Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Peterborough recall petition, 2019

< 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: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

2019 Peterborough recall petition edit

(
)
  • ... that the possible Peterborough recall petition, 2019 might be called if the sitting MP who compared herself to Jesus is unsuccessful in overturning her perverting the course of justice conviction?
  • ALT1: ... that there will be a recall petition called in Peterborough unless the sitting MP who compared herself to Jesus is unsuccessful in overturning her perverting the course of justice conviction? Source: BBC
  • Reviewed: HMS Saracen (P247)
  • Comment: This is a potentially politically charged topic regarding current UK politics so I would suggest holding it for a month or so. Happy to consider any alternate hook proposals or alterations

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 11:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC).

  • This article is WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL and should probably be moved to draft space until the petition has actually happened. I had seen it pop up on the new article feed and was considering putting it up for deletion TBH. Number 57 12:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not CRYSTAL as it is legally mandated to occur pending any appeals (Which we have expressed intent of, but none occurred as of yet) At present, it is something that will happen based on the court verdict. When there is an appeal we simply have to hold it until the decision is made. If the verdict is quashed then it can be deleted. Until then, it is just on hold pending any appeal. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The page should be moved in keeping with this RfC that determined the year should go first. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Moved. -- KTC (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@The C of E:

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
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I have no problem on the question of TOOSOON or CRYSTAL as unless any appeal is successful or she resigns in the mean time, this will happen by operation of law, and the time frame we are talking about is months so not too far away. The hook need to be reworded. Either 'there will be a recall petition unless', or this is kept on hold until appeal is determined. The article itself could do with a bit of copyediting, but I'm happy with it for the purpose of DYK. KTC (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@KTC: I have made the amendments you have asked for. Thank you for making the move, I am unsure if this nomination page needs any further alterations to reflect the move. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E: Okay. No, the nomination page shouldn't be moved or anything. Things will redirect so is fine. I've also copyedited the article a little on what I had most problems with. Suggest this be held until at least after the currently scheduled appeal hearing on 5 March. -- KTC (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The QPQ review had a major flaw, in that the article was passed despite being over 600 characters short of a 5x expansion. Under the circumstances, a new QPQ should probably be submitted, since the original one was problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I have done Template:Did you know nominations/Boston Manor tube station as the QPQ. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @KTC: I'm surprised you approved this hook, with that BLP violation staring you in the face. Even without mentioning her name, the note that she compared herself to Jesus and is involved in overturning her perverting the course of justice conviction is not acceptable for the main page. The C of E please provide a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yoninah You're going to have to be more specific exactly what problem you have with it in terms of BLP. The BLP subject is WELLKNOWN, so BLPCRIME doesn't applies, and even if it does, she have been duly convicted in a court of law, not just accused. The "Jesus" comparison by the BLP subject herself in response to the conviction was 1) a comparison made by the subject herself, and 2) is cited to a reliable source, and for that matter widely reported at the time and after sentencing. The second part is also cited, neutrally and legally correct. She have been convicted and sentence to a term of imprisonment less than or equal to 12 months, which mean by operation of law a recall petition will happen unless she appeals sucessfully. Exactly what is the problem with us saying precisely that? -- KTC (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT1 is not accurate as written; it's backwards. The petition will occur unless she's successful with her appeal to overturn (or occur if she's unsuccessful with said appeal to overturn). Under the circumstances, I think this needs to go on hold until after the appeal (now only six days away) and the ruling from it, after which everything should be much clearer (unless there are multiple levels of appeal, which could delay things even further). We'd want a new hook in that event anyway (and preferably one that doesn't use both "recall" and "called").
If her appeal succeeds, she's considered to be not guilty, right? We shouldn't risk running a hook about her perverting the course of justice if there's a chance the law decides next week that she didn't do so. I'm not well-versed in the intricacies of BLP, but as her fame seems to be primarily due to this incident, it would seem to follow that an overturned conviction would prevent us featuring it on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Of course if she succeeds, then this won't happen and we can close it. As for the hook, yes it will have to be held until all legal avenues are exhausted, I even said that when I first nominated it which was before she appealed. To reword the hook, ALT3... that there will be a recall petition called in Peterborough as the sitting MP who compared herself to Jesus was convicted of perverting the course of justice? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Her appeal have been rejected, and it have been reported that she have "exhausted her appeal processes". -- KTC (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The only question we have now @KTC: is if this falls under the 30 day elections moratorium. It's not an election as the policy is written but it is going to be treated as one by the media and Electoral Commission (for all intents and purposes) so are we moving forward or holding longer? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E: If posting, either post it before the recall petition is opened, or after it has closed. In the latter case, if the petition is sucessful, after the resulting by-election. Opinions may differ on whether it falls under WP:DYKNOT. -- KTC (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
The C of E, at this point, since the recall petition has to be opened within ten days, as an electoral matter I think this has to wait until the petition has concluded and, unfortunately, if she is recalled but then contests the seat, it would then have an additional wait until the by-election had taken place. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, we're unavoidably in a holding pattern here because due to the elections provision at DYK, this cannot run while the recall petition is ongoing, which means until after May 1. If the recall is successful and Onasanya is a candidate in the resulting by-election, we would have to delay further until that election takes place. If she isn't a candidate, or if the recall fails and she keeps her seat in Parliament, then this would no longer need to be held after May 1. However, a new hook will be needed in any event, since all the previous hooks assume the recall is in the future, not in the past as will be the case. There will also be, it seems likely, a disagreement as to how BLP will affect the hook wording. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It might solve the tense part, but the "compared herself to Jesus" part worries me as a possible BLP problem. Is there nothing else that can be suggested that doesn't involve the Jesus thing? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
As KTC said above, she's the one who said it about herself and it is reliably sourced and well reported. I don't think this is a problem so I'd rather stick with what we have. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that: KTC seems fine with it but at least two other editors have concerns. That doesn't look like consensus to use it in any case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I've struck ALT4 due to possible BLP concerns. I know WP:BLPCRIME, but the wording remains too close for comfort. A new hook, one that does not mention the Jesus thing, is needed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree, I don't think it is a BLP issue because it is something she used to refer to herself. I'm happy to drop the reference to the specific conviction but I'd rather keep the Jesus comparison in there. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

