Talk:Adam Berdichevsky

Latest comment: 10 days ago by Deborahjay in topic Occupation

Did you know nomination

edit
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 SL93 talk 00:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 
Berdichevsky in 2016
Created by Schwede66 (talk) and 2603:7000:2101:AA00:C184:EB59:3D6D:1CF2 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 159 past nominations.

Schwede66 08:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC).Reply

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
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Assuming good faith for Hebrew language sources. Overall I think this is good to go once Schwede66 completes a QPQ review. paul2520 💬 15:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

See above for the QPQ done by the IP editor, Paul2520. Schwede66 17:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Schwede66! = paul2520 💬 17:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply


Wikipedia's reputation?

edit

Doesn't Wikipedia usually have an unbiased reputation to uphold in reporting? Not that I'm saying this goes one way or another, but isn't it very strange for Wikipedia to have an article like this featured on the DYK tab? Surely things that might cause any consternation shouldn't be featured at all, regardless of which side they're supporting. I'm really curious to know what decision making, if any, went into this, and how many people were involved in deciding that it was ok to highlightHol-Tangings (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

But did you know that? CLalgo (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is no rule about sensitive topics as it applies to DYK as far as I’m aware. The only qualifications are that a reliable source supports the hook and that the article is in decent enough condition to be linked to from the front page. I also don’t see how this would be ‘supporting’ any one group; the hook is simply an interesting piece of trivia. I can imagine a similar hook could be run if a Palestinian athlete competed at the Paralympics in a similar context. ForsythiaJo (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree there is nothing wrong with this hook. On the other hand, several hooks I nominated that involved Israeli attacks on Palestinians were watered down and used in passive voice. Examples here: [1], [2], [3]. In David's hook, it was so watered down we had to insert the fact that Israel had granted him citizenship, after an Israeli soldier had killed him, due to "NPOV concerns." Makeandtoss (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Occupation

edit

@Herniac: Gaza Strip has been occupied since 1967 per the ICJ. It is not "false." [4] Makeandtoss (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The statement situating the subject's birthplace and residence on a kibbutz bordering the Gaza Strip is sufficient as is, as the latter is linked to the page by name (not piped). Any descriptive text on this bio page is by nature POV. Its removal makes it NPOV. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply