Talk:Foreign funding of non-governmental organizations

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 Amkgp (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a 2020 study found that African countries which allowed foreign funding of NGOs had a higher voter turnout? Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0899764019897848

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Everett, Washington

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 02:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC).

• @Buidhe: New enough, long enough, well referenced, neutral enough, no copyvio issue found. Hook appears in the article and is cited. QPQ is in order. For verification purpose could you quote the part of the study that asserts higher turnout for those countries? Based on my reading it seems the paper is more about proposing a reason why the restriction of foreign funding has that effect, not about finding the effect itself. Let me know if there is something I miss. In addition, suggest organizing the #By country and #Pros and cons section to better follow MOS:PARA, especially: "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading" and "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized". HaEr48 (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Exactly—in the abstract of the article, it states, "Drawing on the 2016 Afrobarometer survey (36 countries, 53,936 respondents), we find support for the argument that restrictive NGO laws reduce citizens’ electoral participation in national elections". In other words, in countries where it is allowed, voting is higher than where it is restricted. These are opposite conditions, one implies the other. DYK articles do not need to follow MOS and these paragraphs should be expanded with more information, not reduced into bullets. (t · c) buidhe 21:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand, my point is, the passage you cited argues for one explanation for the effect. It does not say that the study is the one that found that effect (which is what the hook asserts). For example, if someone writes an article saying "We found that the sky is blue because ...", it does not mean that the author is the one who found that the sky is blue. HaEr48 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Buidhe and HaEr48: Has there been any progress since the last comments made here? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't understand HaEr48's complaint in their latest comment and what they want to be done with the article/hook. Note that the wording of the hook does not imply that it was the first to discover such an effect. In science, found doesn't necessarily relate to the first discovery of a phenomenon, it is more likely related to research findings (i.e. results of research). (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: My objection: the paper found the possible reasons for the correlation, not the correlation itself. Because we are in disagreement, I thinj a third opinion is needed. Any thoughts, Narutolovehinata5? HaEr48 (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly I am not very familiar with the subject matter so I will leave the third opinion to another more knowledgeable editor. My only concern was if the issues have been clarified and if the article is ready for approval. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Full review needed. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 14:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Approving the hook as supported by an inline citation, and otherwise relying on HaEr48's review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)