the nature of the pandemic means that some of these people may have been infected elsewhere. And it seems necessary that at least one of them must have been the source of the infection, having brought it from elsewhere. The details of exactly who infected who seem to be unknown and so this is conjecture rather than fact.
2. the general tone of the article does not seem neutral. DYK has a general embargo on such coverage during election campaigns – see WP:DYKNOT. Note that the same item was turned down when nominated at ITN.
3. the article makes specific medical claims. In particular, it makes much of the supposed mental effects of dexamethasone, e.g. "the steroid dexamethasone, which works by reducing inflammation in the lungs[145], but can have significant mental health side effects, including psychosis, delirium and mania". The sources for this do not satisfy WP:MEDRS, being dubious sources like Huffpost. Our article dexamethasone seems rather tentative about this, saying "The exact incidence of the adverse effects of dexamethasone are not available, hence estimates have been made..." As it happens, a person in my family is currently taking regular doses of dexamethasone, as it is commonly prescribed for many conditions. I just looked at the leaflet which lists the numerous possible side effects and don't see anything about mental effects. We should not be alarming patients with such rash statements.
4. the outbreak is still ongoing as the "List of White House staff infected with coronavirus continues to grow". As some of these people are said to be "gravely ill", there are considerations of WP:BLP. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia not a newspaper and so our coverage should be settled facts rather than an uncertain mix of breaking news and speculation, right?

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with the hook itself. It is factually correct. Issues with the target article should be addressed on that talk page. Fgf10 (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging page creator Feoffer for comment here. Yoninah (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• As Yoninah is an experienced set-builder, I am surprised that they let this through. Apart from this being a political controversy during an election campaign, there's other DYK rules:

"The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change"

"hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided"

Andrew🐉(talk) 12:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a fact there is an outbreak, and that won't change, and there is no value judgement in the hook, therefore your second point is irrelevant here. EDIT to add, please explain how this is a political controversy. Fgf10 (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Explain how it's a political controversy? Seriously? If you want some evidence, note that the article is in category:Trump administration controversies. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that there is an outbreak is just that, a fact. How that outbreak started could be construed as a political question. However, that is not discussed in the hook, therefore it is not political. Once again, you seem to confuse hook with article. Also, I've fixed your indents for you, you're welcome. Fgf10 (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the indentation and Fgf10 does not have permission to edit my comments. See WP:TPO. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• A key detail in the hook is the number 35. This seems to come from the LA Times, as that's what's cited in the article. Note that this is significantly different from the New York Times whose tracker page currently has the number as 20. Why is the LA Times figure larger? Well, obviously it depends who you are counting. The LA Times is counting people like Charles Ray (admiral). It appears that he did not attend the Rose Garden event but attended another event at the White House. The Pentagon is now worried about an outbreak following a meeting there which he attended. Of course, this the nature of the pandemic – the virus spreads easily and so it's not easy to be sure who's got it and exactly how they got infected. Trying to put precise numbers on this is unwise as the COVID stats have been all over the place from the beginning. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, I'll explain to you that the hooks follows what's in the article. Take it up at the article, not here. Fgf10 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I really don't get the problem with the hook. It is stating sourced facts in the article. The bolded subject is not People who got infected at Amy Coney Barrett's nomination ceremony, but White House COVID-19 outbreak, which doesn't need to be traced to one event, but is expressing the fact that coronavirus has broken out in the White House. Yoninah (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew, the hook as written is basically "People who got infected at the White House". We don't know that. The "outbreak" could have occurred because 35 people who were separately infected converged on the White House. A better phrasing would be "...that a COVID-19 outbreak at the White House involved at least 35 people, including the President, First Lady, three senators, and a governor?" --Khajidha (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have amended the hook from "infected" to "involved" as you suggest - that seems like a bare minimum fix, just to maintain accuracy. I'm also surprised this has been run so close to an election - I thought the rules were clear that hooks involving the candidates shouldn't be run at this time? Suggest pulling.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems that User:Amakuru's fix has addressed the actual error. But I, too, am concerned about running this so close to the election - the White House COVID outbreak is obviously a big issue in the election coverage. On the fence, and not willing to do something unilaterally, and it's only there for 3 more hours, but IMHO that should really be the last US election-related (broadly construed) DYK until November 4th. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

We're already past the 30 day cut-off which is detailed in WP:DYKHOOK. But there's another election-related hook in Template:Did you know/Queue/4. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Re-reading DYKHOOK, it appears the specific prohibition is for articles on candidates, but US politics-related articles seem to me to violate the spirit, if not the letter. I'll ask User:Valereee, who updated the queue, to replace it; if she disagrees, I'll start a thread at WT:DYK. If that happens I'll ping people who commented in this thread. It's queue 4, so we have some time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, no disagreement, would appreciate it if someone else would replace, I'm suddenly up against some IRL stuff —valereee (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I share Floquenbeam's disappointment that something like this was run at DYK so close to the election. I share Andrew's doubts about the hook and article itself. Genetic methods exist that can track the lineage of a virus and give a good idea of whether this group of infections had a single or multiple sources and the sequence of infections. These have been used effectively in Australia and could be pursued in this case – whether they will be and if any results are made public is unclear given the US political environment. On a topic where there are strong views, disagreements on political lines, and an election pending, we need to be extra careful to stick with information from the best sources and to present information in an NPOV way. My personal view is that the modified hook is likely accurate, but I have serious doubts that it can be backed with sufficient RS to say it in WP voice. The hook will be gone from the main page soon but this article will need careful work for a while, and certainly up until the election. EdChem (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

