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 Yoninah (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Article expanded from 2,257 to 23,252 bytes (10.3x raw count) beginning April 3. Hook count: 166.
Created/expanded by Wnt (talk). Self nominated at 01:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC).
Note: we go by prose characters, not file size. It started at 777 characters, and it's currently 15,269, which is about a 19.7x expansion. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM 00:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
While I don't personally disagree with the descriptor, I'm not sure that the use of the word "draconian" reflects WP:NPOV... Thoughts? 97198 (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, the situation as described involves people being thrown out of housing and jobs because the landlords or employers could be charged, and the possibility of 14-year jail terms. But for much of the time when Senyonjo was active in opposing it, it was even worse -- initially the proponents were pushing for a death penalty. Per Draco (lawgiver) the assignment of death penalties for minor offenses is the literal etymology of "draconian". Also, it's not clear to me what you would find acceptable. Would you regard "harsh", "severe", "unusual", "punitive" to be NPOV? Wnt (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I've provided an ALT1 which should clearly be NPOV, as the term "Kill the gays bill" is a bolded synonym for the article link, having been widely used in the media. I had preferred the first as more... temperate, but temper does have its limits. Wnt (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
"Draconian" is entirely appropriate, and I'd prefer ALT0 (so to speak). EEng (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
How about just saying "Uganda's anti-homosexuality legislation"? Avoids the NPOV issue around Wikipedia endorsing the term "draconian" (even though I think most fair minded people would consider it pretty damn draconian) and also avoids the similarly POV-ish "kill the gays" construction. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right. Let's drop draconian. EEng (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem with this is that unadorned "anti-gay legislation" sounds like a big nothing. People use a term like that to refer to not getting a partner's Social Security benefits. This is in a very different class, and so far as I recall literally all sources went out of the way to comment about the severity of it. Wnt (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It's just that on reflection I just think draconian and kill the gays are just trying a bit too hard to sell the product, as it were. How about "harsh anti-gay" or something? Or is there some quote, like "Ugandan anti-gay legislation (termed 'medeival' by Person X)" or something?
Well, I actually already have a quote from the California legislature which calls the anti-gay proposal "draconian". The Associated Press also used "draconian" in reference to the bill in the direct context of Senyonjo. Because I already have the cite for the legislature quote, I think it would be overkill (sort of a sign of Wikipedia dispute damage) to insert "draconian" in the lead paragraph and put a bunch of citations after it, but I could.  I mean, it's sort of like saying that it's POV to call a BLP subject a Nazi - sure, usually it is, unless he actually is one. It is widely accepted the bill is draconian, it meets the English language definition of draconian, and I don't think it's a stretch to call it that. Wnt (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
(I don't know if ALT4 fits the facts.) Wait, wait... I gotta run, but here's a thought -- surely Clinton would have used some choice word(s) we can quote? Maybe look into that. EEng (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I looked before and didn't locate the award ceremony itself, nor have any of the sources about it listed quotes that I could search. I don't think the scare quotes are necessary - I've given sufficient sources to document draconian as simply another fact from the hook that is sourced inline. Wnt (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ for ALT3. This took a bit of work, and i've noted a couple of issues at the article talk page. The five times expansion checks out, and the cites support both the characterisation of the legislation, and the award received by Senyonjo. On balance, i think the word does need to be in quotes, though i agree with Wnt about it meeting the definition and all that. I just think there is less room for an edit war or debate to develop about WP's POV if we take a conservative approach, as it were, to this characterisation. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)