Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus for closure despite the nominator's objections, but I recognize that this conclusion may be controversial; discussion should be opened at WT:DYK if an appeal is desired, but this page should not be reopened without consensus there that the nomination should resume.

DYK toolbox

Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review edit

(
)

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 09:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC).

  • I'm not going to review this, but just to say that in the light of these events, putting such a politically explosive hook on Wikipedia's main page is just a really bad idea, and I can't possibly see how on earth this hook could ever be seen to be neutral. So I'm going to boldly suggest giving this up as a bad job. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
While I don't find the hook wording itself problematic, the circumstances behind it do seem to give me pause in this being allowed for DYK. I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but sometimes it's better to be safe than sorry. I've tried to think up a more neutral hook, but I doubt it would solve the underline issues. The wording I had in mind was something along the lines of:
ALT1 ... that the High Court of Northern Ireland ruled that the official name of the country's second largest city can only be changed by the Monarch via a Royal Prerogative?
In this case, I tried to avoid using the name of the city entirely, but I really doubt that it would solve the POV issue. Honestly I can't think of any possible alternative (even mentioning the aftermath might not be enough). So Ritchie333, if you don't agree with this then I think closing this would be the ultimate option. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - n (The cited reliable source makes it clear that the city's name could be changed either by an act or by a royal decree, furthermore a king could also change the name.)
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows a possible violation at 44,4%, but this is the result of the use of specific terms - like "the city of Londonderry", "The Honourable the Irish Society." - and some quotations. Ritchie333 writes above that the hook is not neutral, but I think it contains a fact. If we said that a hook about a judgment is not neutral, because the judgment was made in favor of a certain PoV, we could not present judgments at all in WP. Ritchie333 also refers to recent political events, but I think political events should not influence our decisions about hooks. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka: You may be interested in reading the related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Derry City Council, Re Application for Judicial Review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I read the discussion and it did not change my mind. I think politics and sensitivities should not influence our decisions about hooks. If a hook is fully in line with the relevant policies, it could be presented on the main page. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Borsoka: Thank you for the review, I have amended the original hook to say the monarch. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E:, but the hook still contradicts the reliable source, because the monarch cannot change the name alone. Borsoka (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Borsoka: I have added Parliament to the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • In any case, regardless of article quality, I recommend that this nomination not be given an approval tick until the discussion at WT:DYK concludes. Even if the reviewer decides to approve it, it is very likely that there would be objections, if not at WT:DYK then at WP:ERRORS. It would be best to wait it out and see if some form of compromise can be reached on this matter. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A fair proposal. So I surely will not approve the hook until the discussion is closed. On the other hand, I think that the hook could be modified. The new text does not present what is written in the reliable sources properly. As far as I can remember, neither the Queen, nor the Parliament can change the name independently of other actors. The Queen does not apply her royal prerogatives alone and the Parliament cannot make law without royal assent. Borsoka (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Borsoka, I don't think "royal assent" means what you think it means. It's a term of art for a bill passing into law in Commonwealth countries; it doesn't mean the Queen personally sits on a throne approving renovation works to Macclesfield train station or changes to the Yukon income tax rate. In this case, changed by the Monarch via a Royal Prerogative means that any change would need to be made by the Crown in Parliament, i.e. the government, and can't be made unilaterally without government approval ‑ Iridescent 18:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

