Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Options

A: Yes, as long as they meet DYK criteria

B: Yes, but not directly related to the conflict

C: Yes, but with a Ukraine hook and Russia hook paired in the same set

D: No to hooks that may seem like we're ignoring one side

E: A blanket ban on all but historical hooks that can't be thought to be promoted based on the conflict

Votes

1. Support B, oppose C as per my comments in discussion section. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support A. If they meet the DYK criteria, they should be reliably sourced and neutral and not promote one side or the other. If the material is verified, if it is neutrally written and what is in the article is supported in the sources, if the sources are high-quality and reliable, and if the material is not presented in a way that injects humor into what is decidedly not a humorous situation (I think the terminology on DYK is "quirky") there should be no issues, as WP is not censored. Common sense would dictate that articles specifically analyzing the current conflict should be avoided, because it hasn't had time to be analyzed by experts and current news may or may not be reliable as it is an active situation. But, barring any article that is not specifically about the conflict and claiming that it is supporting a side simply because it is about Ukraine, Russia, a Ukrainian or a Russian is illogical. Analyzing every article and inappropriately looking at them through the lens of the current conflict would be violating our neutrality mandate to my mind. If we go down that road, since most nations have voiced an opinion on the invasion, wouldn't we have to avoid hooks on any subject from any country that has chosen a side? — which of course would then make moot the above suggestion for balancing a hook from each of the "sides". SusunW (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support A. As long as ITN keeps reporting updates in the situation, I see no reason why DYK can't post its own hooks. — Maile (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support A per my previous comments. Also, in case i haven't been clear on this, C and D are false balance and I oppose them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support A, per SusunW. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   adding on IWD:

   • I show two women on my talk who didn't make it today, one from Russia and one from Ukraine, but at least both in prep.
   • I suggest we open a new topic where nominations that could be regarded as problematic are discussed individually. How a factual article about a 1885 piece of music would fall in that category I still don't see, but am willing to discuss if needed.
   • In response to a remark below: in a hook just mentioning Russia or Ukraine, the country would not be linked, so the state its article is in is not relevant for a hook. I try to avoid both, but can't change the title of the piece of music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   quoting from my user page: the only real nation is humanity --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   We now have a hook about a singer from Russia on DYK, see also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6. Support A with caveats – this is generally where I land but it's not a !vote for a blanket approval on all affected hooks without additional special considerations. In particular, if Russia is kept at GAR, we need to think twice about running a hook like "Did you know that [quirky random fact about Russia]?" because that is the kind of business-as-usual distraction that the Russian government is attempting to push across its channels and I think there would be real and deserved blowback from readers. So I am settling on option A with the possibility of additional discussions about individual nominations, beyond this RfC. Also, strongly oppose C; false equivalence is not the way to go. DanCherek (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support B, if an article just happens to be about a Ukrainian or Russian subject but is not obviously about conflict, then in theory it should be fine. However, I'm wary of hooks that are obviously showing a particular side in a negative light, if only because non-Wikipedians may misinterpret our actions. In addition, one of the DYK guidelines suggests that we should avoid hook that clearly support one side of a debate regardless of our personal opinions, so this opinion is just following that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support A, per SusunW. And per our founder, who though,
   of course, not the ultimate authority, but is still a rather experienced and rightly influential editor.

   I think it isn't necessarily "taking a side in current events" to feature more relevant content in DYK in response to what is unquestionably a huge news story. I have not reviewed the content of the DYK line itself, but I don't see how the fact that there is a current conflict would change anything really - if it's neutral, then it's fine, and if it is not neutral, then it is not fine no matter when it might be proposed to run.
   — User:Jimbo Wales 08:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

