Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Theodore Katsanevas

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Allen3 talk 14:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Theodore Katsanevas

edit
(
)

Greek PM Papandreou, whose will called Katsanevas a disgrace

Created by Pigsonthewing (talk). Nominated by Nemo bis (talk) at 16:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC).

  • The article is long enough at 1920 characters of prose. The hook is short enough, at 164 characters. The article is new. Only one Two of the English language sources directly cited for the hook uses the word "Disgrace". (I can't review the Greek-language ones.) The SFGate source now links to a completely different story, a better link should be found or the source removed. The DYKcheck tool reports that the article is marked as a stub, although i don't see any stub tag. The Hook is surely interesting. The image in the template is not yet in the article. This can and should be cleaned up enough to pass, but I don't think it passes at the moment. DES (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review. You're right, the sourcing was improvable and it's now better: there are three sources for the word "disgrace" (hri.org, SFgate, thepressproject; the first being quite "official"); I also added a source for the translation of disgrazia into disgrace, note that Corriere della sera is the most important newspaper of Italy hence there is no better news source possible from Western Europe I'd say. --Nemo 19:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • A better, free, picture is File:Andreas Papandreou (1968).jpg, but neither is really relevant in the article under review. Another day or two should see plenty of English-language sources emerge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    Do you think it's better to remove the image? As Katsanevas says in his reactions to his will referenced in the article, Papandreou played a crucial role in his life and career, it wouldn't be out of place in the article either. [1] could be considered PD if the biography of a prof. is mandated by a law or policy and if universities are considered a branch of the public administration in Greece (commons:Template:PD-GreekGov), but this would need some better research. --Nemo 19:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    I have no opinion on using a picture, but somehow the tomb doesn't seem like a good choice. Any picture used should, i would think, be in the article, or else in another linked article (linked in the hook I mean). I was incorrect about the SFGate source, and I have corrected my comments above. The image and the stub tag if there really is one there, now seem to be the only things holding this up. It would be nice if the article was divided into sections, but it is not big enough for this to be required, in my view. DES (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    The article is no longer a stub. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    OK, I've divided it in two sections which seem relevant and added the photo in both the article and the proposed DYK above. The stub template has been removed hours ago, perhaps the tool is querying outdated data
    You probably all know what PM stands for? Readers can find out the exact family relationship in the article, don't tell them all.
    ALT2: ... that the Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas was reportedly named a disgrace for the family in the will of former prime minister Andreas Papandreou (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    ALT3 ... that the Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas was reportedly named a "disgrace for the family" in the will of former prime minister Andreas Papandreou, his father-in-law (pictured)? DES (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Issues dealt with, QPQ done, image ok, looks good to go as soon as one hook or another is selected. i prefer Alt3, but any would be acceptable. DES (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • If ALT3, I would move (pictured) behind his name, - it's the person who is pictured, not his family status. Imagine: I don't think the term father-in-law makes the hook more attractive ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • On the placment of "(pictured)" you are correct, it should follow the name. I found ALT2 confusin because it gives no indication of what the relation or connection between Katsanevas and Papandreou is. Part of the point of the hook, to me is that this is in part, a family dispute. So...
ALT4: ... that the Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas was reportedly named a "disgrace for the family" in the will of his father-in-law, former prime minister Andreas Papandreou (pictured)? DES (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm ok with ALT3 + Gerda's amendment. --Nemo 23:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC) P.s.: That is, with ALT4 above.

A reminder: a court hearing related to the subject is going to take place in March 11th WMF blog Greek Wikipedia announcement. It may be provocative for the court to highlight it on the Main Page and focus on this more than it is needed. I suggest to get advice from Michelle Paulson before putting it in the DYK section. -geraki TL 10:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Correct symbol. The big orange x is for when there is pretty much no way in h*** an article will make it to the MP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a routine editorial decision and it won't be affected by anything other than Wikipedia's pillars and neutrality. Hic manebimus optime. --Nemo 15:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Have you read that WMF blog post? Its spirit is that we should be able to write about notable subjects, according to our usual policies, without being cowed by dubious legal action. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Striking ALT5 as far too long for DYK at 320 characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Some comments on the other hooks: the original hook and ALT1 use "defined" which doesn't seem correct; the article currently says "described", which makes more sense, and "called" would also work. ALT2, ALT3, and ALT4 all use "disgrace for the family" (though ALT2 does not have the phrase in quotes), while the article uses the more common and better "disgrace to the family" wording (quoted). I strongly suggest that if any of these hooks are eventually used, they be modified with the more accurate and effective wording noted here. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Agree with BlueMoonset, and if my two cents on this issue matter, I have no objection with the hook running and don't see any policy explicitly against it, but insist on accuracy/fidelity to the sources given the litigious nature of this bête noire who is the subject of the article. I think this ilithios Katsanevas just created another example of the Streisand effect, and has proven the correctness of his father-in-law's judgment of him, but we should stick directly to what is asserted by the reliable sources provided.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