. The DYK discussion indicates this is already contentious, if not disruptive (it is), consider me triggered. The community is working to patch the shortcomings of an overtly pov user whose own signature disrupts discussion, and plays beautifully to a wish to repeat their messaging. The article is a footnote on steroids, the mock-title itself suggests the banality of any notable facts of that particular application. Feck away from DYK? cygnis insignis 06:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis:, you arbitrarily closed a DYK, although there is an ongoing debate. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@Borsoka: I closed the nomination as unsuitable after reading both discussions. A consequence might be the end of a debate, I'm not willing to debate that. Reopen the nomination if that is want to want to do, engage in more debate. citing my unwillingness to do that. I wanted it closed. Here we are. So it goes. cygnis insignis 07:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
See WP:DYKNOT. ——SerialNumber54129 08:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not a policy based reason to close it. It smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, the title is the correct legal title for the case which you'd know if you'd read the sources. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Assume that my objection is based on an understanding of 'policy', if you want to put it that way, that is what I don't like. Doubling down to perpetuate discussion demands that your 'innocent' nomination stay in the lime-light, with pov and coi emblazoned during your topic of interest, not pointy, gamey, crass? Put together something interesting for a DYK, don't insist on a right to be provocative. These are matters here I have a strong preference for, what I like in this community. cygnis insignis 13:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The discussion on WT:DYK has been archived for a while now without reaching any consensus. With that said, legitimate concerns were raised on whether or not the topic could ever be neutral enough for DYK, and even proposed compromise "neutral" hooks failed to be agreed upon by commenters. Considering the circumstances, there does not appear to be consensus for this article to run at DYK for the foreseeable future. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Objection, that only means that there is no consensus to block it. The presumption is always that every article can proceed, no matter what other peoples opinions are as per WP:NOTCENSORED. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I really don't think that is the case here. You did see that discussion right? And there was significant opposition to this running at all both here and in the WT:DYK discussion. And you have been unable to address the concerns in such a way that these could be lifted. Thus, there does not seem to be a way forward that would work as a suitable compromise, as even the "neutral" hooks were also rejected as long as the article is in its current state. Yes Wikipedia is not censored, but that is beside the point as the issues with the nomination were not to do with censorship but instead neutrality and POV. To be frank The C of E, you really need to stop objecting to nominations being marked for closure unless you have a good reason: you have to accept that not all discussions work out and that not everything can be featured on DYK (many editors, myself included, have learned this the hard way). The objection you mentioned above feels more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: meaning you disagree with the consensus but without trying to persuade others to change their views. Pushing this nomination in spite of concerns by several editors will not help your alleged reputation for POV-pushing (note: not my words or my opinion, merely stating what has been mentioned before on WT:DYK). I suggest you just drop this and move on to other topics that other editors may not object to. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
There was no consensus that this should not run, no consensus was made on the issue based upon policy. I feel I must take a stand on this one as I feel I cannot allow NOTCENSORED to be violated just based on personal opinions because people don't like it. If this is blocked, then we have failed as a project. Yes it was an unfortunate coincidence that I missed that journalist news story but that alone should not be grounds to block a nomination. As long as it meets the DYK criteria (which it does) then there should be no objections to it being run, if there is a factual problem with the hook then that should be discussed, which I have also agreed to a compromise from the original hook in this case. We have run swear words, controversial flags and many other controversial content and rarely have they been blocked because of a personal opinion, I fail to see how a court case about the name of a city (which I'd have said would be a very neutral subject plus the fact that the references to city name is minimized) should be the exception that must be banned. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you may need to re-read the discussion. While there were indeed some concerns about the nomination that could be interpreted as "censorship", there were other article issues that did not have to do with it, mainly with wordings. So even if the concerns about censorship were waived, this still wouldn't be able to run as long as those issues stood. If you really want this to run and believe that it does not violate neutrality, or that not promoting this counts as censorship, you will have to convince @Ritchie333, Black Kite, Vanamonde93, BlueMoonset, and Serial Number 54129: that this is the case. Courtesy ping to current reviewer Borsoka, as well as other participants in the WT:DYK discussion: @EdChem, ONUnicorn, David Eppstein, and Cygnis insignis:. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
If someone more knowledgeable about this subject than me is willing to sign off on the policy-compliance of this article, particularly with respect to neutrality, I don't see a reason to block the article itself. It's up to the nominator to craft an acceptable hook. ALT1, proposed by Narutolovehinata5, has some possibilities. I don't have the time to do a review myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
EdChem had already previously proposed neutral hooks on WT:DYK; for discussion purposes, I will be reposting them below (note that concerns have been raised over ALT3). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
"not censored" so I can give my candid opinion of using that as an argument? With only half the effort applied in defence of this, an adequate or good DYK article could have been accomplished, so why invest more time and effort in wasting others for a self serving purpose. Because that is not the point of the exercise, it is being provocative and claiming that as a right of not being censored. cygnis insignis 04:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • My problem is that the High Court decided the case, while the hook suggests it has so far only asked to rule. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Borsoka: the nomination has been declined, leaving the tick and perpetuating discussion is working against the agreement of others that this should not go ahead. Can you justify the burden you are placing on other editors to reiterate what was is clearly deprecated by the guidelines, it just appears obstinate to continue trying to make a silk purse of this DYK. cygnis insignis 08:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed something. Do you say the High Court has not decided the case? Borsoka (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There has been no response from the other objectors as this point, which I will interpret as being a sign that either they are not interested in discussing further, or have not changed their minds. With several editors still having outstanding issues with the article, and only two editors so far (the nominator and the reviewer) wishing this to push through, I see no path forward at this point. For full disclosure: I actually have no problems with EdChem's proposals, and I personally think that it is possible for this article to be featured on DYK as the hooks presented are neutrally worded. However, regardless on whether or not this not running counts as "censorship", consensus appears to be against this running, and considering the two discussions (both on WT:DYK and here), I don't really see this changing any time soon. With this in mind, I am marking this for closure. The C of E, I suggest you do not object to this marking at this point: doing so will just make this discussion go in circles, and you have thus far been unable to convince other editors to change their mind. Please accept that consensus is not in your favor right now, and I suggest you move on with other topics instead. I understand that this is probably not the result you wanted and I agree that it sucks whenever a DYKN is rejected, but that's how life goes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5:, just for the record. I did not want to "push through" anything. I only wanted to reach a compromise which is fully in line with the relevant WP policies. As a totally outsider, I experienced that extremist views, biases and fears of being involved in extremists' debate drove many editors who intervened. I am afraid, we proved that extremists and extremist acts can easily prevent us from sharing knowledge. I think this is a bad experience. Borsoka (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

