{{User:Politizer/DYKsuggestiondev<!--Please do not copy this code directly for nominating. Instead, use {{subst:DYKsug}} as described in the header.-->
| hook = ... that the '''[[Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration]]''' celebration is scheduled to to run from January 17, 2009 until January, 21, 2009?
<!-- Please add your suggestion using either the template provided or a level 4 header with the name of the new/expanded article. PLEASE leave spaces between the nominations. It helps those reviewing ... and picking -->
<!-- Please add your suggestion using either the template provided or a level 4 header with the name of the new/expanded article. PLEASE leave spaces between the nominations. It helps those reviewing ... and picking -->
... that after becoming a religious leader of the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Slaybebtikud united the tribes and established himself as their sole leader?
... that Wolfgang Rihm said of the music of his 1987 opera Oedipus: "Sound is a weapon here – or a scalpel"?
This page is for nominations to appear in the "Did you know" section (reproduced on the right) on the Main Page.
Using a DYK suggestion string (see below examples), list new suggestions in the candidate entries section below under the date the article was created or the expansion began (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the top. Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion; self-nominations are permitted and encouraged. Thanks for participating and please remember to check back for comments on your nomination.
Length - The Article should contain at least 1,500 characters in main body text (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables). This is a mandatory minimum; in practice, articles having more than 1,500 characters of prose still may be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting administrators.
Verification - The DYK hook fact in the article needs an inline cite at the end of the sentence and the article in general should use inline, cited sources.
Date - The new article should be no more than five days old and the expanded article should be expanded at least fivefold with new text within the last five days.
Length
DYK qualifying characters: To count the number of characters in a piece of text, you will need to use a JavaScript extension like User:Dr pda/prosesize.js (instructions on the talk page), a free website like this, or an external softwareprogram that has a character-counting feature. For example, if you are using Microsoft Word, select the text from the article page (or, in the case of "Did you know" nominations, this Talk page) – not the edit page containing Wikitext – then copy and paste it into a blank document. Click "Tools" ("Review" in Office 2007), then "Word Count", and note the "Characters (with spaces)" figure. Other word processing programs may have a similar feature. For Mac users, Apple has a Word counter widget available for Mac OS X 10.4 or later. Note: The character counts indicated on "Revision history" pages are not accurate for DYK purposes as they include categories, infoboxes and similar text in articles, and comments and signatures in hooks on this page.
Lists: Proposed lists need 1,500+ characters of prose text. The listed items themselves are not counted as part the the 1,500 DYK qualifying characters
Verification
Suggested facts (the 'hook') should be:
interesting to draw in a variety of readers,
short and concise (fewer than about 200 characters, including spaces),
Please note that hooks are subject without notice to copyediting as they move to the main page. The nature of the DYK process makes it impractical to consult users over every such edit. In particular, hooks will be shortened if they are deemed too long: the 200-character limit is an outside limit not a recommended length. Also, watch the suggestions page to ensure that no issues have been raised about your hook, because if you do not respond to issues raised your hook may not be featured at all.
Articles on living individuals must be carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks which focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.
Other issues
Pictures: Pictures accompanying the DYK hook should be:
freely licensed suitably and freely (PD, GFDL, CC etc) licensed (NOT fair use) because the main page can only have freely licensed pictures;
suitable, attractive, and interesting at a 100x100px-wide resolution;
already in the article; and
relevant to the article.
Sounds: Sounds accompanying the DYK hook should have similar qualities to pictures, and should be formatted using {{DYK Listen|filename.ogg|Brief description}}
Sample DYK suggestion strings
Please use one of the strings below to post your DYK nomination, using the "author" and "nominator" fields to identify the users who should receive credit for their contributions if the hook is featured on the main page.
Nom without image: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | author= }}
Nom with image: {{subst:NewDYKnom | article= | hook=... that ? | author= | image= | caption= }}
To include more than one new or expanded article in a single hook:|article2=|article3=|article4= | (etc)
To include more than one author:|author2=|author3= | (etc)
To include alternate hooks:|ALT1=|ALT2= | (etc)
To add a comment:|comment=
To add the article you reviewed:|reviewed=
Do not wikilink the article title, or the author username field; the template will wikilink them automatically. Do wikilink the article title in the hook field, however. Do not add a section heading if you are using the template; the template will add one for you. Do not include a signature (~~~~) after the template. Do not use non-free images in your hook suggestion.
