Talk:1946 Londonderry Borough Council election

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: rejected by SL93 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Per topic ban.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a candidate for the 1946 Londonderry Borough Council election said that he had only hired one Roman Catholic in 48 years as a result of mistaken identity? Source: Contemporary Irish Studies. Manchester University Press. p. 18. ISBN 0719009197.

• Reviewed: Table tennis rubber

5x expanded by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 12:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC).

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: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: --evrik ^(talk) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik: Some parts of the DYK criteria have not been checked; please re-check them, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• --evrik ^(talk) 16:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hook is ambiguous and needs rewording. Does it mean that a single Catholic was hired, and that hire was a result of mistaken identity? Or does it mean that there were many Catholics hired, but only one of them was hired because of mistaken identity, and all the others were hired for other reasons? Or maybe does it mean that only one Catholic was hired, that the candidate admitted that only one Catholic was hired, but they only admitted it because of a mistaken identity of who they were talking to? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• I added several "citation needed" tags to the page. There is also a discrepancy between the results in the first chart and the ones underneath. Yoninah (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not quite seeing a discrepancy? UUP 3 aldermen + 6 North + 3 Waterside = 12. Nats 1 alderman + 5 South (inc 1 N&L) = 6. Labour 1 Alderman + 1 South = 2. IF you're not happy with that, we can always add the N&L as a separate column. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• I also find the charts very confusing. The first chart in the "Council results" section appears mostly blank with no explanation why. The "Aldermen" chart says 6 people at the top, but only 5 names listed, and a lot of blank spaces. The "North Ward" and "South Ward" charts have some names in bold, some not, and no explanation why, and a lot of empty cells. The "Waterside Ward" chart appears to say that the turnout was unopposed. What the heck? Overall the charts look horrible. Flibirigit (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Flibirgit: Those charts were already in the article before I did the expansion. Would you prefer I removed them and simply replace them with a summary of the results in the text? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Flibirigit:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I feel that charts are expected in an article about an election, but they should not look like a work in progress. If you can figure out a way to make the charts look complete, please do, or convert to a list or text. Also, the concerns about the ambiguity of the hook as noted by User:David Eppstein still need to be addressed. ALT0 has been struck accordingly. I also caution against any hook that implies something negative about any religion. Flibirigit (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Why is this languishing? --evrik ^(talk) 15:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Multiple user have taken issue with the nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am adding the Alt0 hook back into the mix as I feel it is interesting, and not anti-Catholic. @The C of E:, why are those two charts empty. --evrik ^(talk) 17:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Evrik: Because the tables were there before I did the expansion. I think I will probably remove them and replace them with a short paragraph summarising the results because I think they are causing more trouble then they are worth. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think this one is good to go with ALT0. The chart problem has been removed, and ALT0 only draws objective attention to an apparently bigoted comment of one candidate, and is not an opinionated hook in itself. The article gives a historical snapshot of the state of the world in 1946, and so does the hook, both being in my opinion part of what Wikipedia stands for. Storye book (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• as per recent comments at WT:DYK, further discussion appears to be needed. Flibirigit (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think it helps that a discussion is being continued about this nomination and hook elsewhere. It's just splitting the argument onto separate pages. If you think that I've reviewed it inappropriately, or that the nomination should be withdrawn, please say so here, so that I as reviewer, and the nominator, can respond accordingly.

• Regarding the fear of putting the existing hook on the main page because it's a "bigoted comment," that is in the eye of certain beholders only. The hook is drawing attention to historical bigotry, by objectively showing us that it happened historically. "Lest we forget," and all that. The hook suggested by Joseph2302 looks fine to me, and as a reviewer I would approve it. If it really worries you, why don't we suggest that Wikipedia puts a note on the main page saying that WP does not necessarily endorse the content of historical remarks that are quoted on its pages, as many other websites do?

• Regarding the comment made elsewhere that reviewers have not addressed the problems of ambiguity in the hook - my review does just that - but I hope that this comment will clarify my review further. If you would like to copy the new hook onto this page, I would be happy to formally approve it as reviewer.

