Template:Did you know nominations/Second Adrian Hasler cabinet
- 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 Kimikel talk 00:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Second Adrian Hasler cabinet
... that Aurelia Frick was expelled from the Second Adrian Hasler cabinet in 2019, due to an embezzlement scandal?
Created by TheBritinator (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.
TheBritinator (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC).
New enough and long enough. QPQ present. AGF on German-language sourcing. Reasonably exciting hook for the subject. Suggestions for promoter: add "of Liechtenstein" after "cabinet" in the hook to provide a geographic clue to readers. Also skeptical if "second" needs to be capitalized in running text. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Make any minor changes as nessesary. TheBritinator (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
@TheBritinator and Sammi Brie: per WP:DYKHOOKBLP we should avoid unduly focusing on negative aspects of living persons in hooks. I have never been entirely certain what "unduly" means, but I think this falls on the wrong side of the line. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: we could change it to alleged embezzlement scandal or something like that if that would be more suitable. She hasn't been convicted of anything yet, but nevertheless it is a fact she was expelled from government for it. TheBritinator (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's not the point: we try not to focus on negative aspects of living people at DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Then I'm not sure what the point is, it is not like I am making defamatory claims. Would you be able to suggest any alternatives? TheBritinator (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- TheBritinator, the point of BLPDYK is that DYK boils down everything about a subject to a single hooky little phrase. For a BLP subject, this removes everything else about the subject's life and achievements and reduces them to a factoid on the front page one of the most popular places on the internet. If that factoid is negative, it could potentially have reputational effects, and we have a duty to err on the side of caution when it comes to posting things that could affect a living person's actual life. BLPDYK explicitly takes a stricter line than raw BLP does for this reason. Since the bold article is the cabinet and not the politician, I think you could reasonably get away with a hook about the scandal if you didn't name Frick directly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: So how about something like ... that a member of the Second Adrian Hasler cabinet was expelled in 2019, due to an embezzlement scandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBritinator (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- TheBritinator, the point of BLPDYK is that DYK boils down everything about a subject to a single hooky little phrase. For a BLP subject, this removes everything else about the subject's life and achievements and reduces them to a factoid on the front page one of the most popular places on the internet. If that factoid is negative, it could potentially have reputational effects, and we have a duty to err on the side of caution when it comes to posting things that could affect a living person's actual life. BLPDYK explicitly takes a stricter line than raw BLP does for this reason. Since the bold article is the cabinet and not the politician, I think you could reasonably get away with a hook about the scandal if you didn't name Frick directly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Then I'm not sure what the point is, it is not like I am making defamatory claims. Would you be able to suggest any alternatives? TheBritinator (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's not the point: we try not to focus on negative aspects of living people at DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: we could change it to alleged embezzlement scandal or something like that if that would be more suitable. She hasn't been convicted of anything yet, but nevertheless it is a fact she was expelled from government for it. TheBritinator (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Make any minor changes as nessesary. TheBritinator (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Personally I think that would work. AirshipJungleman29, since you were the original objector, any comments? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just about reasonable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- PMC, AirshipJungleman29, this nomination has about a day before it hits the two month mark. Is it ready to be approved or are there still issues?
Just about reasonable
seems unenthusiastic to me, yet we've lost two crucial weeks if something better was needed. Thanks for taking another look. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)- No, nothing further from me, I said I think it would work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Since AirshipJungleman29 has not returned, requesting a new reviewer to check the latest hook for BLP issues and approve or not. (I've struck the original hook due to those BLP issues.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I didn't realise no-one had ticked this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, nothing further from me, I said I think it would work. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- PMC, AirshipJungleman29, this nomination has about a day before it hits the two month mark. Is it ready to be approved or are there still issues?
