546:
can and can't go onto the main page. In addition to the various rules, there's a matter of exercising judgment about potentially controversial and/or emotionally distressing topics, and a need to recognize that other people may have judgments different from yours or mine. I reviewed this hook when I was planning to move the "prep area" set to the "queue" and give administrator approval to the hooks, and after I saw the article, I concluded that I could not approve this hook. The bland hook may look "neutral", but it misrepresents the article topic by omitting significant information. The mere fact that 3 of the 5 cited sources are news stories that use the verb "attack" in their headlines (for example, the
Reuters headline is "Special ops group attacks Obama over bin Laden bragging, leaks") is a strong indication that this is not a bland documentary film.
909:
generate accusations that DYK is playing partisan politics. After the election, few people will care about this film. Consistent with the rationale behind the rule that says "Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates", this should not run in DYK. --
1016:
926:
538:
885:
905:
1037:
481:
185:
203:
708:
749:
ALT2 is an unacceptable hook. It uses "a group describing itself" when the sources do not dispute that they actually are, and hides the name of the name of the movie that is the subject of the hook. ALT1 is better with the change, as it was a campaign official and not Obama himself who characterised
613:
Good catch on the cite, Orlady. Thanks for that. I don't think ALT1 is appropriate, but I could endorse ALT2 with one small quibble: substitute "Obama
Administration" in place of "Barack Obama", to depersonalize it. For that matter, we could avoid directing criticism at the President altogether,
642:
Sorry, but sugar-coating is not neutrality -- it can be a form of distortion. The article says "The 22-minute film criticizes
President Obama and his administration"; and the emphasis appears to be personal and on the president, not on a bloodless administration. (The article quotes a character in
545:
that says "Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided," which rule has lately been interpreted to restrict such hooks for periods longer than 30 days before the election) and no one reviewer has final say over what
263:
Is there something in the eligibility requirements that I overlooked? I think other editors have been to the article since it was nominated, but if there are no NPOV problems to correct and it meets all other requirements, what's the issue? I believe the hook itself is neutral, which appears to
908:
This film is highly related to the ongoing U.S. presidential election campaign. I get a lot of political email from all sides, and I am receiving email promoting this film as "the single most damning video against Barack Obama you will see." Running the hook in DYK before the election is sure to
803:
FWIW, of the three hooks here, I prefer ALT1. I put the "group describing itself" language into ALT2 because I found that kind of language in the article at the time, and I think there is significant reason to question whether a group of former U.S. Special Forces and intelligence officers have
718:
It's just luck that two hooks you had reviewed were in that same prep area that I reviewed before promoting it to the queue -- but I suppose the fact that you had done QPQ reviews against that 7-in-1 nomination meant that you had been responsible for approving a large percentage of the recently
662:
I was just floating an idea based on my understanding of the program, that's all. Hooks are supposed to be neutral, right? I'd like to go forward with a hook that isn't going to cause the nomination to fail in some future discussion. I'd kinda like to have Doug weigh in on this, too.
411:
OPSEC spokesmen said the group has about $ 1 million at its disposal and hopes to raise more after the release of its mini-documentary, entitled "Dishonorable
Disclosures," which aims, in spy-movie style, to document a recent spate of leaks regarding sensitive intelligence and military
551:
I'm not sure it would be appropriate to run any hook about this film, as most anything we write could have the effect of either promoting the film (for example, to potential contributors) or attacking it. However, here are some ALT hooks that seem to me less dishonest:
206:
Pulling this one out of the prep area. A DYK hook about a politically motivated film attacking the US President during his re-election campaign needs to be carefully crafted, if it is to appear at all. This ho-hum hook apparently slipped under the radar...
822:
If we wind up coming back to ALT2, I do need to point out that your expression of doubt amounts to OR. Again, Reuters and WSJ didn't have a problem making the statement without such a qualification. But that's a moot point if we're going with ALT1.
1019:
The election is over, so I guess we can run this now. I am going to do another review of this article to make it ready for the main page, but first I want to know if there still is any objections against this article being promoted with ALT1?
804:
managed (on their own) to produce a movie and raise the money to show it as an ad. Based on the sources, I am not prepared to state as a fact that a group of former U.S. Special Forces and intelligence officers made this film. --
361:"Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates."