As no agreement can be reached for a new hook, add to the fact that there doesn't seem to be anything else in the article that could be used as a hook (I've looked at the article and everything doesn't seem to be suitable, either due to BLP reasons or due to Election reasons), I am now marking this as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Objection. Just because you don't like the hook doesn't mean it can't be used, we already have some 3rd party views that it is fine. Plus election reasons may delay it yes but that is a CRYSTAL argument because the result of the petition isn't in yet. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It is not just me who objected to it though but also Yoninah. And even when you consider BLPCRIME, I still think that the hook is a terrible idea. Can't an alternative be suggested here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

BlueMoonset asked me to comment on this nomination. I agree with other users that the phrase about her comparing herself to Jesus is a BLP violation. Other than that, I'm thinking that this nomination should be held over until the result of the recall petition is known, when the article can be adjusted accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Nomination is on hold until the results of the recall are known late on May 1, or sooner if a new general election is called, but could be delayed further if the recall succeeds and/or Onasanya is a candidate in an immediately ensuing election, in which case this has to wait for the polls to close on election day. ALT3 has been struck; given the number of objections from DYK reviewers here, it isn't going to fly and would surely be pulled from prep or even the main page as a BLP issue so long as the Jesus comparison is included in the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @The C of E: As all suggestions involving the Jesus comparison are now by consensus rejected, please suggest a new hook. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E, KTC, BlueMoonset, Gatoclass, and Yoninah: Could a variation of ALT4 without the Jesus part potentially work, or does it still possibly violate BLP?
ALT4a ... that the 2019 Peterborough recall petition was called as the sitting MP was unsuccessful in overturning her perverting the course of justice conviction?
Of course, this hook wouldn't be allowed to run immediately anyway, this is just to see if this is a possible option. I'm personally not comfortable with it either, this is just to test consensus. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It may have to be. I'd have thought the conviction reference would have been more of a BLP issue than the Jesus reference given she used it to refer to herself which was reported in several RS's. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I really don't care what the hook is in the end, so long as everyone's happy. However, I object strongly to the characterisation that a factual statement reporting a comparison that the subject (who is a public figure) made publicly themselves, and reported in the national press amounts to a violation of WP:BLP, or even worse the implication that a statement saying that anyone nevermind a public figure that have been duly convicted in a court of law (and whose appeal have been rejected with no more right of appeal) is a violation of BLP or BLPCRIME specifically. -- KTC (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
KTC, just because something is factual does not mean it complies with BLP. In order to comply, content has to be presented neutrally and in a balanced manner. Additionally, DYK rules state that articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided. Running a hook which states that the subject "compared herself to Jesus" is anything but neutral, it's sensationalist and is essentially holding the subject up to mockery. It's also misleading, because it implies the subject thinks she's as great as Jesus when in fact all she was doing was saying in effect that Jesus was wrongly convicted too - and it's really not at all unusual for Christians to find parallels between their lives and that of Jesus. To that I would add that the focus on the woman's conviction for perverting the course of justice is also arguably a BLP violation in a DYK hook, because it could be said to be focusing unduly on a negative aspect of her life. We can probably eventually run this nomination, but I think it will have to wait until either the petition is completed or the election held, as BlueMoonset suggested, when it should be easier to find a more neutral hook. Gatoclass (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
And exactly what part of the statement that someone have been convicted of a specific crime that she was indeed convicted of, and that she herself made that certain statement or comparison not neutral or balanced? It's not unduly focusing on a negative aspect when that's the whole legal basis for the article subject existing in the first place. A recall petition exist here precisely because a member of the UK House of Commons was convicted and sentence to a term of imprisonment of a year or less. If there was no conviction, or sentence of imprisonment (or for that matter if the sentence was for longer), we wouldn't be having this discussion since there would be no recall petition, and the article wouldn't exist at all.
"Compared herself to Jesus" does not state any opinion, and there is no judgement attached. It's only holding someone up to mockery if you think such a comparison is a problem, when yourself stated that it's not "at all unusual for Christians to find parallels between their lives and that of Jesus". It's not misleading to say someone made a comparison when they made that comparison! You are adding implication in your mind that's not in that simple sentence.
No one is suggesting that we not wait..... and like I said, I really don't care what the hook is. If people prefer different wordings, by all mean. -- KTC (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
In terms of alternative hooks, how abut something along the line of
Obviously 5a & 5b would only be the case if the petition is successful. -- KTC (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
@The C of E, Narutolovehinata5, BlueMoonset, and Gatoclass: Any comment on 5a or 5b? Someone will need to add the corresponding sentence to the article, but that shouldn't be a problem. -- KTC (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@KTC: I'm fine with any. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll let a reviewer decide on these three. I did see today that Onasanya has said she will not be a candidate in the by-election, so there's no reason to wait any longer once a hook has been approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd rather not review this, but I am stating my preference for ALT5a as it is neutral, free of BLP problems, and simply states the facts. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Naruto. ALT5a is approved; any delay due to sensitive political events is at the promoter's discretion. – Teratix ₵ 12:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Peterborough_recall_petition,_2019&oldid=953625610"