Template:Did you know nominations/Court-martial of Terry Lakin
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Court-martial of Terry Lakin
edit.jpg)
- ... that Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin invited his own court-martial (illustrated) to attempt to force Barack Obama to release the original version of his birth certificate?
Created by Fourthords (talk). Self nominated at 01:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC).
The "Analysis" subsection needs to be reworded for clarity before I'd be willing to clear this on the neutrality requirement. Specifically, it needs to me made clear who is claiming that it is inaccurate in the sentence beginning with "These lawsuits involving servicemember plaintiffs were inaccurately seen as", because right now it reads as if you, the article author, are passing that judgement. (This is not a full review, the other review points were not checked). Sven Manguard Wha? 02:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- The entire section is the analysis of Alex Koppelman; I added a "Koppelman explained" before the sentence to which you referred for clarity. — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fourthords: Unfortunately, that section is still very confusing to read. The rest looks fine (although I still haven't done an actual DYK review), but I don't really think that the wording in that section works; it needs to be simplified. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I tried a rewrite of that whole sentence, trying to make it more comprehensible. Would you mind taking a look at it? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fourthords: Unfortunately, that section is still very confusing to read. The rest looks fine (although I still haven't done an actual DYK review), but I don't really think that the wording in that section works; it needs to be simplified. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- The entire section is the analysis of Alex Koppelman; I added a "Koppelman explained" before the sentence to which you referred for clarity. — fourthords | =Λ= | 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This needs a formal review. My concern about the "analysis" section is something that the reviewer can take up if they so choose. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- New enough (for 7 May) and long enough. No problems with disambig links or with external links. Hook checks out online with citation #18. Hook image is free. Issues: (1) As this is a self-nom and your userpage says that you have achieved more than 5 DYK noms, you need to do a QPQ for this nom. (2) The neutrality of Analysis section as discussed above is in my opinion a dealbreaker here. I should state my position as an onlooker from outside the US; what I see is an article about a president, elected by the majority, being challenged (in this particular court martial) by a tiny minority of the US electorate. I accept that the Analysis section has been re-worded, but as it now stands it is an analysis by one member of the tiny minority of the electorate who supported Terry Lakin's case. To be neutral, the analysis would have to include comments by someone who did not support his case - or who at least had a neutral legal view of it. I honestly do not think that it is fair to expect Wikipedia to take the risk of exposing on its front page an article containing non-neutral content about a US President while he is in office. Conclusion: In my opinion, if you (1) do a QPQ, and (2) remove the entire Analysis section from the article for the duration of the remaining DYK nomination and for the duration of the front page exposure, then this nom is good to go.--Storye book (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- (1) I thought I had done a QPQ for this hook. When I looked for it, apparently it was unsatisfactory. That being the case, I've now reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Ise-class battleship. (2) You're interpreting Mr. Koppelman's analysis as in support of Lakin's position; reading the article itself however, it can either be taken as neutral on the subject, or possibly on the side of the president depending on interpretation of tone. The article certainly doesn't show any author bias in favor of Mr. Lakin. Does this make sense? Have I interpreted your concern correctly? I can remove the section if you really need it to be removed, but I don't see it as favoring Mr. Lakin's case as you do. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the QPQ which is fine. So that just leaves the Analysis section. What counts here is public reaction, whatever Koppelman's intention and your written interpretation may be. User:Sven Manguard's reaction and my reaction may be taken as a gauge of what the public reaction might be. So if you want this nom to be promoted, please remove the Analysis section, then the nom will be good to go. Don't forget that DYK isn't a finality; articles can be re-edited and developed further after DYK is over. --Storye book (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delay in replying. I feel disingenuous with editing the article for the DYK only to revert it afterwards. Unless there's any reason I cannot, I'd like to withdraw my nomination. — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
If you would care to re-read my comment, you will see that I did not suggest a revert. I suggested "developing further". That is a different thing. However since you do not wish to address neutrality issues, I support your decision to withdraw the nom. (Admin: please close down this nomination at the request of the creator/nominator. Thank you). --Storye book (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delay in replying. I feel disingenuous with editing the article for the DYK only to revert it afterwards. Unless there's any reason I cannot, I'd like to withdraw my nomination. — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- (1) I thought I had done a QPQ for this hook. When I looked for it, apparently it was unsatisfactory. That being the case, I've now reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Ise-class battleship. (2) You're interpreting Mr. Koppelman's analysis as in support of Lakin's position; reading the article itself however, it can either be taken as neutral on the subject, or possibly on the side of the president depending on interpretation of tone. The article certainly doesn't show any author bias in favor of Mr. Lakin. Does this make sense? Have I interpreted your concern correctly? I can remove the section if you really need it to be removed, but I don't see it as favoring Mr. Lakin's case as you do. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to go a little out on a limb here. fourthords is entitled to withdraw it if they want to, i guess, but none of us owns the article. The article actually had a pattern of problems relating to the misreading of the sources. I have fixed these and a few other problems. I now believe the article is neutral. However, the way the hook was written implied Obama had not released his birth certificate at all, which was not correct. The Birthers weren't satisfied with the so-called Short Form, and Lakin and others were seeking access to the original version. I have modified the hook to reflect this. The cited sources in the article do support the hook as edited.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, hamiltonstone. The article seems to be more objective now. I accept your green tick for the hook and article if the nominator decides not to withdraw, and if he/she does not revert or change your edits while this template is active.--Storye book (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)