Template:Did you know nominations/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech

The following discussion 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 PumpkinSky talk 02:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech

(

)

... that President Obama (pictured) spoke at a campaign event in Roanoke, Virginia?

Comment: New article from user sandbox

Created/expanded by RightCowLeftCoast (talk). Self nom at 03:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Without diving into the article I'll start with the fact that there is nothing hooky about this. In addition, I don't feel it is appropriate to put the President in DYK at this point in the year. Let me bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Ryan Vesey 04:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: I don't think RightCowLeftCoast built this, did he? – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 04:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment, perhaps I should have named this article "You didn't build that".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have now reviewed United States fiscal cliff's DYK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment "President Obama" is US-centric. Just "Barack Obama" is enough, everybody in the world know who is him without needed to detail it. Cambalachero (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is common practice to refer to the president by his title. It is similar to talking about Queen Elizabeth, you don't say Elizabeth Mary. Ryan Vesey 21:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

~~This article is nominated as AFD. Let's wait for a week absolutely. --George Ho (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)~~
~~Besides AFD,~~ this article becomes a subject to rapid editing changes within a few hours or less (or more?). Therefore, I don't know when editing will calm down. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This reduction of stability appears to be due to different editors having differing opinions on what is considered NEU in regards to the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

~~I have tagged the "Jon Stewart" statement with credibility and neutrality issues, addressed by one editor. Also,~~ this article also has neutrality issues, which I tagged, according to talk pages. This article is becoming not without major flaws, to be honest. --George Ho (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The hook's phrasing itself isn't neutral in my opinion, because this article really exists because of a political controvery, not because Obama gave a speech in Roanoke. There's nothing wrong with the article existing, but the hook should not pull a bait and switch on the reader. Maybe that's an overly subtle objection, I dunno. Just doesn't seem encyclopedic. Wookian (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be open to changing the hook, but how would we do that and keep it neutral?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

... First, either fix the article or end the AFD, and THEN fix the hook. First off, try cleaning up the article issues. This nomination cannot be passed until issues are resolved. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The issues are occurring because different editors are holding different opinions on how to present the article in a neutral manor. With other editor(s) suggesting two sources should be given more weight in the lead then it is presently.

There is an ongoing discussion regarding these differences of opinion going on in the talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD has been resulted as "keep". Other issues are yet to be resolved. --George Ho (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please elaborate, are those issues pertaining to what is verified in the hook? Would those issues stop the DYK nomination from continuing?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, per WP:DYK, even article issues, especially unrelated to the hook, may affect the DYK nomination. Even when alternative hooks are attempted, if these issues cannot be resolved for weeks (or months if other people give this nomination more chances), this nomination may fail. (One of the last nominations lasted for several months and then got rejected due to unresolved issues.) In other words, attempting other hooks is pointless if this nomination may likely be rejected without unrelated article issues resolved.

To put it another way, the hook has nothing to do with the article issues. In fact, even an article with an interesting hook may have issues that would prevent it from becoming featured in the Main Page. For more, see WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG. --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Presently, the NPOV issue regarding the Stewart statement appears to have been resolved, so I don't see any present issues of significance that should stop the DYK process from going forward.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

~~Rest assured, struck comments indicate that issues are already resolved. Therefore, alternative hooks are all right to be added right away. --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)~~

ALT 1, "... that President Obama (pictured) said "You didn't build that" in front of Fire Station #1 in Roanoke, Virginia?"

How about this for the hook, given the article's name change?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Right now, you can make alternative hooks, but doing so is pointless, as it's been tagged again for POV issues (not by me actually). First of all, it is perceived as anti-Obama article. Second, the lede and "Commentators" section have become more about how the speech inspired anti-Obama statements. By the way, I've unstruck some comments because I'm convinced by Bluemoonset that, if the neutrality dispute of the article (and hook if neither one is neutral) is not finally resolved, this nomination would fail. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that due to the political nature of the topic it will always be tagged by someone who disagrees with what they article, due to a perceived POV. As one of the editors who stated a concern about the article, it wasn't about substance (which they saw as balanced) but about the layout of the content. I have offered a possible solution regarding the layout of the content, and am awaiting a response. Generally I see three significant groups emerging: 1)Those who don't want the article to exist in the first place, 2)Those who believe that the article needs to be worked on, and have a neutral stance as to whether it should exist or not 3)Those who believe that the article should exist, and are on either side of whether the article needs to be improved.

As far as I can see the article right now, it meets all the criteria set forth for a Class B article, but until after the election I foresee it not being able to go up for GAR due to at minimum #4 & #5 of the GA criteria.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Cursory glance at the talk page indicates that compromise appears imminent. Let's give it another day.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You know what? Edit warring is hurting this nomination. I've undone striking some of my comments and then stroke my misinterpretation. Even if edit war stops, I wonder if it's too late. --George Ho (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this why topics that some deem as controversial do not make it in the main article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)