   --GRuban (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. Support A, If it's as neutral as possible with all reliable sources, I see no issues. I'm not worried about non-Wikipedians being upset per what the media and social networks are already showing - which you can only not notice if you're basically a hermit. SL93 (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support A, per DanCherek.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support B due to the ongoing conflict --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support A.
    talk) 01:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. Support A, with the explicit reminder of
    neutrality. Lagrange613 02:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Support A All Wikipedia articles must be written from a
    advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited. Since Wikipedia articles are written from a netural point of view, as long as the hooks follow this idea, I don't see a problem with Russia or Ukraine hooks. Rlink2 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
15. Support A, with caveats. We need to be a lot more careful with hook construction here; no clickbait, no quirky hooks, no sensationalism, no cherry-picking. If the nominated articles are compliant with NPOV, and the hooks are strictly informative, then there's no reason to avoid them. In fact I'd say that avoiding the subject altogether isn't actually neutral; we should be presenting what the best sources say, as in any other situation. And while I recognize that this is the worst ongoing conflict, with perhaps the widest geopolitical implications, there's many other armed conflicts that are currently causing some of our readers distress; are we going to avoid them all? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support A, and Oppose C as false balance. However, we should be careful with this - we shouldn't be basing DYK hooks or articles on rumor/hearsay/potential propaganda, and we should only be running straightforward hooks about this - none of the clickbaity or quirkier stuff that's more popular for DYK subjects. Hog Farm _Talk 04:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hog Farm and Vanamonde93: trying to get a feel for your position, then, how do you feel about the Snake Island hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say that if the article were stable, I would have no problem featuring it, but the hook strikes me as one that's trying to make a point, and I would recommend against that. FTR, I'm aware stability isn't a DYK criterion, but if an article is changing quickly enough that the version we'd feature on the main page is substantially different than the one reviewed, it's a problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    While I don't see a large issue with the hook there, I'm also fairly pro-Ukraine here, so I may not be a wholly neutral commenter. I think there would have to be a source review of the article (are we citing only sources with an axe to grind, or are there third-party sources in there, as well as source reliability). I do think Vanamonde makes a good point about stability, and given the nature of (sometimes intentional, sometimes not) misinformation going around with these subjects, I think we should definitely be waiting for several weeks after the event to main page it. For instance, with the Snake Island one, consider the difference in the article content back when it was thought the guards were dead, when now we know there POWs. I'm not sure why List of last stands is still linked as a see also, given that doesn't seem to be relevant given what we now know about it. Hog Farm _Talk 16:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17. Support A, but triply scrutinise any article or hook that would be prohibited by B for
    WP:RS issues. —Kusma (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Support A, with the disclaimer that I've got skin in the game, having nominated MV Millennial Spirit for DYK. I do think that the reviews of articles related to the subject should be scrutinized more closely, reviewed more thoroughly, and polished a bit shinier in order to ensure that they meet or exceed DYK guidelines. It'd be ignorant to believe that these articles wouldn't be subject to greater scrutiny, so they should be treated carefully, but not disallowed. It's my belief that choosing not to take a stance is taking a stance in and of itself. Censoring DYK submissions by not allowing certain topics to be published on the first page violates Wikipedia's neutrality. If there is an influx of content in a certain area, for whatever reason, and more editors are inclined to submit DYKs for that topic, then we should not curtail that, merely ensure that every DYK submitted meets quality standards. Fritzmann (message me) 13:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support E - I have to assume that few contributors here also look at how people respond to DYKs, while I will every week or two check the Twitter mentions; flames break out over some really benign hooks that just are highlighting something some people don't want to see talked about. So imagine backlash here. We have to remember that DYK is not considered a fundamental part of WP, but is beneficial in converting readers to editors, and we should try to protect it, really, first and foremost. If excluding some subjects for a while is a "rather safe than sorry" approach, I see no issue with that - because we can also note that being nominated does not denote that the article has to appear on DYK, anyway.
    I agree with several people above that C and D are unfavourable options. I would think that A is also obviously unfavourable - if anything, we are not the news, either, and may want to hold off on posting things that may yet change massively, like two of the noms concerned in particular (Snake Island and Kyiv Offensive).
    I think that B is the only other option (besides E) that is reasonable, and I would support it as long as there is scrutiny and then overwhelming agreement that the hook is suitable - if it decided that criteria-meeting non-conflict Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian hooks can proceed, we should not just then wave them all through (i.e. with potentially inflammatory hooks getting passed because nominators don't want to change it and argue "but the RfC agreed they can appear") Kingsif (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @

