Template:Did you know nominations/Hi-Tek incident

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 SL93 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi-Tek incident

(

)

... that attendance at the largest anti-communist protest that ever took place in Little Saigon went as high as 15,000? Source: "Instead, his act of defiance sparked a protest that drew as many as 15,000 people and 200 police in riot gear who made 52 arrests over seven weeks." (LA Times, "Past and Present") "Friday's rally drew about 15,000 people -- the largest yet during the controversy -- in a show of unity organized by more than 25 Vietnamese student and religious groups." (Ha 2002, pg. 50)
- ALT1:... that after 52 days of protests, the Hi-Tek incident ended after evidence of video piracy surfaced? Source: "Lewis said detectives found an elaborate video counterfeiting operation inside Tran’s store during the protests... Tran’s attorneys say he will not return to the store, acknowledging he would be unable to reopen his business." (LA Times, "Past and Present")

Reviewed: This is my seventh nom (one is a rescued nom, however), so here are my sex previous reviews (seventh to be done soon):

Moved to mainspace by MSG17 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC).

This interesting article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and I prefer ALT1, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Some more hook ideas from User:DHN, the user who wrote the original Vietnamese article:

ALT2: ... that in 1999, hundreds to tens of thousands of people protested for 53 days against the flag of Vietnam and a portait of Ho Chi Minh in Little Saigon?

ALT3: ... that a 53-day protest in Little Saigon prompted many Vietnamese Americans to enter politics? (Source: O. C. Register)

MSG17 (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:, any thoughts? I'd rather promote ALT3, if you'll promote it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Approving ALT2, but not ALT3 which is not really backed up by the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: From the article: "For others, however, the Hi-Tek protests became a springboard. “The Hi-Tek incident made the community realize it needed a true political voice at the table,” a lawyer who served as intermediary during the protests would later say. The lawyer’s name was Van Tran. And he would lead a new generation of politicians about to rise in Little Saigon...Since the Hi-Tek protests, Little Saigon has elected, or helped elect, 11 Vietnamese American city council members, two county supervisors, one assemblyman and one state senator." DHN (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@DHN: I don't see the passages you quote, or these facts, in the article. I do see them in this source, but that is not sufficient for hook facts at DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I misread "article" as referring to the OC Register article. If you're referring to the Hi-Tek incident article itself, there's this sentence at the end: " This event served as a catalyst in increasing the civic participation of Vietnamese Americans, with several running for a number of public offices." This is also mentioned in the beginning of the article (with no citation): "The event was later regarded as an important turning point as a rare occurrence of solidarity in a previously divided community and a driving force for many Vietnamese Americans to later participate in politics and become more involved in civic matters." DHN (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@DHN: If you cite that in the lead, I can approve ALT3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Erm... the information is already cited in the body. Per WP:LEADCITE, the citation shouldn't need to be repeated in the lead. Maybe I should modify the body passage to better reflect this fact? MSG17 (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: Six QPQs were not needed for this nomination – I've struck the use of five, and left a note on the nominator's talk page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)