William Smellie

• "that the 18th-century Scottish obstetrician William Smellie was the first to document the natural birthing process?" seems an implausible claim. For example, see women's medicine in antiquity which says things like "The Hippocratic Corpus, a large collection of treatises attributed to Hippocrates, features a number of gynecological treatises, which date to the classical period. ... Soranus of Ephesus (98-138 BC) was an important gynecologist during antiquity and is credited with four books describing the female anatomy. He also discussed methods to deal with difficult births, such as using forceps." The source given in support of the claim says that "he was the first person to give a complete account" but that's a more qualified claim. Pinging Scarycheerio123 and BaiCaiXue. Andrew D. (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

We need this patent falsehood off the main page. --Khajidha (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I've pulled it. I also could not verify the claim in either of the cited sources, although I was using the snippet view of gbooks for one of them. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Women of Britain Say 'Go!'

... that the propaganda poster "Women of Britain Say 'Go!'" (pictured) was part of an attempt to ignore pre-war advances by women and reinforce gender stereotypes?

• The poster was actually part of an overt attempt by the Parliamentary Recruitment Committee to recruit soldiers to fight in the First World War. The hook reads like a conspiracy theory with its claims of a hidden agenda to campaign against women. Compare Daddy, what did you do in the Great War? which says nothing of this hidden agenda. In that, "The poster's image of domesticity suggests to the viewer that men had to fight in order to preserve familial life." These posters all had the same purpose – to encourage men to volunteer and fight. They naturally used a variety of advertising and propaganda approaches but the purpose was recruitment. Looking for hidden meanings seems fanciful and very much a matter of opinion. In this case, the opinion is attributed to Jane Marcus by the source. Marcus was a feminist and so naturally interpreted things through that filter. We should likewise attribute such ideas rather than presenting them in Wikipedia's voice. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, we should "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As this hook was an ALT, we might use the first hook instead, which was approved and did not depend on AGF.

• ... that the poster Women of Britain Say 'Go!' (pictured) has been considered as "one of the most iconic images of the Great War"?

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Xenoracism

• "that xenoracism is a term that describes white-on-white prejudice, such as discrimination against Eastern European migrant workers in Western Europe?" The hook makes it seem like it's only used for white-on-white predujice, whereas the article just uses that as an example. I suggest "that xenoracism is a term that describes prejudice within one racial group, such as discrimination against Eastern European migrant workers in Western Europe?", following the article usage. Fgf10 (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• That's a very good suggestion, Fgf10. Yoninah (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that there's lots of issues with this one too.

1. The phrase "is a term" is a common mistake per MOS:REFERS
2. The word xenoracism seems to be a neologism. It doesn't appear in the Oxford English Dictionary and we're supposed to be the English language Wikipedia.
3. It's not clear what the difference is between this and the well-established topic of xenophobia. It appears to be a fork.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Andrew, as I said above, article content should be discussed on the revenant talk page, not here. This is the wrong place for your arguments. Anyhow, the article in question has plenty of RS, and it being a neologism is entirely irrelevant. Everything was a neologism once. If appearing in the OED should be the way we do things, then say goodbye to the vast majority of our articles. That's a nonsense argument. Also can you please fix your random indents in the middle of your edits? They make the discussion very hard to follow. Fgf10 (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean relevant and not revenant, although a dead horse being resurrected seems to be the order of the day here.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've enacted Fgf10's suggested reword. The other bigger picture issues can be taken up at the article talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Zali Steggall

• ... that Zali Steggall, an independent member of the Parliament of Australia, is the country's most successful skier?

The "most successful" claim is not cited in the target article. It seems dubious because she only won one Olympic medal and it was just a bronze. Per Australia at the Winter Olympics, other skiers have won multiple medals including golds: Alisa Camplin, Lydia Lassila, Michael Milton (skier)... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed – My apologies (I was involved in that); it's now referenced. Schwede66 07:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66: That didn't really fix the issue IMHO, as the names mentioned by Andrew above seem to have had an objectively better career than Steggall, e.g. Camplin has a better record in the Olympics and the same record in the world championships. Whichever way you cook it, bring the "most successful" is a subjective thing that probably doesn't meet DYK's "definite fact" criterion and would certainly need to be very widely attested. I've amended the hook to say simply that she won an Olympic medal, which maybe is still an interesting achievement for a politician and maybe hooky enough... If not then we might just have to consider pulling and replacing.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I admit that I did not check Andrew's individual articles. All I did was provide a reference for the hook fact. BTW, you will recall that I very much support putting a stop to "first" and other superlative hooks unless we have a rock-solid source, but there's unfortunately no consensus for it. Schwede66 09:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

And now that I have looked at those other bios, I wonder what the Sport Australia Hall of Fame people are on about. By which definition could you possibly arrive at the conclusion that Steggall is the "most successful international skier"? Schwede66 09:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed! It's rather bizarre. Re first/most of the hooks, I think we already have an unofficial convention that they need fairly rigorous sourcing. If I come across these in my sets I usually do a fairly thorough check and flag it if I think the sourcing isn't very strong.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure. But you'd think that a Sports hall of fame has a good handle on their athletes. Schwede66 09:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"... is an Olympic skiing medallist"? That's sufficiently hooky for a member of Parliament, especially an Australian. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I’ve implemented that. Schwede66 11:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)