When saving your suggestion, please add the name of the suggested article to your edit summary.
Please check back for comments on your nomination. Responding to reasonable objections will help ensure that your article is listed.
If you nominate someone else's article, you can use {{subst:DYKNom}} to notify them. Usage: {{subst:DYKNom|Article name|August 26}} Thanks, ~~~~
Symbols
If you want to confirm that an article is ready to be placed on a later update, or that there is an issue with the article or hook, you may use the following symbols (optional) to point the issues out:
This page often seems to be backlogged. If the DYK template has not been updated for substantially more than 6 hours, it may be useful to attract the attention of one of the administrators who regularly updates the template. See the page Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins for a list of administrators who have volunteered to help with this project.
Is this an appropriate subject for the main page? I don't think so myself, but I am willing to accept that views may be different on this. Still, this should be discussed. --Nlu (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that before nominating the article. I am personally opposed to suicide or assisted suicide except in the most extreme situations and recognize this is a topic on which people have strongly differing viewpoints. However, Ratel has put together a well-written and well-researched article on an inportant topic of public debate that is not done in a expolitative way. So I thought it worthy of a DYK nomination. On reflection, the hook may be interpreted by some as having a promotional tone, which I did not intend. If someone wants to propose an alternative hook for this, feel free. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 ... that Itzamnaaj K'awiil, king of the Classic PeriodMaya city of Dos Pilas in Guatemala was so embarrassed about being born in exile that the calendar dates recording his birth were altered?
ALT2 ... that B'alaj Chan K’awiil, the Classic PeriodMaya king of Dos Pilas in Guatemala, dramatically switched sides to become the vassal of his long standing enemy after 20 years of loyal service?
ALT1... that the career of the mathematician Wilhelm Cauer, known for filter design, was stifled because he had a notable Jewish ancestor, Daniel Itzig?
Very nice hook, but the article is currently only 1054 characters of prose. Needs to be 1500 characters to qualify for DYK. Cbl62 (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The expansion from 1,363 DYK characters on 1 September 2008 to 1,902 DYK characters[1] represents a 1.4x expansion. You'll need about another 5,452 DYK characters for a 5x expansion. -- Suntag☼13:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I wasn't sure how serious the 5X requirement was. I don't think it would be right to pad the article just to qualify for DYK. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm working on a new article and I'll nominate it. (I guess an article could be written on the book, if there was more information in English about its content.) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK date is December 17th. The hook is 203 characters long (should be under 200). "highly influential" and "revolutionising" are subjective opinions. Facts (something capable of being proven true) usually work out better in hooks. You might want to suggest another hook. -- Suntag☼12:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added an additional reference to the article quoting from the doumentary that used footage of Ringer and showcased his photos that sums up his significance. Hope that provides more verification as requested. Dgabbard (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Geographic location of the Wolpa and a date context in the hook would aid the hook. A hook conveying more about a wooden synagogue might produce a better hook. -- Suntag☼01:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "The Act also designates three new Wild and Scenic Rivers --- Wildhorse Creek, Little Wildhorse Creek and Kiger Creek --- and adds two new segments --- Ankle Creek and Mud Creek --- to the existing Donner und Blitzen Wild and Scenic River. Also, the first ever Redband Trout Reserve has been created to improve stream health and fish habitat." The geographic scope is not clear. These did not clear up the issue. Also, the source wording does not seem to indicate that "Blitzen Wild and Scenic River" is part of the first ever Redband Trout Reserve. -- Suntag☼14:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with this. I tracked down and linked to sources with the language of the legal acts that established the Little Blitzen as wild and scenic and that created the trout reserve. Unfortunately, the establishing act for the reserve does not list the tributaries by name and requires interpretation. In part the act says, "The Secretary shall designate the Donner und Blitzen Redband Trout Reserve consisting of the Donner und Blitzen River in the Wilderness Area above its confluence with Fish Creek and the Federal riparian lands immediately adjacent to the river." The Little Blitzen is above Fish Creek and at the very least passes through the main stem's riparian zone at the confluence. The act also says that the "Redband Trout Reserve does not include any private lands adjacent to the Donner und Blitzen River or its tributaries". I take this specific protection for private lands along the tributaries to mean that Congress was thinking of the entire Blitzen watershed above Fish Creek when it created the reserve. I have not yet found a map that clearly shows the wilderness, the cooperative management area, the trout reserve, and the private lands in a clear way. If I find one, I will add a link to it. Finetooth (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How come the brothers have slightly different lastnames? Is there an elder brother named Gjøstean, and then younger brothers named Gjøsteon and Gjøsteun? --74.13.125.161 