    not censored by social media, and we should not change our policies because of some buzz on twitter. Your point that DYK is not the news certainly holds merit, and I agree that rapidly shifting articles should not be featured. However, that is not exclusive to coverage of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Any article can be unstable because more information is certain to be released. If that is a concern, which I think it probably is, then we should have a separate RfC which deals with that issue. Fritzmann (message me) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    @Fritzmann2002: As DYK is one way a lot of readers become editors, the readers' impression of DYK is quite important - social media being one of few ways to gauge this, do you want to send out a survey. In short: the DYK section is not part of the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia, it is actively promoting curated content to readers; I am not suggesting censorship, I'm suggesting mindfulness.
    Readers can expect to find cold hard facts that don't care about timeliness in an encyclopedia, but they are somewhat aware that a recent decision (and many assume it is an overarching editorial decision) has put the pushy DYK "fun facts" up on the MP. If the dictionary.com website were to make something like "antitank missile" or "surrender" its entry of the day right now, would you judge them? Yeah, probably. But where that website does not get its content from glorified readers, at Wikipedia, if readers don't become editors because of a DYK they don't like, Wikipedia suffers - or if readers do become editors specifically because of it, so they can lobby against putting insensitive facts on the MP, even if that doesn't go through (though there has been internal objection to DYK, especially with more boring hooks), we have to deal with more disruption.
    The purpose of DYK isn't, actually, putting everything up there, and we can and should use discretion.
    As for stability - we get lots of articles that "aren't quite finished", because of the newness requirement. I think it is fine to put up new articles, even those on recent subjects, as long as they are not "developing". Perhaps more information will come, that's fine. What is not fine is when new information comes that completely negates what went before, either during the nom process or very likely to come afterwards. Everything written as fact in the current events articles could prove to be completely false next week, and then your hook is wrong and that's just the start of the issues.
    My gut reaction to this concept was a hell no, and the more you look at the angles rather than focus on principles of being inclusive, the bigger this can of worms is. I think it's unwise, but we have to let the closer weigh my arguments against the line other people are going with. Kingsif (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20. Support B, possibly a more restrictive version (i.e. not related to the active phase of the conflict beginning with 2022). So that would mean 1 to 3 would work, but no 4 to 6. This is primarily because our inability to practically enforce NPOV due to ongoing media campaigns. If the Snake Island DYK would have got promoted early, WP would have claimed 13 soldiers died there (because the opposite was only supported by Russian media, which is currently unusable per
    WP:RSN decisions), though all parties agreed some days later that none of them did.Anonimu (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
21. Support A, though we should be very careful to make sure the hooks meet all the requirements (including verifiability and NPOV). We should be especially careful about hooks sourced to recent news reports, as they can often be unreliable (though that might be a general principle for DYK, not specific to this conflict). I also agree with User:Vanamonde93's comment above – we should avoid sensationalism or misleading clickbait in these hooks. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support A with extra scrutiny--hooks should be as neutral as possible. I am not concerned about the "wave them all through" scenario Kingsif anticipates--that seems extremely unlikely given that these hooks will, as is already happening, get added attention, not less. blameless 00:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
23. A. People are looking for articles about this region and this war, and as long as they meet our quality requirements, nothing else matters. Sandstein 12:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
24. A or B. An overly broad rule about all Ukraine- or Russia-related topics will not be of help. Many Russians oppose the imperialist war that Putin has chosen to initiate. Many Ukrainians do not support either the Ukrainian state or another administration that claims control over them. Russian and Ukrainian culture is not offensive to learn about and recognise on our front page. Contemporary hooks that are extremely time-sensitive and POV hooks are not welcome at DYK anyway. — Bilorv (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Option 1; the articles listed aren't harmful, rather simply aknowlegding awareness. Panini! • 🥪 21:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
26. A per Vanamonde and SusunW. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
27. B per Joseph2302 and Narutolovehinata. If DYK policies were applied stringently and hooks properly scrutinised (per Kusma and Vanamonde), I would be supporting A, but I don't believe that reviewers will always manage to spot/call out sensationalism. 15 (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support A I have proposed an alternative to B or E in the section below, but for the time being neither seems properly enforceable and will likely be more trouble than it’s worth. For now, I will simply assume that the DYK reviewers are able to scrutinize Russia/Ukraine topics very carefully to ensure NPOV, V, and RS are upheld. (COI note that I have gotten a conflict-related DYK on the main page already, before the war began: 2022 Ukraine cyberattacks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toadspike (talk • contribs) 09:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
29. A, of course, and ensure the articles actually meet core content policies before promoting (actually, not perfunctorily). If you feel like looking at DYK through a "both sides" lens and think that one side is underrepresented, the answer is to start writing more articles and sending them through DYK. Most of this seems to be based on various degrees of false balance, either by presenting both together or omitting both. When one country invades another, it's not appropriate to say to the invaded country "oops, you're in a conflict now, and it wouldn't be fair to the other side if we link to a story about someone who lives there". Even if the circumstances were different, I don't think we should get into the habit of disqualifying hooks because of ongoing conflict. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
30. Strongly oppose C and to a less extend D per Hog Farm -- this is just staking out a position even more strongly than just running neutrally worded hooks about one side or another would be. Inclined towards A but with extra scrutiny towards any articles directly about the 2022 conflict, which is an incredibly fast-moving news environment with emotions running high. I would generally avoid running anything which the news cycle has not had at least a week or two to digest in this kind of situation, and wouldn't be opposed to B for at least a month or two. Rusalkii (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support A per SusunW. Oppose C as false equivalence. If the result of this RFC is that some hooks cannot be used (B-E) I suggest they be eligible to run once the conflict ends despite not being new then, because they were prevented from running now. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support B - Not everyone who comes to the main page knows what to expect from the various categories and sections they see presented there. Option B allows DYK to continue its good work while ITN covers the current conflict. Oppose C per various above. Retswerb (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Retswerb: it's worth noting that ITN typically covers much broader-concept articles than DYK, which runs a lot more human-interest and minutia. They'd never have a way to mention any of the facts in the hooks currently up for discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Theleekycauldron: Noted, and I actually think that puts a finger on what matters to me here. Our writing about the conflict will be linked to via ITN in a general sense, and it's the possible prioritization or platforming of minutia related to the conflict that makes me oppose seeing this content in DYK. Retswerb (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Retswerb: well, i can certainly respect that, even if I have a different opinion of what DYK's role should be. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

