Template:Did you know nominations/Ronald Grossarth-Maticek

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ronald Grossarth-Maticek

(

)

... that work of medical scholars Ronald Grossarth-Maticek and Hans Eysenck has stirred considerable controversy in 2019? Source: multiple in the article, for example https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l5899 or https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/oct/11/work-of-renowned-uk-psychologist-hans-eysenck-ruled-unsafe

Reviewed: I Married My Best Friend To Shut My Parents Up
Comment: Keeping WP:BLP in mind, the controversy he is involved in is quite interesting. Feel free to propose a more neutral hook. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

5x expanded by Piotrus (talk) and Sciencia58 (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 09:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC).

New enough, long enough. The lede needs to be developed. If there is a controversy, what is it? The prose here is rather bland. Please propose some new hooks. --evrik ^(talk) 21:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(@Evrik: I've added a sentence about controversy to the lead. I am not sure how to develop it further either there or here due to BLP/UNDUE issues. I think the hook is good. If you think it is bland, please suggest more 'interesting' ones, bearing in mind BLP and length limits here. I tried and I failed to come up with anything better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}

(@Piotrus: What is the controversy? Can you explain it? --evrik ^(talk) 16:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(@Evrik: Of course but the explanation (already present in the body of the article) would take the hook over the DYK length size. And there is also the issue that the subject is filing a legal action for defamation or such, so if our hook is a bit too biased they could complain about us too. Short and simple seems the right way here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I read the entire article as part of my review. Humor me and write a hook that goes over the length limit. --evrik ^(talk) 15:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Evrik, in all honesty, I don't want to get sued by a suit-friendly BLP. Do you? But just for the sake of argument, here you go, ALT1 below: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that work of medical scholars Ronald Grossarth-Maticek and Hans Eysenck has been declared "unsafe" by an enquiry on behalf of King's College London? (Refs: [1] and several others in the body of article)
ALT2 ... medical scholar Ronald Grossarth-Maticek directed a long-term study involving 30,000 people from 18,000 households examined at regular intervals over a period of more than 20 years? --evrik ^(talk) 17:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
What about Alt 2? --evrik ^(talk) 17:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Err, you think this is interesting? We clearly have a very different view on what makes a hook boring or interesting. In either case, this will need a third party to review your hook. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's best so far, and there is no fear of lawsuits. ;-) --evrik ^(talk) 20:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Review of ALT hooks needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Both alts are sourced and in article, and are better than the original hook. Alt1 is probably still more interesting than Alt2, but if there's a "fear of lawsuits", Alt2 may be preferable... either way, both approved. Kingsif (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)