- 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) 03:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Raheem Kassam edit
- ... that Raheem Kassam launched his UKIP leadership campaign with the slogan "Make UKIP Great Again"?
Created by Sheepy Shoo (talk). Self-nominated at 15:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC).
- General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- It's long enough, but it can't be a stub for DYK. Please remove the stub template. You can make it look like an article and not a stub, if you introduce subheadings, and repeat the header (and expand it a little?) in the body of the article. Subheadings could refer to background, previous posts, current posts, recent issues and policy, etc.
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: -
As the article stands at present, it's ref 7 (not ref 5) which supports the hook. Please put the correct ref next to the "make UKIP great" quote in the article. - Interesting:
Image eligibility:
- Freely licensed: - The image filepage says that the author has sent the uploader (who is also the creator of the article) the image with the information that it can be used freely as per the licence on that page. However no evidence has been sent to WP yet to back up this information.
- Used in article:
- Clear at 100px:
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
Two wikilinks need correction: "The Commentator" (links to Averroes), and "Labour Party" (links to disambig). You don't need yet another Breitbart link in the External Links section; it's already in the refs. Storye book (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just to comment, this DYK if approved would have to be delayed beyond November 28th when the new UKIP leader is announced per our rules on election campaigns. Cowlibob (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the heads up on that, Cowlibob. I should like to add that on second thoughts I am not comfortable about the several links to the website Breitbart in the article; I would like a second opinion on that before passing this nom.Storye book (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Storye book: Also I've made several edits to fix some of the contentious parts of this article, so please check this. Have replaced links to Breitbart to more reliable sources. Added a couple of "citation needed" as really date of birth should be cited for biography of a living person and also their religious affliation or lack of. Linking to unreliable sources such as Breitbart is not completely banned they can be used for uncontentious things like him being the editor in chief of the website for example.Cowlibob (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cowlibob, for the replacement refs; a wise decision. Your edits are fine. There remain several problems:
(1) The article now has 1432 characters; less than the 1500 required for DYK.(2) I have checked the England and Wales birth registration list for 1986, and it records no-one by that exact name for that year. It may be that he was born elsewhere, born in another year, or was registered under another name. Is there a source for 1 August 1986? (3) The image filepage says that the author has sent the uploader (who is also the creator of the article) the image with the information that it can be used freely as per the licence on that page. However no evidence has been sent to WP yet to back up this information. Conclusion: Problems 1 and 3 will have to be addressed if this hook and image are both to make DYK. I believe that problem 2 will not prevent a DYK pass, but perhaps a mystery like this, associated with a public figure, is worth either resolving or drawing attention to?Storye book (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Someone has replaced perfectly reliable Breitbart with completely unreliable, corrupt, mainstream media sources like "The Guardian". Are there still some primitive, pre-Brexit cavepeople from the stone age who still believe these disproven sources reliable and Breitbart not!?! I would like to see them replaced. The reliability of the entire article is severely damaged removing the Breitbart sources. Sheepy Shoo (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- The purpose of this review process is to support this DYK nomination. One of the means of supporting it is to see that it has acceptable sources. Please do not undermine or delay the process with political controversy. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies but acceptable to who? Fox News? CNN? The Saudis? I would suggest those three words under the logo that say "The Free Encyclopedia" should be changed. This place has no free speech and is just as controlled as the rest! Sheepy Shoo (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Sheepy Shoo: This nomination template is not the place for political controversy. Please stop distracting and delaying this nomination. This is the second time I have asked you. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cowlibob, for the replacement refs; a wise decision. Your edits are fine. There remain several problems:
- @Storye book: Also I've made several edits to fix some of the contentious parts of this article, so please check this. Have replaced links to Breitbart to more reliable sources. Added a couple of "citation needed" as really date of birth should be cited for biography of a living person and also their religious affliation or lack of. Linking to unreliable sources such as Breitbart is not completely banned they can be used for uncontentious things like him being the editor in chief of the website for example.Cowlibob (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The article is now long enough. Unfortunately, (1) It now contains strongly controversial material which in my opinion is sufficiently challenging to prevent it from being linked to the front page in DYK. (2) The image file is now tagged for deletion. (3) Point 3 is not a deal-breaker for DYK, but the situation remains that the article does not currently contain evidence that Kassam is who he say he is. I am not questioning that he was born in London