ALT6: ... that the Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas was reportedly called a "disgrace to the family" in the will of his father-in-law, former prime minister Andreas Papandreou (pictured)?
Thanks for the suggestions. I think we're way more than ready to go, if the only objections are such just but surely minor nitpicks. :) Can someone add it to the actual DYK? Or can I do so myself even though I'm the proposer? --Nemo 19:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Nemo, you are the one person who absolutely may not approve or promote this nomination, since you are the nominator and furthermore have proposed the only surviving hook. (I've just struck the other hooks due to those wording issues I noted.) Given the number of edits to the article since the most recent positive review, this should be given a final review, and the review should go beyond just checking ALT6 to explicitly cover issues of neutrality and do a close paraphrase check (which doesn't appear to have been done before), as well as confirm that it meets BLP guidelines. Once that's done it should be ready to go, but definitely not before then. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding:

ALT7: ... that the Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas was called a "disgrace to the family" in the will of his father-in-law, former prime minister Andreas Papandreou (pictured)?

which differs from ALT6 only in dropping the weasel-word "reportedly", which is not in the article. Why is this nomination still not promoted, after nearly a month, particularly when the nominator requested speedy action? The changes since 16 Feb are not significant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I would say good to go on ALT7. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
New suggestion
edit
I pulled the hook from prep 4. Regardless of the merits of the hook (the hook looks entirely valid), given that there is current/recent litigation over the way this living person has been described in another Wikipedia, it would be really stupid timing to highlight this fact on the main page right now. Maybe an alternative hook can be written about how his story demonstrates the Streisand effect. --Orlady (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
New suggestion:
ALT8: ... that legal action by Greek politician Theodore Katsanevas over the Greek Wikipedia article about him may have resulted in a Streisand effect? --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Struck ALT8 to clarify it's not consensual and rejected (in case someone didn't notice from this whole section). --Nemo 13:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but if the intent is to have an independent person review this, having it struck out by you as rejected doesn't really help the situation. I've unstruck it for the moment, so Fram's request can go forward. - Bilby (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Reiterating support for hook 7, per my comment time-stamped '17:32, 17 February 2014'. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The issue here isn't the content of articles, but rather the statements that are highlighted on the main page. In the context of the litigation, don't you see how putting the "disgrace to the family" words on the main page could be received as rubbing the article subject's nose in a bit of excrement? --Orlady (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of any legal ramifications, I find ALT8 focusing on the current Streisand effect more timely and interesting than ALT7 which focuses on language in a will that has been public since 1996.24.151.116.25 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I didn't follow the discussion much (other than adding a symbol that I thought was simply forgotten, nonono, I will not do that again.) Reading ALT7, I would expect to find in the article that he wasn't really a "disgrace". And if he sort of was, how is it "rubbing his nose"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Gerda, the article doesn't indicate that he wasn't a disgrace. Most of the article is about the aftermath of the will. As for the nose-rubbing, that is an idiomatic expression for taunting a person with reminders of their misfortune. See [2]. --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I came across this argument from another user on another talk page (Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Theodore_Katsanevas_hook) against ALT7 that seemed worth sharing here: "This hook violates Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook, section "content", bullet 4: 'Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.'" 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
As I noted on that discussion; the key word is "unduly". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
My own opinion is that ALT7 focuses unduly on negative comments about Katsanevas made by someone else, whereas ALT8 focuses on his own actions and their consequences, but "unduly" is definitely a debatable point. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It appears that we need a fresh review. --Orlady (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    Your opinion, but you can't review a hook proposal you made yourself. --Nemo 13:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a dick about this, but I agree with Andy. This is not "unduly" negative, it's a news story, and we've run hooks on prostitutes, murderers, and other malefactors who did a lot worse than get called a disgrace by his ex-wife's old man. Also, the asshole this hook is about had an uninvolved Wikipedia admin dragged into court under the threat of arrest to force him to censor the article... and you're upset that the hook points that out that a reliable source called him a disgrace? Sorry, but some of you people are a little too thin-skinned, afraid of your own shadow, and are misinterpreting the bullet 4. Also, "should be avoided" in no way means "must". This hook met the rules, and I approved ALT7 as such. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Also, I will be incredibly disappointed with some of you milquetoast editors if this does not run at DYK just because you misinterpret the rule so that we can't say anything even remotely unpleasant about a bad man. ad absurdam, under such an extremist interpretation, this kind of timidity would make it so that we'd be too scared to talk about or present anything at DYK except for the "puppy dogs and ice cream" trivia about a subject and get bullshit like DYK...that Kanye West and Charles Manson both like trees?. Speaking as a man who had the most viewed DYK hook this month because I happened to mention the word "virgin" in the hook, a DYK section that is all puppy dogs and ice cream factoids would be fucking boring and as enjoyable as an acid enema.