Template:Did you know nominations/Embassy of the Philippines, Amman
- 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 reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 10:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Embassy of the Philippines, Amman
... that a diplomat at the Philippine Embassy in Amman was accused of running a sexual exploitation ring?
- Source: "Bello said at a news conference that two of the embassy personnel, whom he identified as officers of the Philippine Overseas Labor Office in the Jordanian capital Amman and in Kuwait, were involved in running sex rings in those two places that send Filipinas to service wealthy clients." – Philippine Daily Inquirer
- Reviewed: Bengisu Avcı
Created by Sky Harbor (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 53 past nominations.
Sky Harbor (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC).
- @Sky Harbor: A QPQ has yet to be provided despite it being over a week since the nomination. Please provide a QPQ as soon as possible, or else the nomination will be marked for closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
The nominator hasn't edited since July 1st and has not provided a QPQ. Marking for closure as abandoned, without prejudice against it continuing if the nominator returns or another editor adopts this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Narutolovehinata5. If you're wondering why I've not been able to work on this nomination, it's because I am currently in Turkey for work-related travel. I will work on the QPQ within the next 1-2 days, and thank you for your patience. --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- QPQ review done, Narutolovehinata5. Thank you again for your patience. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Narutolovehinata5. If you're wondering why I've not been able to work on this nomination, it's because I am currently in Turkey for work-related travel. I will work on the QPQ within the next 1-2 days, and thank you for your patience. --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for a QPQ, this still needs a full review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you going to review this? If you aren't, can I review this?
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗11:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)- Yes, I wasn't planning to give this a review, so someone else will need to do it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are you going to review this? If you aren't, can I review this?
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Good to go! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Pulled and reopened per query at WT:DYK, this is a fairly unambiguous violation of WP:DYKBLP, "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided". Not quite sure why this was approved and promoted. A new hook will be needed, and more generally I wonder if the article itself is compliant with WP:BLPCRIME. The embassy official isn't named, but as a non-public figure we shouldn't have accusations if a conviction wasn't secured. The article doesn't seem to say what the conclusion of this saga was, it's sort of left hanging currently. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I've solved the problem by removing the entire paragraph from the article. RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is not a good hook in the article, it describes an ordinary embassy doing ordinary embassy things. It may be possible to do something with "A Filipina private secretary to Queen Alia, Ms. Elnora Agulto, was also part of the King's delegation" if added into the article, although hooks that come to mind are about Jordan-Philippine relations rather than this embassy. CMD (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: At WT:DYK, I suggested "that although diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Jordan were established in 1976, the Philippines would not open an embassy there until 1980?", which RoySmith was "fine with running", however you said you didn't think it was "that unusual". What hook would you suggest?--Launchballer 12:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with that one. Yeah it's perhaps not the most unusual thing, but this is an embassy - it's hardly going to have anything of earth-shattering about it, other than the BLPCRIME issue already mentioned and which I don't regard as suitable. I'd replace would not open... with did not open... myself, but otherwise fine with LB's suggestion. — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree that it's not a particularly exciting hook, but at least it's not categorically unsuitable as the first one was :-) RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing else I can see in the article that stands out other than maybe it also being in charge of Filipinos in Palestinian territories, or maybe the showing of Filipino films. Maybe the article just isn't a good fit for DYK after all, although given how my comment appears to go against consensus there's not much I can do. I do think that this "we can use relatively uninteresting hooks if there are no other options" thing needs to at best be used sparingly. A bad hook is sometimes worse than not running the article at all, and we have to be more willing to reject nominations that are just bad fits. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't read Filipino, but the one used for its films has the phrase "Women's Film Week" in its title. Jordan is not a country known for gender equality. What's in that source?--Launchballer 14:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- If there's nothing interesting to write a hook about, then by all means reject it. RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, everyone. I'm a bit perplexed here as I don't understand how the article as it was originally written violates WP:BLPCRIME, especially given that first, the article isn't about a specific living person (the normal scope of BLP-related policy), and second, the incident in question caused quite a response in the Philippine media and by politicians in the Philippines. Given that worse things have happened, such as a similar incident at the Philippine Embassy in Damascus (which, by the way, made it to DYK with a hook pointing out that incident), I don't understand how this is suddenly seen as being non-compliant when the other one was. I am all for finding alternative hooks where they can be found, but excising the information from the article given that it is relevant to the history of the mission itself boggles me.