When I said "push with", I was referring to this nomination moving forward, not your personal views. Sorry if my wording led to confusion. I agree that a compromise was probably possible here, it's just that consensus does not appear to agree with this. And while I do not agree that this not being allowed to appear on the main page is censorship and I agree that hooks shouldn't be disqualified simply for being controversial, I can understand where the concerns are coming from. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The consensus was that the original hook should not run, which I have respected. I am perfectly happy to accept the proposed compromises (or indeed anything else that can be proposed), which I note no-one has actually published an objection to here (so if we go by WP:SILENT implies they have no objections to them). I just seems to be, that because this covers a controversial issue then it must not run. I am unable to accept such a position for every article has the same right to be featured, no matter how distasteful some may find the subject matter. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Please drop the stick already The C of E. And please re-read the discussions, the consensus was not only about the hook but also the article itself. I personally do not agree with the consensus either, but discussions have spoken, the status quo remains, and your numerous objections won't change that. In fact, WP:SILENT implies that no responses by itself does not mean that their objections are lifted, and if anything could simply mean that no one cares about the discussion anymore. Even if you persist with this, you may run into similar comments at WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS. To be frank, you objecting to almost every time someone tries to mark your nominations for closure when things don't go your way has become tiring and unproductive. Just accept that this not all nominations work out and this is one of them. The more you keep pushing for something even when said that it won't work, the more it can backfire. Please, for the good of the community, drop this proposal: this has become a waste of time and I honestly think this is simply not worth pursuing anymore given all the discussion we've had. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The only person aggressively pursuing closure is you here, indeed the person making the original objection has not expressed dissent against the compromises. The objection was to the original hook, but not to the alternatives. If anything we have @Borsoka: and I happy to proceed with the compromises but it seems that there has not been any discussions here from those who dissent to the compromise hooks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Please re-read the WT:DYK discussion: there were objections raised by Black Kite, Kingsif, and Cygnis insignis that were made after EdChem proposed compromise hooks. And their objections have been to the article itself, concerns which thus far you have been unable to resolve with them. And please re-read my numerous comments here: I am marking this for closure because there is consensus that the article itself can't run, regardless of what hooks are proposed. Remember that despite my actions, I'm actually on your side: I disagree that this shouldn't be allowed to run and believe that this can be accepted with a compromise hook. But I have to admit that this position is a minority one and while consensus can change, this does not appear to be the case now. Instead of simply objecting to this marking for closure, I suggest that you instead discuss with those editors why you believe this should run and convince them to change their minds. Simply objecting on the grounds that "they did not respond, therefore they no longer object" won't fly. Otherwise, the way I see it, it's probably time to put this out of its misery already: the discussion is already longer than the article itself and I simply see no consensus that this will be allowed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I tried and failed to close the discussion yesterday, this is beyond absurdity or indulging a different pov. cygnis insignis 13:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
What on earth: I swore from the diff the CofE was replying to me. I had assumed this was some kind of parody gone wrong, but realise that I'm hopefully naive when it comes to those who are not here except to make points. Then try to make a point when they are hindered from their self promoting behaviour. The community will indulge that sort of priggery, up to a point that you are actively (knowingly or otherwise) experimenting with. I strongly prefer when people try to avoid that, toying with and testing the community. cygnis insignis 13:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll ignore that scurrilous allegation, I'm not seeing any policy based reason for opposing the compromise. Plus many of the opinions appear to imply that I plastered Londonderry everywhere I could in the article, yet clearly I do my best to minimise the London/derry references in favour of "the city", "the council" etc. to make it balanced for all. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • As it appears that you are unwilling to accept this nomination being closed (in spite of numerous editors being in favor of such an action), I will refrain from making more markings for closure until further notice. However, I strongly suggest that you discuss with the editors who have concerns with the article and convince them that their concerns are unfounded: if possible, you can talk individually if you believe it would be more effective. Merely objecting to the concerns but not being able to find a way to change consensus will not change the status quo. In addition, I've made a request for a third-party to take a look at this. This impasse has gone for far too long and the community's patience is all but run out. If this is to be passed or failed, let it be done and over with so that editors can stop wasting their time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Derry_City_Council,_Re_Application_for_Judicial_Review&oldid=944428873"