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I find Alt7 to be unduly negative - it doesn't feel appropriate for the front page, even without the legal issues and the impression it would give readers. I'm more neutral about others, but Alt8 seems like a valid alternative. - Bilby (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I fully support option 7. Yes, it is unduly negative but we may exercise our discretion regarding unduly negative hooks, and in this instance I think unduly negative commentary in our hook is entirely appropriate. (Very tempting but no. I've reconsidered below) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I recall the issues raised about revenge editing with Qworty. It seems to me that deliberately running what you've accepted as an unduly negative hook on the front page about someone currently engaged in controversial legal action against a WP editor is not the way I'd like to see an encyclopedia with NPOV as one of its central tenets presented. I'd oppose Alt7 for anyone. I'd certainly oppose it under these circumstances. - Bilby (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It reminds me more of the FBI shield DYK nomination back in 2010, when the WMF was engaged in a dispute with the FBI over fair use of an image of the FBI shield. I opposed that one but my attitude appears to have changed since then. I'll think a bit more on this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
OK. I oppose running this on the main page.
  • Orlady's point below - that the article is unbalanced, unduly focussed on a negative critique - is valid, and reason enough not to point readers to it until it no longer violates WP:BLP in that regard.
  • But the elephant in the room is also a problem. Doing this, now, is using the encyclopedia to play a part in a dispute between the subject and the encyclopedia, and I think doing so would be allowing a significant conflict of interest to influence our editorial decision-making and be a misuse of the encyclopedia, undermining (in appearance and actuality) the neutrality of the encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I also support ALT7, it shows a negative opinion, but not unduly so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Alt7 and other similar hooks, we can easily have a neutral hook about notable aspects of the same person, it is not some individual where the only notable episode or fact of his life involves a negative or controversial event. Comparing the hook we choose for an article on a scholar and politician with a long career, with hooks we run for prostitutes, murderers, and the like, is rather besides the point. Arguments to use this because it would get more views are really telling and disappointing though. We are not a tabloid that needs spicing up the front page to get more views. Fram (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but self-censorship sucks, and my comparison is not "besides the point"...we've put DYK hooks up on the main page that were a lot worse, and a lot more that were as boring as dried dung on the prairie.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • And I have stopped a number that were as bad or worse as well. DYK has many errors, but previous errors are not a reason to make one now. I don't like boring hooks either, but we shouldn't use an un-boring one if it means violating our DYK BLP-rule. Fram (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • And we disagree, and I consider your reluctance to post this hook on the main page to be milquetoast and weak-in-the-knees. The rule is being subjectively misinterpreted. You think it's "unduly" negative, I don't. Also, you equate the advisory "should be avoided", an intermediate deontic modality, with the mandate "must be avoided". "Should" denotes and connotes one option among many valid and exercisable options ([3] see 13.1)--and several us believe that ALT7 SHOULD run on the main page. It's far more interesting than another spider or another laudatory-ass-kissing factoid about a banal pop star.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Underneath your expert language, you seem to be confusing "should" with "may". "Should" does" not simply denote one option amongst many, it indicates the option that, barring more important other reasons, must be chosen. "Not censored" is not more important, or the "should not" option will never come into effect. If you can't present a good reason why "should not" does not apply specifically in this case, then "should not" remains "will not" in this case. Fram (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • And I'll get you that reason when you provide something objective that is a little bit more substantive than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggested the Streisand effect hook (ALT8) because it seems interesting and I don't perceive it as unduly negative. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT8 is unacceptable to me on principle.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What principle would that be? --Orlady (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That there's no actionable, objective reason to oppose ALT7, and opposing ALT7 is regrettably self-censorship. So, I'll oppose ALT8 on the same specious grounds that it's "unduly" negative and "should" be avoided.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • And there's the notion that ALT8 is an uninteresting editorial observation, not a fact. The fact is he was called a disgrace. The "Streisand effect" is an editorial observation that unfortunately, because it started as a Wikipedia comment, is navel-gazing. There's a difference in how compelling something is, I don't care what someone else's summary of an event is, I'd rather hear about the event. ALT7 is fact, ALT8 is navel-gazing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As best I can determine from what you wrote here, your "principle" is a statement of your personal commitment to being oppositional -- and possibly behaving outrageously. That's fine for you, but it's not consistent with Wikipedia policy.
