Template:Did you know nominations/Elm Conflict
- 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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Elm Conflict
[edit]... that the Elm Conflict at Kungsträdgården, Stockholm came about after officials proposed to place a new subway station's entrance at the location of 13 Scots elm trees (pictured)?
- ALT1:
... that the Elm Conflict was covered extensively in Swedish press, and singer Cornelis Vreeswijk was present, singing his songs and supporting the protests? - Reviewed: Macrotritopus defilippi
- ALT1:
Created by BabbaQ (talk), Dwpaul (talk), GoingBatty (talk), Werldwayd (talk), Bishonen (talk), Diannaa (talk) and Joseph A. Spadaro (talk). Nominated by BabbaQ (talk) at 16:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
- Propose a better hook (in my opinion) - ALT2:
... that the Elm Conflict, a 1971 protest against the destruction of elm trees in a city park, led to sweeping changes in the process of urban renewal and local governance in Stockholm, Sweden?Dwpaul Talk 14:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Either hook is fine with me. I'd like to support inclusion of either one of these hooks into the DYK section. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, well referenced. Most refs are in Swedish, but the one in English verifies the information. The original hook tells the facts but isn't very hooky; ALT1 is better but needs some tweaking; and ALT2 isn't found in the article. I suggest something with more mass appeal:- ALT3:
... that a citywide protest involving nearly 1,000 citizens, City Council members, Swedish government officials, and mounted police erupted over the proposed removal of 13 Scots elm trees next to a subway station in Stockholm?Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- ... except that the protest was not "city wide", but largely confined to Kungsträdgården, and this makes it sound as if City Council members and other officials participated directly in the protest. The public outcry generated by the protests was much larger, but this proposed hook is misleading. Dwpaul Talk 02:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I saw "government officials started chainsawing the trees under the protection of police" in the article.
- ALT4:
... that in 1971 a 1,000-man protest was staged against the removal of 13 Scots elm trees next to a subway station in Stockholm?.Yoninah (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
As I can't approve my own hook, calling for a new reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Review of ALT4: Yoninah's review of the article still stands; I'm taking it on trust - and if Yoninah will kindly forgive me, I'll add more stuff. (Note: I have removed the elm-bark image because it did not illustrate 13 elm trees or any other part of ALT4.) ALT4 is sourced in Swedish-language citation #3, accepted AGF. QPQ OK. The text is objective and neutral in style. It does contain the word "destruction" in the header, but this is well-balanced by "uncivil" and "undemocratic" in the Aftermath section. It is accepted AGF that there is no copyvio or close paraphrasing in connection with the Swedish-language sources. Issue: This issue is only my personal opinion, and if the nominator argues against it, I shall strike it out. Looking at this article from the perspective of the UK, where during the 20th century we lost most of our iconic elm trees to Dutch elm disease, and where the wych elm (called Scots elm in the article) has been identified as resistant (or partially so), it is very odd that (a) the Swedish government didn't use Dutch elm disease as one of their excuses to cut down the trees, and that (b) the article does not note whether or not the government or anyone else thought of that, and whether the protesters sought to eliminate Dutch elm disease from the equation. I understand that in much of Europe, the mere mention of Dutch elm disease has been known to override local protests for safety reasons. For many decades in the UK, there has been a popular notion that large limbs or boughs of elm trees can rot in the middle but look fine on the outside, and can then suddenly fall on people on a nice sunny day without warning. There is no place for opinion here, but for those of us who like elms it would be gratifying if someone could find a source which says that the remaining trees are healthy and/or that they are at least partially resistant to Dutch elm disease. I am giving this review a grey tick instead of a question mark because the issue above is only my opinion, which might have been better placed on the article talkpage, and it should not stand in the way of DYK.--Storye book (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The approved ALT4 hook was basically replaced in prep after a discussion on Talk:Elm Conflict#DYK, and that new hook was subsequently pulled as chronicled in WT:DYK#I cut down the Elms because it claimed that the event led to more attention being paid to citizen input in general, while the source seems to be referring only to input in city planning. The hook that was pulled was as follows (striking it so it isn't accidentally promoted later): ... that a 1971 protest against the removal of 13 Scots elm trees in a Stockholm city park led to more attention being paid to citizen input into the decision-making process of the city council?A new hook will need to be found and carefully reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
ALT5:... that the Elm Conflict led to an examination of the need for citizens to have more input into the decision-making process of the city council of Stockholm?
- ALT6:... that the 40th anniversary commemoration of the Elm Conflict was held on 11 May 2011?
- I have now added two new alternative hooks for consideration.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Review of ALT5 and ALT6. This review is an extension of my previous review of 17 June, with ALTs 5 and 6 replacing ALT4. Both hooks are short enough. In my opinion ALT5 is not helpful, because its content might be controversial and it is liable to suffer the same problems of acceptance as did ALT4. ALT5 is sourced in the article header to citation #1, but the English abstract does not confirm the words of ALT5 (although the English abstract is of course incomplete, and the full Swedish version may still confirm it). So I am striking ALT5; not because I don't believe it myself, but because I think it will be rejected for the same reason as ALT4. ALT6 is the safer one of the two, because it is not controversial and it is referenced to Swedish-language citation #6, which we can accept AGF. Good to go for ALT6.--Storye book (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- ALT6, unfortunately, is insufficiently interesting; the phrase "Elm Conflict" just doesn't have enough oomph to sustain an anniversary on its own. I went to the article to see if something more interesting might be found, and the Aftermath seemed tailor made: the article notes the elms are once again in danger, with a death sentence pronounced just last month, a stay of execution, and news on its fate coming in August. However the information, sourced to FN7, proved inaccurate: the source is dated July 29, 2013, close to eleven months ago, so the hook I was contemplating isn't possible, and the article has incorrect information on the actual status of the elms. At a minimum, the article needs fixing, and if there is information on the current status of the trees to be had, then I imagine an interesting hook can be made about it, whether it was them being saved again 42 years later, being in danger now, or having survived another 42 years before being chopped down. (Three elms appear to have been moved on July 22 or 23, based on stories linked to from the FN7 page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- BabbaQ, the current problem is with the text of the Aftermath section, which is inaccurate. I would have been happy to supply an interesting hook once the actual status of the trees was established and sourced. However, if you still want to withdraw this, I'll close it. It seems a shame, though. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)