Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

*'''Comment'''. I'm not exactly sure what can be achieved by the objections being raised here which essentially boil down to 'we don't like Tate' and 'we don't want to promote a hook unless it signals our moral disapproval of Tate'. By definition that is [[WP:POV]] pushing and doesn't follow out guidelines for hooks on living people. We can't present a negative hook about a BLP per [[WP:DYKHOOKBLP]] and more broadly [[WP:BLP]] policy in general. The pulled hook "that social media personality Andrew Tate was the third most 'googled' person in 2023?" is neutral. It's a verified fact that he was the third most googled person in 2023, and he is, for better or worse, a social media personality. We aren't endorsing or promoting any of his negative bevhavior by stating so, and reframing it as somehow non-neutral is an over reach and mis-application of [[WP:NPOV]] policy as these two facts are not contradicted anywhere in reliable sources. Whether you like the man or not he will still be the third most googled person in 2023 and he will still be a social media personality. I don't think this one factual sentence could or should be misconstrued as an endorsement of Tate's actions. I also don't think it's a good precedent to censor DYK. I support promoting this hook a second time, because it is compliant with policy and probably the most neutrally worded hook possible on this particular individual.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': I am watching how others approach this BLP. It is interesting because it reminds me of a newsroom where editors try to shape a narrative. Leeky says this living person (LP) needs a negative hook because he has a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=1218888297&oldid=1218887807 "subpar moral compass"]. SN54129 says, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=1218889146&oldid=1218888297 "F Tate"] Billedmammal supports listing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=1218894335&oldid=1218890336 "crimes he has been charged with"] Kusma wants to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADid_you_know&diff=1218890336&oldid=1218889965 "run a hook about his misogynistic garbage"] Horse Eye's Back says that the LP is "objectively bad". {{Pb}}This LP is clearly not liberal and is a sort of [[anti-woke]] figure so I am not surprised that some editors demand a hook which portrays the person as bad, it is like a [[virtue signal]]. Last year I was chided for opposing a BLP at DYK [[Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Jane Baker|Sarah Jane Baker]]. The person was convicted of kidnapping and torturing her stepmother's brother. Also convicted of attempted murder and prison escape. But we did not highlight any of that, we highlighted the fact that they were trans. But people could go to the article and read about the person's crimes - we did not lead them to the crimes. When we make editorial choices they often involve [[identity politics]] – but should they? I read the puzzling words above, "running a neutral hook would actually be unduly positive"? Is that a [[Jedi mind trick]]? Because we have [[WP:DYKHOOKBLP]] for a good reason. So back to this LP... in reality I suppose that that the person would not care what hook we run because like the old proverb says, "There’s no such thing as bad publicity". Whatever we decide to run here will mean more clicks. We just might end up looking like partisan hacks if we shape the hook to reflect our moral outrage. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 02:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 

== [[Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7|Prep 7]] ==