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length - Ole Georg Gjøsteen (1,688 DYK Characters), Johan Gjøstein (2,018 DYK Characters) - dates (17 December 2008), and hook wording verified. The hook is 202 DYK characters without "Ole Georg Gjøsteen", but I'll knock off the 3 letters for "and" needed to make a multiple hook. A few other letters needed for a multiple hook could be discounted as well. The references are in another language and not formatted to where I can tell if they are books, news articles, blogs, or websites. If someone else thinks the actual sources used are fine, then everything else checks out. -- Suntag☼15:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Blogs? Nearly all the sources, such as the ones supporting the hook fact, bear the cite encyclopedia tag. By the way the NSD link doesn't work inside a cite web template. Punkmorten (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The expansion uses material from Chilika Development Authority, a site that seems to have a self interest in the Chilka Lake. -- Suntag☼16:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ALT 1:... that Chilka Lake (pictured), a highly productive ecosystem with rich fishery resources, sustains more than 0.15 million fisherfolk living in 132 villages in and around the periphery of the lake?--Nvvchar (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chilka Development Authority (CDA) is the only Organization (set up under the Government of Orissa) which is entrusted with the responsibility of taking all ameliorative actions and to maintain the lake or the lagoon. Ramsar Convention and the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Government of India also deals only with the CDA as far as the lagoon is concerned. Govt. organizations do not have any self interest nor profit motive and are funded by the Goverment and international organizations for all its actiivities.There is no other agency responsible for the lake. Hence, only reliable references from CDA have been mostly cited, apart from ohers.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with 97198 that Rose's unusual spelling rule is the more interesting point for a hook. Also many references are bare url's. Cbl62 (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source for this is the book itself - I'm not sure what other reviewers think, but I think a secondary source supporting this would be better. —97198 (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My own thoughts on this were that there are very few secondary sources for this particular bit, and that the actual book would give more information anyway. It has an introduction in which he explains the ideas, and if a reader wants to know more he can just read the rest of the book. Thank you for all your input! The Luizer (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current link at footnote 2 makes no mention of Connally that I can see. Footnote 3 appears to confirm he played a part in Close Encounters, but that's an imdb reference, which has been questioned as a valid source for DYK. Also, there is no in-line citation for his having been a county judge. Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I count 210 characters including spaces in the hook, even after some pipelink trickery, so I'd be amenable to suggestions for a more concise version (or an alternative hook). The length of the page title itself doesn't help matters... --DeLarge (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the sentence "has so much scandalous content" is a personal opinion whereas "was considered so scandalous" can be verified as a fact. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like this last one. It might seem daft, but I think the inclusion of "lawyers" is important, since it clarifies that it wasn't just a nervous editor who wielded a red pen to the manuscript. It elevates it from mere controversy to outright libel. --DeLarge (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Length and date of the article OK, but there is an issue with the hook, specifically regarding whether or not the source cited directly supports the hook. The relevant sentence in the article reads "The 105 prisoners captured at Nitzanim constituted the majority of POWs captured by Egypt during the entire war." It is referenced to footnote no 10, namely page 149 in the book of Yoav Gelber. A link to the googlebooks preview of the book is provided in the ref and here is page 149:[2]. The relevant passage there reads: "The Arab armies held 800 Jews as prisoners of war, mostly from Gush Etzion and the Old City of Jerusalem. They were interned in a camp near Mafraq. The rest were captured by the Egyptians, mostly at Nitzanim, and by the Syrians Hayarden." First, a relatively minor point: there is no mention here of the fact that Egypt captured 105 prisoners at Nitzanim. While the figure of 105 is not mentioned in the hook, it is mentioned in the sentence in the article supporting the hook, and it'be much preferable for the actual fact stated in this sentence to be referenced by an inline citation too. More importantly, it is unclear to me that the above passage actually supports the hook(s). Is it clear that the first sentence, talking about Arab armies capturing most of the prisoners of war at Gush Etzion and the Old City of Jerusalem, actually excludes Egypt? Egypt would seem to qualify as a part of the "Arab armies". Where Egypt is mentioned explicitly, the book says "The rest were captured by...", a key word here being The rest. I would like to have this point clarified and, in fact, would prefer a hook that is more directly supported by the text. Nsk92 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nsk92! I specifically left the figure of 105 in the hook, because it is not mentioned in Gelber's book. There are several other online sources which mention the figure from the article, which are already cited several times throughout, but I will add one to that particular sentence. Here is an English-language article.