- If there's nothing interesting to write a hook about, then by all means reject it. RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't read Filipino, but the one used for its films has the phrase "Women's Film Week" in its title. Jordan is not a country known for gender equality. What's in that source?--Launchballer 14:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's nothing else I can see in the article that stands out other than maybe it also being in charge of Filipinos in Palestinian territories, or maybe the showing of Filipino films. Maybe the article just isn't a good fit for DYK after all, although given how my comment appears to go against consensus there's not much I can do. I do think that this "we can use relatively uninteresting hooks if there are no other options" thing needs to at best be used sparingly. A bad hook is sometimes worse than not running the article at all, and we have to be more willing to reject nominations that are just bad fits. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I agree that it's not a particularly exciting hook, but at least it's not categorically unsuitable as the first one was :-) RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with that one. Yeah it's perhaps not the most unusual thing, but this is an embassy - it's hardly going to have anything of earth-shattering about it, other than the BLPCRIME issue already mentioned and which I don't regard as suitable. I'd replace would not open... with did not open... myself, but otherwise fine with LB's suggestion. — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: At WT:DYK, I suggested "that although diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Jordan were established in 1976, the Philippines would not open an embassy there until 1980?", which RoySmith was "fine with running", however you said you didn't think it was "that unusual". What hook would you suggest?--Launchballer 12:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I should also note that while not included in the original version of the paragraph "excised" by RoySmith, the diplomat himself has been named in the press – as seen here in an article in the Pilipino Star Ngayon (in Tagalog/Filipino) – and more information about the conclusion of the probe can be included in the article as opposed to removing it entirely. --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The gist of WP:SUSPECT is
editors must seriously consider not including material ... that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)- Having done some additional digging, RoySmith, the diplomat in question was suspended, and was also not given a new foreign assignment. Given this new information I'll proceed with restoring the information you removed from the article, adding the new information found here, and hopefully this is sufficient to proceed with the DYK for this article. --Sky Harbor (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The gist of WP:SUSPECT is
- I should also note that while not included in the original version of the paragraph "excised" by RoySmith, the diplomat himself has been named in the press – as seen here in an article in the Pilipino Star Ngayon (in Tagalog/Filipino) – and more information about the conclusion of the probe can be included in the article as opposed to removing it entirely. --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, my objection with the 1980 hook proposal is like this. First, establishing diplomatic relations does not necessarily mean the opening of an embassy. Indeed, the Philippines has relations with almost every nation on Earth, but it doesn't mean that it has an embassy in all of them. In fact, there are other countries that the Philippines has long had relations with but has yet to establish an embassy there. And a gap of four years isn't really that impressive: longer gaps are not unheard of even for other countries. In any case, if a new hook cannot be proposed then unfortunately the nomination will probably have to be marked as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Given that the objection to the original hook has been addressed in the article (there was a finality to the case which has since been added), Narutolovehinata5, would it be better to rewrite ALT0 as follows (as ALT2)?
