Talk:Lake Erie Walleye Trail cheating scandal

Did you know nomination

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 BorgQueen talk 14:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the two anglers caught cheating in a Cleveland fishing tournament two years ago today might have been able to win without putting weights in their fish, assuming the fish were caught that day?

• Source: "Even without the weights, the men’s fish might have been heavy enough to earn them team of the year, prosecutors said." Fishermen who cheated at Lake Erie walleye tournament in Cleveland get jail time", The Plain Dealer; May 11, 2023.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Laurence Patrick Lee
• Comment: Per the wording of the hook I would like this to run on the anniversary of the event: September 30, so we have plenty of time

Created by Daniel Case (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 281 past nominations.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC).

Moved from Moved from WT:DYK#Request for review of anniversary-themed hook

Hi. A couple of weeks ago I nominated Lake Erie Walleye Trail fishing tournament cheating scandal with the idea of getting it on the Main Page on September 30, the two-year anniversary of "We got weights in FISH!!" reverberating around the Internet.

Now would be an ideal time to review it and get it into SOHA before we starting putting queues together. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: is there a way to make the hook less hypothetical? The article says they might have been heavy enough to win without the weight but also that "it remains unclear if the men caught the fish the day of the tournament or on a prior day." This is such a goofy crime, that I feel there are probably quite a few ways to craft a compelling hook around it. The article otherwise checks out. It's cited, quotes are attributed, no close paraphrasing, meets NPOV, long enough, and expanded 5x. If you try out other hooks, feel free to ping me, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have added to the hook: ALT0a: ... that the two anglers caught cheating in a Cleveland fishing tournament two years ago today might have been able to win without putting weights in their fish, assuming the fish were caught that day? This comes in at just under 200 characters. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Idk, that's pretty textually dense, maybe something like:

• ALT1: ... that two anglers went to jail for hiding weights inside of fish that might have been heavy enough to win the tournament without added weight?

Also, I don't know how to get to NPOV within the space of a hook fact, but the bit where the dude loses a $120,000 prize boat after failing a polygraph test (which doesn't even work) about having sex with other women and farm animals is wild. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. Aside from the likely unlikelihood, as you note, that a hook based around that could fit into 200 characters, this claim is somewhat dubious enough to me as to not put it in a hook, since the only source for it in the article is a (admittedly reliably-sourced) interview with one of the anglers, not the one supposedly subjected to this test even, who was at the time merely suspected of cheating, and who has since admitted to doing so. Even the other guy ... if he has gone on the record corroborating it, I didn't find it. To say nothing of the tournament director. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Not happy with the hook from a negative BLP point of view. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also BLP related, I'm concerned that much of the Other criminal charges section may be contrary to WP:SUSPECT. RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I have condensed this section. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Alright ... how about something like:

ALT2: ... that a man shouting "We got weights in FISH!" went viral online two years ago today?

Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That runs afoul of "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change". Maybe just go full-on quirky:

ALT3: ... that We got weights in FISH?

RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

But then what's the point of running it on the anniversary? And didn't we have a rule saying hooks had to be clearer than that? Or that is another one we trashed so we could keep things running smoothly?

OK, then, how about:

• ALT3a: ... that two years ago today, "We got weights in FISH!!"? Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case, we do often run things on an anniversary without calling it out unless it's somehow important to the reader understanding the hook. We'll run a hook about a composer and not mention that it's the 200th anniversary of his birth, for instance. Often it means more to the nominator and a very small group of readers who are already aware of the anniversary.