About Gelber's book, not sure what the concern is. Can you please clarify? Basically what he says is: Of the 800 prisoners, most were captured by Jordan, and the rest by Egypt and Syria. Of the X captured by Egypt, most were captured in Nitzanim.
My concern is with the first sentence in the ref, "The Arab armies held 800 Jews as prisoners of war, mostly from Gush Etzion and the Old City of Jerusalem." Is it clear that the "mostly from Gush Etzion and the Old City of Jerusalem" part refers to prisoners captured just by Jordan? The text says "Arab Armies", which, on the face of it, seems to include Egypt too. Nsk92 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, there's absolutely no possibility that Egypt captured prisoners anywhere near Gush Etzion and Jerusalem, as there weren't any Israel–Egypt battles there. I think Gelber makes this clear by saying 'the rest were captured by Egypt ... and Syria ...', which leaves only Jordan and Iraq for Gush Etzion and Old Jerusalem. From personal knowledge I can tell you that it's Jordan, but this has nothing to do with Egypt or the DYK. -- Ynhockey(Talk)08:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Sorry, but I still don't like it. I don't doubt that your reading is correct, but the ref's wording is still too undirect and ORish for my taste. Deducing the hook's statement requires excluding Egypt and Syria from "Arab armies" covered by the first sentence, and requires knowing quite a bit about what happened when and where and what was the disposition of various forces during 1948 Arab–Israeli War. The territory where the war took place is rather small and it was not clear to me, without doing further research, that Egypt was not involved in military actions near Jerusalem and Gush Etzion (in fact, where is Gush Etzion?). You may want to ask a second opinion of DYK regulars here, but I would like to see a different hook for this entry, that is more explicitly and unambiguously supported by the references cited (surely there are lots of such facts in this article). Nsk92 (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will nominate another hook, but the confusion seems unclear. As I said, Gelber very clearly states that 'most prisoners were captured ... at Old Jerusalem and Gush Etzion, and the rest ... by Egypt ... and Syria.' Seems therefore obvious that the first sentence refers to everything other than Egypt and Syria (even if you don't know that it's Jordan). -- Ynhockey(Talk)03:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I already nominated a hook from this article, but a reviewer considered it too unclear, so I'm nominating another one which is undisputed and sourced online (see ref Haaretz1). -- Ynhockey(Talk)03:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed two prominent quotes from the article as a violation of wp:quote. We need to be sure that articles going on the front page do not present a one-sided view, which selective use of quotes can do. Gatoclass (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Gatoclass's opposition to these quotations is completely unilateral, without support from other editors. He appears to have ignored the original discussion about this, personally attacked me, and did not wish to attain consensus to delete these quotes in the subsequent discussion. In addition, Gatoclass has an established involvement in I–P articles and this could affect his judgement in this case. I therefore ask that an impartial and uninvolved administrator take a look at the case; the hook has been verified and even a regular at WP:MILHIST didn't declare any major problems with the article. -- Ynhockey(Talk)17:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a total falsehood to claim that I engaged in a "personal attack" on you, and I am disappointed that you would make such a baseless claim. Furthermore, I am perfectly entitled to voice my opposition to the promotion of this or any other article at DYK. This article features two long quoteboxes from Israeli combatants/civilians that give a clear pro-Israeli bias to the article. One of the quotes is a sentimental plea, the other refers to Arabs as "cruel invaders".
