Talk:Biderman's Chart of Coercion

Did you know nomination

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 Valereee (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

• ... that, although created to understand Chinese psychological torture of American POWs during the Korean War, Biderman's Chart of Coercion was utilized by American interrogators to administer Guantanamo Bay detention camp? Source: multiple
  • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

• Reviewed: Theater am Aegi

Created by HAL333 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC).

• Nominated within seven days of creation, long enough even when not counting the text in the chart itself, stays neutral and is properly sourced. No copyright issues detected; Earwig's Copyvio Detector only gives hits for quotations. QPQ is done. Pic is in the article and public domain. The hook is interesting and cited in the article, but slightly too long: 219 characters as opposed to the maximum of 200. Could you trim it down a little bit? Ffranc (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• How about:

ALT2 ... that, although created to understand Chinese psychological torture of American POWs during the Korean War, Biderman's Chart of Coercion was used by American interrogators to administer Guantanamo Bay?

~ HAL333 15:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Very good, that's exactly 200. I'm ticking this off now. Ffranc (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• • ALT3:... that Biderman's Chart of Coercion is virtually identical to domestic perpetrators' common techniques? "The lists were virtually identical." The Guardian

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Copyvio report shows likely violation, but this is due to a cited chart quotation (https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1026387150&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmadisonmentalhealthcounselor.com%2Fdomestic-terrorism) Alt2 and the main hook don't branch out as well as I think they could, given that this can be tied into domestic violence, and Alt1 is nonexistent. I have suggested Alt3 which does make the connection to domestic abuse. Lastly, this is my first DYK review, any constructive feedback would be appreciated. Chef Vortex (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Chef Vortex This DYK nomination was already reviewed by Ffranc. ~ HAL333 19:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• ALT3 is good though. It doesn't hurt to have another option. Ffranc (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Still much prefer ALT2, otherwise the image is irrelevant. ~ HAL333 22:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Alleged copyvio

Hi Onel5969, it is not a copyvio as it is from a US government document. ~ HAL333 16:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree it was a mistake to remove the chart. Even if it comes from a copyrighted article, I don't see how it goes against fair-use policies to quote it. It's a pretty short chart with information that is critically discussed in the article and several reliable sources. There is no commercial aspect to take into regard, and I don't see any good way to cover the subject without quoting every word from the (brief) chart. Considering that it's a controversial subject based on a few words in chart, it would be problematic to only provide interpretations and not the actual words. Ffranc (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969 and Diannaa, could a solution be to upload a screenshot of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1806204/?page=4 with a fair-use rationale, and display the chart as a non-free image instead of a table? Ffranc (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No, because it fails WP:NFCC #1 no free equivalent. In this case, the free equivalent is prose that we write ourselves.— Diannaa (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying here yesterday, got a bit tied up. But yes, there appeared to be an issue with original publication. I was actually going to ask Diannaa to take a look, but they already have. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)