33. First choice B, second choice A. We can be neutral and sensible without rubbing people's noses in it. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support A. I think it would be best to try to limit articles related to the conflict to one or two hooks per DYK cycle. Thriley (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support A, per SusunW. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support A If folks want to write about topics, let them. Telling folks they can't get a DYK because of real world events is a surefire way to create a morass of bureaucracy and drive away contributors. Plus, our readers will thank us for writing more about Ukraine or Russia, since they are currently a very popular topic and folks would like to learn more. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support A with carefulness - in effect, can edit without limitation, otherwise we're not really being NOTCENSORED. A de facto limit to one hook on the conflict/queue, as is usually the case for any topic. Additionally, a careful extra glance is worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose C I think we just proceed as usual - which I guess is A. Though I'm not sure I agree that strict neutrality has to be maintained. Even Switzerland hasn't maintained neutrality. It's pretty clear one side is very much in the wrong about invading it's neighbours. Sure, be professional and encyclopaedic. Nfitz (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support A: per SusunW and Vanamonde. DYK hooks should remain, as always, neutrally worded and be well sourced. It is against Wikipedia policy to censor information. Some of the hooks identified above are not even about the conflict...Vladyslav Buialskyi, Oleksandr Oksanchenko, NewsFront (website), and Stsiapan Putsila. TJMSmith (talk) 12:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support A Business as usual is always the best approach to take lest we end up with hysteria like 9/11 and COVID. More scrutiny is probably appropriate lest we end up with another Snake Island/American Bounty in Afghanistan story (the latter, despite being ultimately disproven, was almost run at ITN) or "Ukraine is run by Nazis", or what have you. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support A and please take the hold off these timely articles. We already require that articles and hooks be NPOV. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @HouseOfChange: wish I could, but running a hook requires consensus—usually, that's achieved via consensus of reviewer, promoter, and admin, but since all the hooks are up for discussion, there's no consensus to run the hooks until someone finds that consensus by closing this. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Theleekycauldron: Apologies if I mistakenly sounded as if I was complaining about anything you did--I was not! What I meant was, somebody please follow consensus to snow-close this RfC so that all relevant holds can be removed. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @HouseOfChange: ah, gotcha! definitely agree :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

42. Support A. We should just proceed as usual. SunDawntalk 04:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Ukraine/Russia RfC)