• I hope that will help to relieve fear, and to simplify things. Storye book (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Storye book: I have not promoted this hook because of the topic ban, which specifically states that the C of E is topic banned from articles about Irish nationalism and British nationalism in relation to Ireland. This article and hook certainly falls under that category, and promoting to the main page would seem to align the C of E with this topic. Yoninah (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. I didn't know that. You must do what you think fit. My only question is, if that's the case, then why didn't someone simply close down the nom? Storye book (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• You're right. Marking for closure per the AE topic ban. Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• This pre-dates the topic ban. In fact, it was approved for DYK before then. Just saying. --evrik ^(talk) 21:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• But it was one of the articles that led to the topic ban. Now that the ban has been enforced, it's not up to DYK to go against it. Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Adding link to the first conversation about this nomination at WT:DYK. Flibirigit (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Conversation moved from WT:DYK Flibirigit (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

What is the current status of it being acceptable or not to promote Template:Did you know nominations/1946 Londonderry Borough Council election? Should it be closed as rejected? SL93 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• I thought it was good to go. --evrik ^(talk) 01:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I was just wondering because promoters are skipping over it. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, there was the whole ANI against the writer. --evrik ^(talk) 02:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
      • As I see it, the hook is good to go, but if a reviewer or a promoter finds any issues with it they will have to be fixed by someone besides the nominator. (Vanamonde93) 04:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Should we ask clarification from ArbCom given that the nomination was done before the topic ban was enacted? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
          • Nobody addressed the concerns brought up by David Eppstein (talk · contribs) that the hook is ambiguous. I agree with the concerns and two reviewers chose to ignore the concerns. Flibirigit (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
            • The charts were removed. Subsequently, the article was given final approval. --evrik ^(talk) 14:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
              • Hook would need to be changed to something like "... that a candidate for the 1946 Londonderry Borough Council election said that he had only hired one Roman Catholic in 48 years, and that was as a result of mistaken identity?" Joseph2302 (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• So we're responding to an editor receiving multiple topic bans from editing and DYK areas, by running one of the nominations that was discussed as being one that contributed to the topic bans in the first place? I have to say I can see a considerable logic failure there. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This was written before the ban. Also, as long as CofE doesn't mess with the approved hook, we're okay, right? --evrik ^(talk) 15:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I appreciate the effort by User:Joseph2302 to reword the hook, but running a bigoted comment as a hook is just a bad idea. Flibirigit (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I wasn't saying we should run it, just that if we do, the above would be a better wording. It's a Northern Irish hook with a clear anti-Catholic slant, so it seems questionable whether it should be run or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
        • The hook is nether bigoted nor anti-catholic. --evrik ^(talk) 16:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
          • The hook says that a unionist wouldn't employ Catholics, putting this on the front page could be seen as endorsing this segregation viewpoint. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
            • While this wouldn't technically breach any of the C of E's topic bans as he has had no involvement with it since they were enacted, this hook still shouldn't be run, per Black Kite.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
            • @Joseph2302: This is from 1946. It is not an endorsement. @Pawnkingthree: Black Kite's logic is flawed. This article violates none of the bans. --evrik ^(talk) 18:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
              • There appears to be many editors against this hook running as per the comments above and it not being promoted by anyone. This nomination should be closed as rejected. Flibirigit (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
                • Many? How many is that? I think this is "hot to touch" because of the drama of the ANI. --evrik ^(talk) 18:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, you know, how about we all look into it and get it over with? How about we get a consensus on the issues to be addressed and then promote together. That might be the best option now. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 18:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• As one of the reviewers of the nomination, I have replied to the above comments, on the template. Storye book (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Storye book that this discussion should take place on the nomination template. Please move all further comments there. Yoninah (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• How about we simply don't run a DYK with the word "Londonderry" in it, which was only nominated for DYK because it has that word in it, and then just put this episode behind us? Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gallagher, Tom (1983). Contemporary Irish Studies. Manchester University Press. p. 18

Regarding the sentence During pre-election hustings, William Henry McLaughlin, who was standing for election for the Ulster Unionist Party in Waterside, declared that he had only ever employed one Roman Catholic in forty-eight years and that was only due to a case of mistaken identity it's backed up by a citation from Gallagher, Tom (1983). Contemporary Irish Studies. Manchester University Press. p. 18. ISBN 0719009197, but my geolocation means I can't check this, would anyone be able to supply the relevant sentence(s)? Thanks in advance. Mujinga (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"Mr H. McLaughlin said that for the past forty-eight years since the foundation of his firm there had only been one Roman Catholic employed - and that was a case of mistaken identity". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)