WP:QUOTE clearly states that "quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it". This is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for the dissemination of nationalist rhetoric, and I will strongly oppose any attempt to have this article featured on the front page in its current state. Gatoclass (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this discussion and am removing the "verified" logo from this entry since an objection has been raised and there is not a consensus for promotion for the moment. I have no opinion on the issue regarding quotes for the moment and will have to study it further. I did have a reservation regarding the use of the word "humiliating" in ALT2 hook since hooks should sound neutral and better avoid highly emotive terms like this one. However, since I had already given this entry much trouble on the original hook, I did not make a fuss about ALT2 hook. But I do think that if this entry is ultimately promoted to DYK, it would be better to drop the part "which was viewed as humiliating in Israel" from the hook for neutrality reasons. Nsk92 (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the article's talk page and I still do not have a particularly strong opinion on the underlying issue of the dispute there. To be honest, I don't understand the passions on either side of this dispute, but I admit that I know little about the subject of the article. I do have a mild general dislike for blockquotes of any kind, but I don't have an opinion whether the two quoteboxes in question are appropriate or not. Still, there is an active and fairly contentious dispute at the article's talk page, with an open RfC going on. I am a relative newcomer to the DYK page, and I don't know how to proceed at this point with this DYK nomination, as a matter of procedure. Perhaps some more experienced DYK regulars can chime in here. Is an ongoing dispute a problem with DYK going forward? If not, would a significant expressed consensus for promoting the article to DYK be needed here, at this page? I would really appreciate some additional input. Nsk92 (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference that is being cited for this hook says he followed the first 9 lessons of a language course. The article says he spoke no Russian at all and the hook says he didn't speak fluent Russian. That's three different meanings. - Mgm|(talk)09:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First nine lessons of a language course = not fluent russian; I'll standardise the article to say "fluent russian" and that should sort it. Ironholds (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a cited quote? Then it needs to be in quotation marks here, and properly attributed in the article. I couldn't find the words "possibly most influential" anywhere in the article, though. —Politizertalk/contribs00:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is now >1500 characters, I couldn't find a statement in the solo reference to support the hook. Please point it out or offer an Alt Hook. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the article with {{improverefs}} because only one sentence is cited. If that same source covers the entire article, then additional footnotes should still be added. —97198 (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the one available reference at the minute. It isn't due to be aired until next year. The Irish Independent as a national newspaper surely wouldn't lie about the existence of such a thing... I've improved the article. Made certain it was over 1500 characters. The hook has a ref. What more can be done in the circumstances? --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk08:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "satanic" quote needs a specific inline citation immediately following. The entire hook seems inflammatory and the article doesn't really provide any counterpoint to Luzhkov's views specifically. Otto4711 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quote has it's own citation and there's a para on the organisers suing Luzhkov for what he said. Hope that's okay. As for the hook being inflammatory, well, the parade has led to street fights between protesters. It's a controversial subject and has garnered worldwide coverage. Besides, it's nice not having a bland hook isn't it?? ;) Malick78 (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think including the number of deaths and places without power is vital for the hook. And I think noting that this was the worst storm in a decade is also important (note the piped link to 1998 ice storm). ~ Wadester16 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the original nom, I suggest ALT 2 for use as DYK. Time's running out: both for DYK and this being a current event! Use of accompanying image is optional. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently only 1387 characters -- a few short of the required 1500. Also, I'm unsure whether the photographer's Creative Commons license is enough on the image, since it is in large part a photograph of a company's trademark/log. Cbl62 (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Cbl62 (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the AFD runs its full length then it will be 5 days and the article will not be eligible. The AFD may speedy-close however. Remove the {{subst:DYK?no}} if it does. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a possible SNOWball. In any case, I think we've been known in the past to let articles on AfD sit around for way past what would normally be expiration, and then if they pass AfD we've sometimes made an exception to put them in DYK even though they're more than 5 days old. —Politizertalk/contribs18:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going by this graph from commons:Derivative work (which I've linked incorrectly before). The Lego images in Commons:Lego are, as far as I can tell, all either pictures of sculptures in one of the LEGO theme parks, pictures of self-designed constructions, or pictures of the more basic building blocks, and none from a set that was sold. Cheers, Amalthea02:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the genus being named after the place, this could be quite confusing to non-specialists. Any ideas for altering the hook? Article length confirmed. - Mgm|(talk)11:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like: ALT1 ... that the specific name of the 80-million year-old sea turtleTerlinguachelys was actually named after a school teacher?