327:
I'm not seeing a whole lot of clarity or a whole lot of consensus in that discussion. If this simply amounts to a general ban on anything tangentially related to politics or elections, it doesn't seem to me like it would that
301:
429:"Dishonorable Disclosures is a 2012 documentary film by the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, a non-partisan 501(c)(4) social welfare group composed of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives."
246:. I delayed notifying the nominator, thinking that I would do it after reviewing the rest of this hook set, but got sidetracked by review of the next hook, which I also ended up pulling. I've notified Belchfire now. --
237:
We need to have more eyes on this before a hook with political implications, like this one, goes to the main page. This is the kind of hook that sometimes gets removed from the main page, and often causes eruptions at
297:
496:
Sorry, Doug, didn't mean to argue with you at all. I guess you and I were looking at two separate things in the source that led to the same conclusion, is all. Thanks for reviewing and approving my nom.
942:
188:
Article length (2000+ characters) and age (2 days) are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. The original hook line verified in source. Looks good to go.--
1062:
699:
The hook looks simple and neutral to me. I'm not into "politics", so won't be able to give further polictical viewpoints. I'm just following the DYK guidelines. After
703:
I realize no one reviewer has final say over what can and can't go onto the main page. One thing I have noticed however is that Orlady has recently also pulled other
485:
Article length (2000+ characters) and age (2 days) are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. The original hook line verified in source.
767:
be remedied) by replacing the phrase "a group describing itself as" with the phrase "a group of", per the sources. The phrase "describing itself" is a POV-ish
1040:
Let's clear this one through. It has been very thoroughly reviewed and the concern about the election - correct in my view - is no longer relevant. GTG
296:
Not everything that needs to considered at DYK can be solidified into a guideline. This hook has issues similar to those that have been raised regarding
332:
difficult to distill it down to a sentence or two as a simple courtesy to the editors who spend their time on this stuff. So where does this stand?
949:
what basis s/he has for disqualifying legitimate DYK article submissions, based solely on a seemingly intentional misinterpretation of the DYK rule:
36:
991:) further up in this discussion on August 18. If the misinterpretation of a DYK rule can in fact be the basis for disqualifying an article, I think
700:
579:
559:
738:
This sort of thing is part of the dirt of US politics and we need be really careful. The original hook is no good, if we have to run it then ALT2.
589:
108:
614:
and just say that the film will be shown in swing states, making it that much more neutral, without glossing over that it's election-related.
522:
470:
309:
593:
112:
941:
for the same reasons. Instead of copying and pasting my response from that discussion, I'll simply encourage other editors to read it
819:
If you feel the nomination can go forward with ALT1, you have my support. I was queasy about it, but I will defer to your judgment.
17:
719:
approved hooks on the noms page. Since you mentioned it, I have now looked at your 7-in-1 nom and made some comments there... --
521:
My point was mostly addressed to Orlady. I'm trying to figure out where I erred in the Review, since I believe I followed the
435:
40:
305:
44:
525:. IF I follow those guidelines, and it Passes, THEN shouldn't it be approved? I cann't work outside the guidelines.--
934:
81:
473:. As far as I can tell my wording is STILL correct when I Reviewed the article and hook. Which part is incorrect?
218:
I could see no fault with the review though. Do you want me to fail the article? Has the nominator been notified?
565:
102:
938:
1000:
995:
should at least explain why s/he is (breaking?)/bending DYK rules to disqualify another editor's article.
743:
437:. Doug is looking further down in the Reuters article, but all he really needs is in the first sentence:
357:
439:"A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign..."
406:
A group of former U.S. intelligence and
Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign...
1021:
870:
835:
787:
771:
and neither
Reuters or the Wall Street Journal felt it necessary to muddy the water this way. See
675:
626:
509:
452:
379:
344:
276:
171:
137:
1045:
1025:
755:
712:
526:
488:
415:
239:
223:
189:
29:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
996:
772:
739:
775:. We wouldn't stand for this in an article and there's no reason for it to be in the hook.
914:
893:
809:
724:
648:
601:
317:
251:
243:
212:
97:
643:
the film as saying, "Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did....") --
163:
1015:
984:
925:
859:
824:
776:
664:
615:
541:
Not all of the "rules" are in the reviewing guide (for example, it doesn't contain the
498:
441:
368:
333:
265:
167:
133:
884:
707:
DYK nominations I did that has Passed. I don't want to believe it is connected to the
427:
The hook was built from the opening line of the article as it existed when nominated:
1056:
1041:
751:
542:
219:
537:
571:
62:
904:
992:
988:
958:
946:
930:
910:
889:
805:
720:
644:
597:
313:
247:
208:
1036:
480:
184:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
575:
202:
302:
Template:Did you know nominations/Virgil Goode presidential campaign, 2012
151:
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
298:
Template:Did you know nominations/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech
955:
before an election in which they are standing should be avoided..."
