The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
... that The Canadian Conspiracy is "as incontrovertible as it is preposterous"? Source: Toronto Star "The Squealer told this totally incredible story. [...] The evidence is as incontrovertible as it is preposterous." ProQuest435436417
ALT1: ... that in The Canadian Conspiracy, Canadians infiltrate the American entertainment industry to subvert their culture? Source: Jonathan Vance, A History of Canadian Culture, page 433, "the biting 1985 mockumentary The Canadian Conspiracy, about the federal government using moles in the US entertainment industry to subvert the country." Google books
ALT2: ... that The Canadian Conspiracy is a satire of Cold War propaganda films and tabloid journalism? Source: Jody Berland, Canadian Cultural Studies page 477 "Aside from parodying stereotypical American film and television conventions, like cold-war propaganda films and tabloid-style "real crime" exposes, The Canadian Conspiracy conveys the creators' amusement..." Google books
ALT3: ... that in The Canadian Conspiracy, a joke about the climate leads to a secret war? Source: Toronto Star "The whole ghastly mess began during a post-war visit to Ottawa by then U.S. President Harry Truman. While posing for press photos with Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, Truman made an offhand quip disparaging the Canadian climate. Outraged, Mackenzie King set in motion a conspiracy of vengeance that continues to this day." ProQuest435436417
Overall: Everything checks out here. I'm leaning toward ALT3 since that framing's the most interesting. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@Cat's Tuxedo: Thanks! Just to be thorough, do you think this is special enough to reserve for 1 July and that it won't be controversial for it to run on that date? – Reidgreg (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: After looking into the context, I think it might be doable. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment: ALT1 and ALT3 seem to fail the requirement that "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 03:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The above references rule H11 at WP:HOOK. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about that rule. After reading a bit, I tend to agree along the lines of "Did you know... that in a fictional universe, anything can happen?". Striking ALT1 and ALT3, and proposing another:
ALT4: ... that participants in The Canadian Conspiracy were paid $500 – American? Source: Mike Boone, Montreal Gazette "The Canadian Conspiracy includes interviews with the aforementioned stars, all of whom played along with the gag (for an honorarium of $500 U.S.)." ProQuest431360985
Have to say I wasn't aware of that rule myself. Apologies for my lack of diligence. Well, in that case, I say ALT4 will suffice. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Everything checks out here. I'm leaning toward ALT3 since that framing's the most interesting. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure. ALT4 is good to go. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)