The article indicates that this place was depopulated in 1948 and is no longer a population center. Accordingly, it is no longer a village. Also, it only had a population of about 350 people before it was depopulated. If used, this should probably say "the former Palestinian Arab village of Abil al-Qamh was established on a site that was inhabited ..." Cbl62 (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is unpatented and thus in the public domain, I don't think the court refers to the article as an invention. You might be able to find a news article or something that uses such terminology. For the most part, the article is unsources. Reliable sources that are independent of Sears v. Stiffel probably would be the way to go. You might want to use info from Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL. This string narrows the book choice down a bit. -- Suntag☼20:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fine, though it's interesting that this is a Constitutional right and not merely something from legislation or case law. Tempshill (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, article says he's German. Sources say he's Austrian. It's easy to make a mistake since Austrians speak German, but that issue should be addressed as well. - Mgm|(talk)11:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning his nationality, I found no German language sources indicating that he is Austrian, and since he works for a German theatre it seems logical to call him a "German" actor. (The accident happened in Austria.) Concerning ONEEVENT issues, he has given a single interview about the accident [3], in which he complained about the media attention. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One event does not necessarily disqualify an article, and this man has done more than one notable thing. I'll look around for some German sources, because I can't find any more English ones. Regarding the name question: Ref no. 3 says that he lives in Hamburg, which would therefore make him German. ~theeditorofthewiki(talk/contribs/editor review)~ 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two little questions... first of all, what happened after the guy's candidature was declared invalid—what was its effect on the party? Secondly, there are lots of redlinks... are any of these things that might have an article and just need to be dab'ed, or are they definitely redlinks? (I noticed that DSAP doesn't even seem to have an article on German wikipedia.) I'm not too familiar with this part of history, but I would imagine it would be desirable to delink all the names other than Heinrich Scheibler, since he seems to be the only one that's really significant (in comparison to the others). —Politizertalk/contribs15:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The expansion looks good, but it still uses only one source...do you have any other sources you could dig up quickly? Also, did you make a decision about what to do with the redlinks? —Politizertalk/contribs15:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no other sources. This is a subject which was virtually no online source. There is a book in Polish on German movements in Silesia in the interbellum, but its not online. As per the redlinks, i think except Scheibler the other links on individuals could be removed. --Soman (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blachetta-Madajczyk uses the book Ludzie Walki as one of its main sources on the section on DSAP-Linke, appears to be material on Scheibler in that one. However, its in Polish and I can only get string-view on google books. --Soman (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "was thought to be" the second, and the source seems to say even less... if I'm reading it correctly, it just says, "Thomas Onslow took an office of profit.... and, here's another example, Denzil Onslow did it too"— in the part I read, at least, it didn't explicity say he was only the second). Also, I replaced "MP" with "Member of Parliament" to be more clear for non-UK readers. —Politizertalk/contribs18:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Well, the "trick" first became possible in 1707, when the "Place Act 1707" was passed. People had certainly had to leave their seats under the terms of that act before 1707, but they usually contested the following by-election. In the case of the Onslows, it was tactically advantageous to keep sending a member of the family to contest the Surrey seat (rather than Guildford, where it was easier to manipulate their interests), and the case of 1715 appears to be the first where someone accepted an office specifically because they wanted to get out of their own seat. The two Onslow appointments in 1715 and 1717 may not be absolutely the first, but they're within ten years after the passage of the Place Act, and they seem to be the best-documented as to motives for accepting the office. (Speaker Onslow, his nephew, says so in his memoirs.) I've beefed up the references a bit, including a link to Chafetz's recent paper; let me know what else I can do for you. Choess (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DYKs for December holidays other than December 25, 2008 holidays
Note: As we did at Halloween, we are "breaking the rules" (including the unwritten ones) in that these articles were prepared in under 5 days but are being delayed. Post your DYK suggestions here on topics related to holidays of this season that are not listed at December 25 Holidays.