Now that's out of the way, let me observe that the underlying issue with this hook is the unbalanced nature of the article. This is a respected academic who served 15 years in his national parliament, has written numerous books and articles[4], and apparently is a leader of an active movement calling for Greece to abandon the euro, but the article is almost entirely about his disputes with his former in-laws -- which spilled over to a dispute with Wikipedia. Is there any chance of expanding the article content about him, his career, and his ideas? --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for some outside input and / or conclusion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive260#Template:Did you know nominations/Theodore Katsanevas. Fram (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest, Fram, but this escalation looks absurd to me: this nomination was passed on 20:49, 15 February 2014; we've nitpicked over synonyms till 19:59, 28 February 2014 but since that day there's been no reason whatsoever not do add this hook. It was passed by a second user on 15:15, 12 March 2014. Since 13 March 2014 several users have been debating a clearly provocative second proposal, but this whole section should just be ignored. --Nemo 13:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Nemo, you have just re-promoted a hook for a DYK you nominated in the first place. What is needed, and what I have asked for, is an uninvolved closer, and preferably first some further previously uninvolved opinions to get a clearer view of the consensus. It may be that your preferred version gets the final approval, but none of us is in a position to give that approval (or final approval for another hook) anymore. My "excalation" is just an attempt to get out of this situation without further problems. I have not indicated what should happen, what the problems were, I have given a neutral description and appeal. Sadly, Gerda Arendt has then given a clearly non-neutral "hint" below my statement, no idea why that was needed if not to influence the discussion... Fram (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I approved a hook above and did so rather neutrally 13 days ago--not that that matters.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutrally? In your first comment, from 18:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC), you called the man "ilithios", i.e. an "idiot". Further comments on this page have clearly shown your strong dislike for the subject. You are not a neutral closer, but a biased one. Fram (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Fram, what do you mean re-promoted? I never passed this nomination, I only implemented ColonelHenry's and DES' approval. At any rate, I only did so once (it seemed people were scared by Geraki's words or something). If someone else does so, I'm ok with that. --Nemo 14:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It was promoted previously, you re-promoted it[5], citing WP:DYKNN, even though that says "When possible, it is also best to avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created." And at the moment, while some people approved the hook, about the same number rejected it, so your promotion was clearly not uncontroversial, making it even less acceptable (as nominator). Fram (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Nemo, it was promoted initially by another editor after I gave the GTG for ALT7. Fram's "re-promoted" is in reference to that earlier action based on my GTG that moved the hook to prep which was later pulled because of reasons in the debate that ensued above. This is ridiculous. The hook is good and meets the rules, and its appearance would attract attention to improve the article (and maybe insert material to improve the balance...but I don't see the balance as being too problematic right now), the reasons to oppose the hook are specious and a misreading of the rules and it's a disservice to Wikipedia to keep this hook tabled for specious reasons.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, we know your opinion by now, and we know mine. That's why I asked for uninvolved opinions and closure. If it truly is a misreading of the rules and a disservice to Wikipedia, then consensus will swiftly align with your position surely? I don't see why my asking for external input so that this can finally be concluded is apparently so problematic for the people supporting Alt7... Fram (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As for Orlady's suggestions for article improvement and balance, I'll add some material in the next day or two about his contributions to economics and politics. I have asked a Greek colleague of ours who is a little more partial to the article subject's positions to provide some material. Once we improve the balance of coverage, there should be no substantive objection to ALT7.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • While it is obviously better to have a balanced article, Alt7 remains an unduly negative hook. It's tabloid material, the opinion of one prominent family member about another (slightly less) prominent family member, not the kind of thing we should have on our frontpage for a BLP. Fram (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Strike the adverb "unduly" -- just like we struck "reportedly" above. It's unduly subjective and subject to ambiguity. If you can't call a disgraceful man a disgrace, then we can't call another man good. A fact is a fact. Just like "should" does not equal "must" or your insistence on "may". If the man were relevant because of his minority economic theories and research, he would have had an article written on that by now...he's a minor actor in a big family known only for his ignominy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Lack of an article does not mean lack of notability or relevance. Your personal dislike for the man is quite clear, but that doesn't mean that you just need to be insulting every time you discuss him. If he truly was only known for the will, then he shouldn't have an article at all. Fram (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