The event was on Sept 30, but did it really "go viral" that day? That seems unlikely. Maybe we simply don't need 'today' in there? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, but I also feel that allowing anniversary-themed hooks (as we do with FAs) encourages people to create those articles. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively we could change the person focused on in the hook:

• ALT4: ... that the director of a Lake Erie-based walleye fishing tournament defended two anglers accused of cheating until he found weights in their winning fish two years ago today? Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)"He also questioned those in charge, including, by name, Jason Fischer, the director of the Lake Erie Walleye Trail tournament series — the man who was close with them, who saw the rumors dominate the 2022 season, who was relieved when they appeared to be winning honestly, but who this month saw small fish, big numbers, and cut the bellies open in front of a camera." "This Isn't the First Time Cleveland Walleye Fisherman Jacob Runyan Has Been Accused of Cheating. We Interviewed Him After the Last Incident" Cleveland Scene; October 12, 2022

What is your opinion of ALT2a: ... that a man shouting "We got weights in FISH!" went viral online on 30 September 2022??--Launchballer 20:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That too many readers are not smart enough to realize that's a two-year anniversary date, and that including the date would be absolutely superfluous on any other date. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The rule is a bit nitpicky, IMO. It might have happened two years ago 'today' all day in the US, but much of the time it's appearing, the local date is not Sept 30. Meh. People watching the BBC in the am in the US and hearing the anchor mention an incident had happened 'early this afternoon' are able to understand. But that's been the interpretation of the rule. Valereee (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, another one that I hope will be appreciated as BLP-compliant:

• ALT5: ... that since two anglers were caught putting weights in fish two years ago today, directors of an Ohio fishing tournament have routinely cut winning fish open? Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with that from a negative BLP point of view. How about

ALT6: ... that since the We got weights in FISH! incident, directors of an Ohio fishing tournament have routinely cut winning fish open?

That could be a good quirky. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think if "quirky" is what we want, and based on your sniffiness about mentioning "today" in the hook at all above, let's just stick with Roy's idea of the catchphrase alone. That will probably get the most hits (maybe even more than "Wake Me Up When September Ends", slated for the same day. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, one last try at satisfying all these demands:

• ALT7: ... that a professional angler said weights found in fish two years ago today showed cheating in fishing tournaments is more common than people think? "Cheating in competitive fishing is more common than many people think, Mr. Robertson said.", "Fishing Contest Rocked by Cheating Charges After Weights Found in Winning Catches", The New York Times; October 2, 2022 Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The sooner the better. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

And if this is what people really wanted, and we miss the anniversary date, as looks increasingly likely, we'll do the quirky hook:

ALT8: ... that we got weights in FISH!? Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Daniel Case: Benjamin Franklin is starting to apply to this nom, so I'll take a look. I have taken the liberty of renumbering a bunch of ALTs on this page. ALT0 is too hypothetical, so I've struck it, and I agree that ALT1 is a DYKHOOKBLP fail so I've struck that. Not seeing where in the article it says 'this went viral on 30 September', so I've struck ALTs 2 and 2a. ALT3/ALT8 would need quote marks and probably lack enough context to be interesting to a broad audience, so I've struck them. Technically, the fish were caught with weights in them and they hadn't yet established that Cominsky and Runyan had been why, so I'm striking ALT5. ALT6 does not check out; "All the top five finishing teams in each tournament will have their fish physically inspected, including possibly being cut open" and the hook says that "directors of an Ohio fishing tournament have routinely cut winning fish open" and these are not the same thing. ALT7 fails WP:DYKDEFINITE as thought patterns can change, so striking it. That leaves ALT4, which needs an end-of-sentence citation for the fact that Fischer was a director.--Launchballer 11:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done See above after the hook (it actually verifies the whole hook, not just that aspect. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done. The sentence in the article that states that Fischer is a director needs a source no later than the end of the sentence it appears in per WP:DYKHFC.--Launchballer 20:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done now. I reserve the right to remove that extra cite after the hook runs. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's roll.--Launchballer 04:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Shorter name?

Would anybody mind if I moved this to Lake Erie Walleye Trail cheating scandal? RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, at the very least I'd like to see the DYK nom approved as we are running short of time to get it into the appropriate queue.

While I erred on the side of clarity in naming it, I do see the point in that "Lake Erie Walleye Trail" is unlikely to refer to anything other than the series of angling tournaments Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've done the move. I'll leave the DYK nom to others to look at. RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)