Suggestions:
New Year's Eve
Comment Since Champagne is a big part of New Years Eve celebrations, I've been working on several Champagne/sparkling wine related articles for DYK. My goal is to try and get one related hook on each set that runs throughout Dec. 31st (I'll have more suggestions coming over the next week or so). I would understand if there are constraints with other hooks needing to be featured. Normally wine articles don't fit into our DYK "theme days" like Halloween/Christmas, etc so I thought I would have fun with this one. :) AgneCheese/Wine06:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems an appropriate request and seems do able. Once it is determined which queue will post at 18:00 to 24:00 (UTC), then your three other hooks can be posted to the queues that follow that one. -- Suntag☼13:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References for hook include the Oxford ref in the lead and the Johnson Vintage ref under the "Early history" section. Feel free to propose an alt if you see something more eye catching in the article. -- AgneCheese/Wine03:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sentences containing "pink" had an in line citation, so the hook can't be verified at present. Also, which sentence in the article supports the idea that "for most of its history, Champagne was pinkish"? -- Suntag☼13:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "most of its history" part is a summarization of the entire article which talks about the evolution of wine in Champagne and the relatively recent phenomenon of white sparkling wine. Essentially every reference used in the article give verification to that summary. The main part of the hook comes from the very first line of the lead which is sourced to the Oxford ref (currently footnote #1) as noted and the second to last sentence of the third paragraph in "Early history" to the Johnson Vintage ref (currently footnote #2). When I write articles I ensure that everything is sourced. When the entire paragraph is sourced to the same reference, it is redundant to add the same footnote to every other line. Hence the reason I point you in the direction of where the refs are. Besides, all my sources are offline anyways and so it is going to get an AGF tick. There is even less reason to add redundant duplicate footnotes for that. AgneCheese/Wine17:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't seem to say anything about "that for most of its history, Champagne (pictured) was pinkish and non-sparkling". I asked for the inline ref in case I'm wrong and it is standard typically applied on this DYK page. WP:OR states "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources". While it may be true that the change from 5th century pinkish Champagne in the 17th century (or when ever) may mean that "for most of its history, Champagne (pictured) was pinkish," without such information being source to a reliable source, I don't think it appropriate to include such information on the Main Page as a Wikipedian editor summarization of the entire article. -- Suntag☼17:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a rather bizarre injection of OR synthesis. If published sources are saying that a region has been making still pinkish wine for roughly 1300 years compared to the 200 years that sparkling white has been popular, it is fair to say that those sources view Champagne as a being a still pink wine for "most of its history". OR synthesis would be if I try to create an entirely "new thought" from among the sources, not if I regurgitate what was it is already published in the sources, just phrasing it differently. There is no "new thought" being put forth here. But for appeasement, I added the redundant "for most of its history" phrase to the lead paragraph for you. AgneCheese/Wine18:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it's clear from the text that for most of its history, champagne was non-sparkling. I admit I didn't pay much attention to the "pinkish" bit. I'll probably have to read it again to satisfy myself that is the case. But I do think Agne could have made the article a little easier to verify. Gatoclass (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an editor or reader can put together the information in the article to reach the DYK hook conclusion. It still seems to be OR and with so much well sourced information in the article, I don't think we need to use OR on the Main Page. -- Suntag☼ 18:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Struck per edit conflict. -- Suntag☼18:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As we did at Halloween, we are "breaking the rules" (including the unwritten ones) in that these articles were prepared in under 5 days but are being delayed. Post your DYK suggestions here on topics listed at December 25 Holidays, such as Christmas, Quaid-e-Azam's Day, The feast day of Anastasia of Sirmium, and Yule.
I would be fine with that. It would only mean delaying the normal appearance at DYK 2-3 days. Should I move it down there now, or will it get moved when this queue runs to the end? --Jayron32.talk.contribs19:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really illustrated the article, but there are plenty of pictures out there that are usable, I may take a few too. There is also ample opportunity here for alternative hooks, if anyone has one, I just used what jumped right out. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not appear to be new, I don't see a move in the history or anything...is there something here that I don't know about (ie, a prior agreement to save this for Christmas or something...although I'm not how directly relevant is it)? —Politizertalk/contribs21:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a highly influential show that takes place around Christmas each year and features toys which viewers may wish to buy. The audience dress up in Christmas costumes, the set is Christmas themed and there is a general Christmas feel about it, so I'm sure it's relevant. When I created and expanded the article I intended it for such a Christamas DYK; however this section only seems to have recently sprung up and I've placed it here as soon as I noticed it... --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk21:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then...could you add a bit of that stuff (about the Christmas-themed set, and the audience's dressing up) to the lead-in? I think that would help make it clearer. As for the article history, while it's not new enough for a