987:
raised this same question (without a specific response from
414:
This above is what I saw for the reference for the hook.--
763:
Hawkeye, your objection to ALT2 is easily remedied (and
431:
86:
304:
from the main page. See the WT:DYK discussions of the
961:has stated that this rule can be interpreted to be
951:"articles and hooks featuring election candidates
933:is nearly identical to a post made further up the
858:What's the status of this nomination, please.
588:... that a group describing itself as former
8:
49:No further edits should be made to this page
140:). Self nom at 08:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
709:7-in-1 DYK nomination I recently submitted
356:Orlady, would you mind looking at this?
434:, which was supported by this citation:
1063:Passed DYK nominations from August 2012
937:, which intends to disqualify the film
523:Knowledge:Did you know/Reviewing guide
471:Knowledge:Did you know/Reviewing guide
367:more than 30 days from the election.
981:"30 days plus whatever you feel like"
7:
945:. But in addition, I'd like to ask
888:Anything happening here, please? --
358:Knowledge:Did_you_know#hookcontent
24:
560:Barack Obama re-election campaign
264:have been acknowledged already.
107:is produced by a group of former
18:Template:Did you know nominations
1035:
1014:
965:, but as I read it, the wording
924:
903:
896:) 10:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
883:
536:
479:
201:
183:
162:I have copy edited the hook per
1048:) 03:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
1028:) 14:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
125:: New article created August 15
32:Please do not modify this page.
758:) 20:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
746:) 15:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
215:) 22:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
1:
1003:) 00:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
917:) 15:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
812:) 21:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
727:) 19:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
651:) 03:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
604:) 01:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
320:) 23:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
254:) 22:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
226:) 22:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
174:) 08:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
68:14:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
879:05:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
715:11:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
518:23:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
353:23:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
844:21:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
796:21:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
684:03:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
635:02:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
529:23:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
491:23:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
461:23:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
418:23:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
388:23:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
285:22:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
192:21:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
45:Knowledge talk:Did you know
37:this nomination's talk page
1079:
469:I believe I am following
310:Virgil Goode hook removal
566:Dishonorable Disclosures
103:Dishonorable Disclosures
73:Dishonorable Disclosures
929:The above post by user
166:: it needs a "that". --
41:the article's talk page
300:and in the removal of
963:"longer than 30 days"
939:2016: Obama's America
594:intelligence officers
132:Created/expanded by
113:intelligence officers
935:DYK nomination page
769:expression of doubt
750:the film that way.
590:U.S. Special Forces
109:U.S. Special Forces
562:compared the film
876:
841:
793:
681:
632:
515:
458:
385:
350:
282:
141:
1070:
1039:
1018:
977:"around 30 days"
973:"within 30 days"
928:
907:
887:
877:
872:
866:
863:
842:
837:
831:
828:
794:
789:
783:
780:
682:
677:
671:
668:
633:
628:
622:
619:
574:attacks against
540:
516:
511:
505:
502:
483:
459:
454:
448:
445:
386:
381:
375:
372:
351:
346:
340:
337:
283:
278:
272:
269:
205:
187:
131:
98:documentary film
65:
56:The result was:
34:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1053:
1052:
1051:
971:clearly means:
968:"up to 30 days"
871:
864:
861:
836:
829:
826:
788:
781:
