Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Milan Poparic

< Template:Did you know nominations
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: promoted by Allen3 talk 10:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Milan Poparic

edit
(
)

Created by Matty.007 (talk). Self nominated at 20:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC).

Comment by nominator: I am away for a few days until Wednesday 14 August, so please be patient, I will not reply until then. Thanks, Matty.007 14:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I hope there is another hook that does not raise concerns of BLP violations. You can add (un)likely suspects into the article, but, until there is an arrest for the big-money heist, using the living suspects as hooks is mostly discouraged. I recommend either rephrasing the hook or adding alternative hook. --George Ho (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
OK. Alt 1: that Milan Poparić was broken out of prison by two AK-47 toting accomplices? Matty.007 12:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Good to have another hook. --George Ho (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm on the case. There is no charge. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • OK. After some tweaks it's still long enough (barely), and it's new enough. Found no too-close paraphrasing. But I suggest a minor tweak to the hook--if you have a Pink Panther, you should use it, and I don't think that this particular "suspected" is a BLP violation; we could even leave "suspected" out of it. See below. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I am fine with alt 2, but it means we need another reviewer.

Matty.007 20:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Hook is fine, reference checks out. I don't think suspected is a BLP issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly suggest that the promoter use a slight wording revision to ALT2 as follows:
Actually, I think the article's "using" might be superior to "carrying"; the cited source actually says the guards were "overpowered with bursts from" the weapons, which indicates they were firing the AK-47s, but the article doesn't go that far; if it did, "firing" would be even better, but unless the article is changed, ALT2a is a perfectly valid rewording of the approved ALT2. —BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will use Alt 2a with the verb firing, and will update the article as such today. Thanks for the alts, Matty.007 08:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

StAnselm (talk · contribs) removed it from prep area due to BLP concerns, so I unclosed the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

StAnselm: was the problem with the hook, or with the article? Thanks, Matty.007 07:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think both. The rule is we should avoid "articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals". I guess part of this is what we mean by "unduly" - since the subject is a suspected criminal, he is known entirely for negative things. But I think that means that his article will never be suitable for DYK. As for the hook, it also broke the rule, on two counts - having your associates break you out of prison is a negative thing, and being a "suspected Pink Panther" is a negative thing. In other words, the hook is saying nothing positive about Poparic. In fact, neither does the article, so there is little chance of finding a non-negative hook. StAnselm (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I am away for a bit, so will reply to this later today. Thanks, Matty.007 08:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
As I just noted in WT:DYK, I don't believe "unduly" prevents us from running DYKs on known criminals, and would welcome opinions on this from other DYK folk, including those who can recall the original thinking behind the rule. (The fact that "unduly" was used leads me to infer that "duly" is possible.) Milan Poparić was serving an 80-month sentence in a Swiss prison after having been convicted of jewelry theft when he escaped. Looking at ALT2a, I clearly made a mistake retaining the word "suspected" from ALT2: all the sources that I've read from the article make it clear that he is part of the so-called Pink Panther criminal group; they suspect he is a ringleader of the group, and they suspect he was involved in planning some of the other crimes, but he was found guilty of the Neuchatel jewel robbery and is a Pink Panther. As for the article itself, the criteria for articles at WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME doesn't forbid articles about living criminals if they have been convicted of crimes, so Milan Poparić qualifies under those guidelines, assuming he's sufficiently notable. The claim in the intro that he's well known for being a suspect in the Carlton heist is unsupported and strikes me as problematic given the BLP and CRIME rules cited above. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing that up, BlueMoonset, I have now removed it. You have said pretty much what I was planning to say. Thanks, Matty.007 16:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
StAnselm: given that the case has been stated for the restoration of this hook to the prep areas, and that experienced DYK reviewers such as BlueMoonset, Crisco 1492, Drmies, and Allen3 have all approved this at varying stages, I would say that this hook is now good. Matty.007 14:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
And I disagree strongly with all these approvals. Once again, it's DYK rule of a negative article or hook. It has nothing to do with WP:CRIME - having the article is perfectly fine. But this is not the sort of article that belongs on DYK. StAnselm (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • To clarify where we stand (and to update the hook so everyone's on the same page): the hook, after the above discussion and the promotion and reversion, changing ALT2a's "carrying" to "firing" and deleting the incorrect "suspected", would now be:
StAnselm believes that the hook and/or article is negative, and as it's a BLP it thus breaks DYK rules about such. Others of us, myself included, think that DYK's rule, which mentions "articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals", does not mean all articles or hooks with negative aspects, but those where undue/inappropriate attention is paid to the negative aspects. Is that the case here? We have opinions on both sides, so I'm planning to ask for a consensus determination on the WT:DYK talk page; clearly, unless we get the DYK community's opinion on its own rules, this will remain in limbo indefinitely, which isn't fair to anyone involved. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I believe this is an accurate summary of the situation, and I agree that your suggestion is the best way forward. StAnselm (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
BlueMoonset: am I correct in saying that you have not posted about this on the page yet? If not, please can you give me a link when you have? Thanks, Matty.007 11:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Adding: got interrupted at just the wrong moment, which delayed my already written post here. Thanks, St.Anselm, for already replying there! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I acknowledge the consensus is to approve this particular nomination, and to recognise that there can be DYKs with negative hooks. StAnselm (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Milan_Poparic&oldid=829235522"