          • Actually, I could not care less about the man. Do not equate my side in the debate with a reduction to so debased and common as having any "personal" feelings. I only care about (a) Wikipedia shouldn't censor itself from letting facts appear just because they paint a bad person or event badly. Facts are facts and (b) Reporting facts shouldn't be grounds for retaliation--and the reporting of facts is the best defense against such retaliation, and (c) I have a severe disgust for namby-pamby editors who get offended by reality. In fact, I have more respect for Teddy for having the balls to be a "disgrace" than I do for someone who thinks stating the fact that he was a disgrace is "unduly negative" because of their subjective notion of "we shouldn't say that". I might actually agree with you on the merits of whether there should be an article. He's not major in economics, he's rather impotent politically, and his notability vis-à-vis the will is only through inherited notability (or notoriety). I compare him with the notability of Jihad Jane. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm confused. Someone unstruck alt8 above. Alt8 basically would be attacking the person with a piece of original research, hence I thought it a sarcastic proposal, isn't it? Does anyone agree with placing that unsourced attack on the main page? --Nemo 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Who do you feel that it is original research to say that he created a Streisland effect through his actions? And why do you feel that saying so is attacking him, when saying that he was called a disgrace to his family is not? - Bilby (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's an attack to say that. However, the characterization--that TK's bellyaching created a Streisand Effect originated from Wikipedia, the news reported on it, then Wikipedia used that news source to support the claim. Essentially, a feedback loop. Therefore to report on it as if it were fact is improper.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not really the problematic feedback loop, though. :) What we normally have is a nasty situation where we say something, the press repeats it, and we reference the press. In this case we have an event involving us, which the media has commented on, and we're referencing the media. That seems to be a viable approach. - Bilby (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
And you ignore the initial use of "Streisand effect" was from Wikipedia. That, textbook, is a feedback loop.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was quoting a Wikipedian, rather than a quote taken from a Wikipedia article. - Bilby (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The term was being bantered about days before the quotation. Unfortunately Wikipedians are often too quick to label things as a "Streisand Effect" and put that mention in articles, mention it on talk pages, and criticise the process when they shoot the shit on an offsite Wikipedia-related forum.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
No further objections, hence marking alt8 as rejected for self-sourcing and WP:CIRCULAR. --Nemo 08:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
ALT9: ... that Theodore Katsanevas is professor of labour economics at the University of Piraeus?
On 1 April, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Fails requirement of being interesting. --Nemo 08:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Alt10: That Wikipedia should not even think about putting this on DYK for the extremely obvious reason that to do so would give rise to an appearance of vindictiveness. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC) (Unsourced. Nemo 08:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC))
  • Hey, JzG - welcome back, I thought they banned you for good last time--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Why don't we just hold off for a few weeks or months until the litigation passes? There's no hurry in getting this particular hook published, and doing so currently at such an improper time is in violation of numerous policies such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and plenty others. The hook might even be worded in the most neutral way possible, but if we give the slightest appearance of non-neutrality, especially when we have a clear conflict of interest in defending another Wikipedia editor, it does damage to our credibility in the long run. No matter our best intentions and best revision of the hook, the public might just choose to think otherwise when we publish an arguably extremely controversial news piece. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 07:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on an idea by (travelling) John Vandenberg:
ALT11: ... that a judge has ordered that the Greek Wikipedia biography of politician Theodore Katsanevas be removed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me, in general, but I read the reference as saying that the judge ordered only a portion of the biography be removed as indicated in the rejected (as too long) Alt5 above. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • English is not my first language, I may have misunderstood "Last week, the judge overseeing the case issued an order that he remove the article from the site." To me, it says "the article". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The article appears to be ambiguous. Further down it states: "Liourdis followed the judge's instructions to delete the text, but sure enough, it was quickly replaced. At press time, a version of the Greek Wikipedia page on Katsanevas, translated via Google Translate, shows that the 'disgrace' comment remains." Perhaps we can craft language to cover both circumstances. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC) I think this diff represents Diu's first attempt at deletion. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC) The Wikimedia Foundation reference has " In the meantime, yesterday the Court issued a pre-preliminary injunction, ordering Diu to provisionally remove the reference to the handwritten will of Andreas Papandreou in the Theodore Katsanevas Greek Wikipedia article, until the March 11th hearing." 24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
ALT12: ... that a judge has ordered that information be removed from the Greek Wikipedia biography of politician Theodore Katsanevas?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
ALT12 looks good to go. Appropriately cited. Does not unduly focus on negative aspects of biography. Other article criteria verified previously. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Theodore_Katsanevas&oldid=1016448835"