normal DYK, since you've created it specifically for the Christmas DYK I don't see a problem with using it, as long as no one else objects. —Politizertalk/contribs21:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion verified, offline ref accepted in good faith. The hook isn't super-interesting but I think it's the most interesting thing in the article yet. Article is 1600 characters...a bit sparse, but there's probably not much more that can be said so there's no point forcing anyone to squeeze more in. I think everything is acceptable as is. —Politizertalk/contribs21:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have written a little more since you said this, but am probably coming to the end of what can be sensibly added. I have come across several non-WP:RS sources saying that Christmas Common was the first place in the country where the red kite was reintroduced after its extinction. This would make a better hook, but frustratingly I can't find a reliable source for it. — BillCtalk03:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both verified, with offline ref accepted in good faith (there are some online refs as well, but I didn't look at them; I imagine the offline ones are better). John Prideaux Lightfoot is barely 1500 characters, but it's got lots of refs and good stuff, so I'm fine with it. —Politizertalk/contribs21:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In line with hook, intro says that they were popular until about the mid-1960s, but the History section says that they were popular into the 1970s. This could just be a wording problem, but if so the wording needs to be fixed. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah a wording issue, I wrote that sentence before I had completed my research and forgot about it, thanks for the note on my talk page letting me know. --IvoShandor (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, this is no more than a statement of intent, as I have not yet reached the intended 5X expansion, so please don't review yet. (I will edit this statement once I have.) However, I would welcome comments on whether the topic of this article is considered suitable for the 'Christmas Special' DYK, or will it only be for topics that are really about Christmas? — BillCtalk07:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, now this hook is interesting and caught my attention - had to listen to clips online after reading about it. ;-) The article is sufficiently long, fact referencing verified, and overall looks okay. Jamie☆S9321:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lynde and Raye are not famous enough to make the hook work and how casting was done is uninteresting. Is there a more interesting hook for this solid article, please? --74.13.126.105 (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Lynde and Martha Raye are very famous in the U.S. -- both had very long and successful careers, with Lynde as a major TV star for two decades, winning two Emmy Awards, while Raye starred in numerous classic films and received an Honorary Oscar for her career achievements. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, for a hook like yours to work, you need some bigger stars. Maybe people like Sean Connery, Meryl Streep.... Right now, the hook is simply about two friends helping each other get jobs, which happens all the time, everywhere, in many occupations. --74.13.126.105 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original hook has been confirmed and verified; I would ask that we retain the original offering and not the negative alt hooks. The IP editor's personal lack of familiarity with two major U.S. entertainers of the 20th century is not relevant -- and, in any event,DYK serves the purpose of bringing forth information and is not designed to recycle data on the too-obvious. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then please use this hook when it's not bedtime in America. People who lack of familiarity with Lynde and Raye are everywhere outside the U.S. For the sake of those who don't watch U.S. TV, please consider briefly describing who they are in the hook. --74.13.126.105 (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I strongly prefer the original hook as it is both more interesting and far more positive. I know that it got me to read the article. - Dravecky (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hooks below have been approved by an administrator (BorgQueen (talk)) and will be automatically added to the DYK template at the appropriate time.
Interior of Liebfrauenkirche
... that Liebfrauenkirche(pictured), a Catholic church in Zurich, was designed with Italian influences to distinguish it from churches of other denominations?
The hooks below have been approved by an administrator (Z1720 (talk)) and will be automatically added to the DYK template at the appropriate time.
Perugia's limia
... that dominant males of Perugia's limia(species pictured) may be so preoccupied with fighting each other that the females end up mating with the subordinate males?
... that Sophie Kropotkin and her husband returned to France despite the risk of being arrested, as they thought that detention in a French prison would be preferable to living in England?
... that following the filming of the music video for "Guess", Charli XCX and Billie Eilish donated 10,000 pairs of underwear to charity?
... that Winzar Kakiouea was the sole athlete from his nation at the 2024 Olympics?
REMOVE THIS MESSAGE WHEN ADDING HOOKS TO THE QUEUE
This queue is currently empty. When hooks are added, they must be approved by adding {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the page; the bot will not make any updates unless this is added. Remove this message when adding the hooks.
REMOVE THIS MESSAGE WHEN ADDING HOOKS TO THE QUEUE
This queue is currently empty. When hooks are added, they must be approved by adding {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the page; the bot will not make any updates unless this is added. Remove this message when adding the hooks.
... that in the 1840s infant schools, nine-year-old children were sometimes employed to help teach younger children?
... that ...
... that "Ka Esi Le Onye Isi Oche", a 1983 song by Mike Ejeagha, gained a resurgence in popularity in 2024 due to a social media sensation 41 years after its release?
. Can't find anything wrong here. --➨Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 22:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 19:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