in 1986, however there is no birth certificate listed under his name for that year. Therefore it is likely that his birth was registered under another name. If the article were to be linked to the front page in DYK, that question is likely to be raised. On grounds 1 and 2, I am concluding my review with a No.Storye book (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- ??? What "strongly controversial material"? Some mild bitching about other candidates, which is completely standard for UKIP. Your OR about his birth (strangely recalling Trump's campaign re Obama) can be sorted by an "according to". Suggest another reviewer Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are very welcome, Johnbod, to another reviewer. Good idea. Meanwhile I am not saying that Kassam's comments (which are properly referenced) should not be in the article - after all, the article is biographical, and the quotations help to demonstrate who and what he is. However, there is a saying that "he who repeats the insult is the one who is insulting you," and linking that material to the front page of Wikipedia might be perceived as Wikipedia promoting those insults. Yes I was aware of the Trump "birther" movement, but if Obama's certificate had to be ultimately released, then the certificate and its index listing cannot have been already freely available to the US public - and it's the inability to check facts which often starts such conspiracy theories. In the UK, if someone gives their correct name and approximate year of birth, it is possible to link (or at least copy) the index listing and its volume and page numbers as a WP citation. Such a citation is likely to be acceptable without seeing the actual certificate, if the name is unusual enough so that no similar names appear on the index during the years under consideration. It is not OR to say that there is no such name as Raheem Kassam listed for 1986, or for a few years before and after. Anyone can check that. I made it clear that I do not dispute the date and place of birth - we are not talking about citizenship here (as Trump was). We are talking about whether the person concerned is who he says he is. Unlike Trump, it does not interest me if Kassam is not who he say he is. But because he is running a campaign which is directed towards ultimate public office, it would be valid for readers to ask whether he is who he says he is. That is to say, it draws attention to the fact that there is something in the article which begs a question. But as I have already said, such a question does not affect DYK. By the way, you forgot to mention the fact that the image is tagged for deletion. Storye book (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- ??? What "strongly controversial material"? Some mild bitching about other candidates, which is completely standard for UKIP. Your OR about his birth (strangely recalling Trump's campaign re Obama) can be sorted by an "according to". Suggest another reviewer Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this is unsalvageable as Storye book makes it out to be. There are some issues, however. Given the nature of the UKIP, and of political parties in general, I think Kassam's campaign page should be avoided as a source altogether, and the content cited to that should be removed or another source found. The article and the hook are fine without that information, and it is perfectly acceptable to have a biography without a date of birth. Other neutrality issues: the article gives him more credit for Davies' resignation than the source does, and "Farage refuted..." is a glaring misuse of Wikipedia's voice, because the sources do not say that. Otherwise, article is new enough and long enough, and does not have copyright issues. No image to consider. Hook is cited inline, supported by the sources. And no QPQ is required. I think the birth certificate is a non-issue. If the sources treat him as a real person, then Wikipedia shall, too: unless, of course, you find a reliable source actually questioning his claim of identity. That's a different issue altogether. Vanamonde (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- And any supposed controversy/topicality has greatly diminished now someone else has been elected leader. Johnbod (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that this nom should have another shot now that the situation has changed (image removed, leader elected), and I agree that the issues mentioned by Vanamonde93 need to be addressed. Good luck. Storye book (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Vanamonde, Johnbod, the nominator of this DYK, Sheepy Shoo, has not edited on Wikipedia for a month, and has not responded to a talk-page ping I made ten days ago. If this nomination is to succeed, someone needs to address the issues that Vanamonde has noted above, plus any that may come up in a new, full review. However, if there isn't anyone to salvage the nomination, then this probably should be closed rather than left dangling in hopes that someone does eventually show up. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have trimmed the use of the cv a bit, but to reject a person's own statement of their time & place of birth seems extreme - where does Vanamonde think that journalists get their copy from? I'll look at the other points later. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: Eh? Where have I said we should reject their birth certificate? I said it's a non-issue, in response to Storye book's comment. There are a couple of other issues, though, so if you feel able to address them, I'll review this again when you're done. Vanamonde (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Johnbod, it's been over two weeks, and we're now into 2017. If you wish to take over this nomination, please start actively working on it in the next few days. Otherwise, it will probably be closed due to inaction. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Marking for closure as unsuccessful: continuing problems as noted above (and the breitbart.com sourcing has returned), and no one to address them. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)