778:
676:
669:
666:
627:
620:
617:
510:
503:
500:
453:
446:
443:
380:
373:
370:
345:
338:
335:
277:
270:
267:
93:
91:
87:Article history
75:
69:
63:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1076:
1074:
1066:
1065:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
919:
918:
898:
897:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
820:
814:
813:
798:
797:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
655:
654:
653:
652:
637:
636:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
583:
548:
547:
533:
532:
531:
530:
493:
492:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
420:
419:
408:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
322:
321:
289:
288:
287:
286:
258:
257:
256:
255:
230:
229:
228:
227:
196:
195:
194:
193:
178:
177:
176:
175:
157:
156:
155:
154:
129:
128:
127:
126:
117:
116:
90:
89:
84:
82:Back to T:TDYK
78:
76:
74:
71:
54:
53:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1075:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1058:
1047:
1043:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1027:
1023:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
969:
964:
960:
956:
954:
953:up to 30 days
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
927:
923:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
906:
902:
901:
900:
899:
895:
891:
886:
882:
881:
880:
878:
875:
868:
867:
843:
840:
833:
832:
821:
818:
817:
816:
815:
811:
807:
802:
801:
800:
799:
795:
792:
785:
784:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:
760:
759:
757:
753:
748:
747:
745:
741:
737:
726:
722:
717:
716:
714:
713:Doug Coldwell
710:
706:
702:
701:over 200 DYKs
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
683:
680:
673:
672:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
650:
646:
641:
640:
639:
638:
634:
631:
624:
623:
612:
611:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
584:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
561:
558:... that the
557:
554:
553:
550:
549:
544:
539:
535:
534:
528:
527:Doug Coldwell
524:
520:
519:
517:
514:
507:
506:
495:
494:
490:
489:Doug Coldwell
486:
482:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
472:
460:
457:
450:
449:
440:
436:
433:
430:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
417:
416:Doug Coldwell
413:
409:
407:
404:
403:
387:
384:
377:
376:
366:
362:
359:
355:
354:
352:
349:
342:
341:
331:
326:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
284:
281:
274:
273:
262:
261:
260:
259:
253:
249:
245:
241:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
225:
221:
217:
216:
214:
210:
204:
200:
199:
198:
197:
191:
190:Doug Coldwell
186:
182:
181:
180:
179:
173:
169:
165:
161:
160:
159:
158:
153:
149:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
139:
135:
124:
121:
120:
119:
118:
114:
110:
106:
105:
104:
99:
95:
94:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
72:
70:
67:
66:
59:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
997:Lenschulwitz
980:
976:
972:
967:
966:
962:
952:
950:
873:
860:
857:
838:
825:
790:
777:
768:
764:
740:Secretlondon
704:
678:
665:
629:
616:
585:
572:"Swift Boat"
564:
563:
555:
512:
499:
484:
468:
455:
442:
438:
428:
410:
405:
382:
369:
364:
360:
347:
334:
329:
279:
266:
147:
130:
122:
101:
100:
61:
57:
55:
48:
31:
28:
412:operations.
96:... that a
975:, and not
773:WP:ALLEGED
576:John Kerry
985:Belchfire
244:WP:ERRORS
168:George Ho
134:Belchfire
1057:Category
1042:Aymatth2
1022:Mentoz86
983:. User
752:Hawkeye7
705:Reviewed
308:and the
220:Hawkeye7
164:WP:DYKSG
152:Mirgissa
148:Reviewed
58:promoted
570:to the
363:We are
123:Comment
64:Harrias
993:Orlady
989:Orlady
959:Orlady
947:Orlady
931:Orlady
911:Orlady
890:PFHLai
806:Orlady
765:should
721:Orlady
645:Orlady
598:Orlady
314:Orlady
306:speech
248:Orlady
240:WT:DYK
209:Orlady
862:Belch
827:Belch
779:Belch
667:Belch
618:Belch
501:Belch
444:Belch
371:Belch
336:Belch
268:Belch
16:<
1046:talk
1026:talk
1001:talk
943:here
915:talk
894:talk
874:TALK
865:fire
839:TALK
830:fire
810:talk
791:TALK
782:fire
756:talk
744:talk
725:talk
679:TALK
670:fire
649:talk
630:TALK
621:fire
602:talk
596:? --
592:and
586:ALT2
580:2004
556:ALT1
543:rule
513:TALK
504:fire
456:TALK
447:fire
432:diff
383:TALK
374:fire
365:well
348:TALK
339:fire
330:that
318:talk
312:. --
280:TALK
271:fire
252:talk
242:and
224:talk
213:talk
172:talk
138:talk
111:and
979:or
711:.--
578:in
60:by
43:or
1059::
957:.
487:--
207:--
150::
77:(
39:,
1044:(
1024:(
999:(
913:(
892:(
869:-
834:-
808:(
786:-
754:(
742:(
723:(
674:-
647:(
625:-
600:(
582:?
508:-
451:-
378:-
343:-
316:(
275:-
250:(
222:(
211:(
170:(
136:(
115:?
92:)
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