| “ | ” |
- This may be a bit longer than the hook length requirement but I'm open to any revisions that can be made to reduce the length. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- You will have to ask the other editors who objected to that angle on BLP grounds if the article changes are sufficient to address their concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also looks good, but I feel like the hook does not follow WP:SUSPECT per RoySmith. Anyway, the hook is okay.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗11:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)- (edit conflict) I think Narutolovehinata5's DYKINT objection to ALT1 is valid and various editors' objections to ALT0 and ALT2 on DYKHOOKBLP grounds are valid and none of those hooks should run. I would suggest a hook along the lines of "that in March 2023, the Philippines' embassy in Jordan participated in a "Women's Film Week"?".--Launchballer 11:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Launchballer, I should note that those objections were raised before the relevant edits were made and that neither Amakuru nor RoySmith (other than saying "sure, I can restore the paragraph with more information but I don't think it's a good idea, but who am I to judge?") have raised these objections after the fact. If there are still continuing objections despite the improved treatment of the situation in question, then I'd be open to entertaining a less "exciting" hook. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the edits to the article didn't have much bearing on the original decision to pull the hook. Focusing on the sexual exploitation scandal relating to an employee of the embassy, or indeed focusing on that employee being suspended for "other reasons" is not due weight for a hook summarising the embassy as a whole, and is not compliant with DYKHOOKBLP. I'd tend to agree with RoySmith thar it's not even appropriate to discuss this in the article, given the need to adhere to WP:BLPCRIME and should be not be highlighting this in the absence of a conviction. My principal concern here is about what we put on the main page though, and ALT0/ALT2 are not appropriate. — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just noting that I have struck both ALT0 and ALT2.--Launchballer 15:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, in that case I have no objections to ALT1. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- ALT1 is a rather bland option so I don't think running that is a good idea either. I'll be frank: ALT3 (the Women's Film Week hook) doesn't excite me either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see anything else in this.--Launchballer 07:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I might have something but I will insert this in the article when it is not 1:30 am here: the translator for the Embassy's assistance-to-nationals section won an award from the DFA for his work, a first in the history of the commendation. Would this be sufficient for a DYK? --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Source says "a Jordanian translator was presented the Assistance to Nationals (ATN) Award by the Philippine Embassy in Jordan" (emphasis mine), and if any hook beginning "... that an embassy presented an award to" did pique my interest, it would be more likely to make me want to read about the winner.--Launchballer 10:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, Launchballer, the award is actually not awarded by the Embassy (the translator, after all, works for them), but by the Department of Foreign Affairs itself. It was the first time someone from the mission was actually given this award, which is why I'm considering it for a DYK hook. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given that the award doesn't even have an article, and I'm not even sure if it's all that prestigious in the grand scheme of things, it seems marginally hooky at best in my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, Launchballer, the award is actually not awarded by the Embassy (the translator, after all, works for them), but by the Department of Foreign Affairs itself. It was the first time someone from the mission was actually given this award, which is why I'm considering it for a DYK hook. --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Source says "a Jordanian translator was presented the Assistance to Nationals (ATN) Award by the Philippine Embassy in Jordan" (emphasis mine), and if any hook beginning "... that an embassy presented an award to" did pique my interest, it would be more likely to make me want to read about the winner.--Launchballer 10:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I might have something but I will insert this in the article when it is not 1:30 am here: the translator for the Embassy's assistance-to-nationals section won an award from the DFA for his work, a first in the history of the commendation. Would this be sufficient for a DYK? --Sky Harbor (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- ALT1 is a rather bland option so I don't think running that is a good idea either. I'll be frank: ALT3 (the Women's Film Week hook) doesn't excite me either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, in that case I have no objections to ALT1. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just noting that I have struck both ALT0 and ALT2.--Launchballer 15:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think Narutolovehinata5's DYKINT objection to ALT1 is valid and various editors' objections to ALT0 and ALT2 on DYKHOOKBLP grounds are valid and none of those hooks should run. I would suggest a hook along the lines of "that in March 2023, the Philippines' embassy in Jordan participated in a "Women's Film Week"?".--Launchballer 11:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- This may be a bit longer than the hook length requirement but I'm open to any revisions that can be made to reduce the length. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- After giving this some thought, I have to concur with Launchballer that there really isn't anything in the article that sufficiently meets DYKINT. It's too bad that the article probably isn't a good fit for DYK but this is through no fault of the article writer or the topic. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)