• Comment: not weighing in just yet, but
  Attack on Snake Island (nom) is also affected. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thank you. I added it to the top. SL93 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the above RfC subsections are also missing the option of a simple "Yes" without any caveats at all. There may be editors who believe that any Russia/Ukraine hook can run regardless of the ongoing conflict as long as they meet the DYK criteria. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. SL93 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (With a disclaimer - this is not aimed at SL93 - the quote is a description of the argument made by other people in many areas involving politics) - "The argument is that the English Wikipedia shouldn't appear to be picking a side of an ongoing dispute." And this is an argument that should be rejected absolutely for the reason its apologism and implies there are equal sides to this 'dispute'. Rather than (as reliable sources report) an invasion of one country by another with ongoing issues by one side, targeting of civilian infrastructure, rampant disinformation, mass arrests of civilian dissent etc etc. The alternative is not 'picking a side'. The alternative is covering the invasion in a way that abides by our existing sourcing rules. "Dont pick a side" is the argument we see most often in politics from right-wing and other far-right persons who dont like their constant lying and anti-social actions being called out. *Not* covering this issue only enables the side who wants to hide their actions. The idea that 'equal weight' should be applied is overwhelmingly against our policies, as well as being immoral and unethical. Since Putin likes to claim he is fighting against Nazis, we wouldnt dream of insisting that for every Jewish article we offer a Nazi point of view. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but I had to remain neutral with my initial comments. SL93 (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm confused on where the correct place to vote on this is, but my preference is "Yes, but not directly related to the conflict". We don't post articles on political people/events in the run up to elections, and this seems like a similar case, especially if we're posting about ongoing battles in the conflict. "Yes, but with a Ukraine hook and Russia hook paired in the same set" seems wrong to me, as that seems like we're just trying to artificially "balance things out", and if it's a nomination about a recent battle, which many of these are, then how would that even apply? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thinking we should vote underneath the points added above that was added by Maile66. SL93 (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I noted above in earlier discussions, one possible compromise could be to always pair a Russian hook with a Ukrainian one or vice-versa, with the order even being mixed up depending on the set in order for us not to give the impression that we're pushing one side over the other. I do not have any comment on most of the hooks (except that the hook currently proposed for Russia, which was intended for IWD, is likely not to pass in time) other than I have the feeling that either of the Tolopa hooks, especially ALT1, would be too provocative in the current environment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Theleekycauldron and SL93: Other articles that would be affected by this discussion include Template:Did you know nominations/MV Millennial Spirit and Template:Did you know nominations/Kyiv Offensive (2022). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on RfC format: My understanding is that RfCs generally begin with a brief statement about the subject on which comment is requested, usually phrased as a question. I'm having trouble finding that here. Maybe something like "Should articles related to Ukraine and Russia currently be eligible to appear on the main page through DYK?" with a series of possible responses (yes unequivocally, yes with caveat A, yes with caveat B, no, etc)? If I'm somewhat active on DYK and not sure what I'm supposed to say here, I doubt someone coming via FRS would know where to begin. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on that now. I never started a RFC before, but I was frustrated that no one else has so far after so much discussion. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ezlev: looks like the format's been cleaned up a little bit. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @SL93: This entire subject here at DYK should be emphasized that it is only about DYK's slot on the main page, because "In the news" keep posting updates on the situation. TFL and TFA on the main page that are about improved articles, the appearance of which was requested and approved months ago. ONTHIS DAY slot is about historical events. This issue is only about DYK. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I will do that. I guess I just thought it was obvious because I posted this on the DYK talk page. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's my understanding that DYK RfCs generally run for 30 days; this should be closed much sooner. Two weeks, tops, if a consensus emerges. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: a Large Ping to all previous participants in fractured discussions who have not weighed in here: @

  Mhawk10, and BuySomeApples. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Oops, that should've been Tet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Temporary Protection Directive (which I nominated) is presumably affected, as the hook is about the refugee crisis caused by the conflict, though depending on the result of this discussion I can suggest an alt hook if necessary. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: How long are these restrictions intended to last? Hopefully this war will end soon, but if it is still going on a year from now, will hooks related to Ukraine and Russia still be prohibited? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What if we chose proposal A, with the caveat that the article must have existed before the conflict (defined as 24 February, 2022). This is sort of like proposal E, but is more clearly enforceable and will lead to fewer disagreements. In my opinion, articles about Russian or Ukrainian topics that were notable before the war shouldn’t be unduly restricted, while articles that are notable solely because of the war are more suspect to misinformation, rapidly changing information, and unreliable sourcing.

Regardless, if an article passes the DYK requirements, it is supposed to be neutral and well-sourced, so it shouldn’t seem like Wikipedia is taking a side. If it does, that’s a content issue and not a policy issue. My only other thought regarding this is that if A is implemented, maybe there should be a cap on the number of Russia/Ukraine articles in any given day’s DYK section; what *could* be framed as NPOV is if, hypothetically, 80% of a day’s DYK is about the war. Toadspike (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think restricting it to "articles about Russian or Ukrainian topics that were notable before" is a good compromise regardless of which option you support. In the past few weeks there have been a lot of interesting new articles being created about Ukrainian culture that have nothing to do with the invasion – for example, Kernosovskiy idol – and I don't see any benefit in preventing these from being featured. DanCherek (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it might work better to require that the topic existed before the conflict, even if it didn't have an article yet. That would exclude articles about recent battles, for instance, but would allow

Kernosovskiy idol. Not sure I would support this, but it would probably be better than excluding new articles altogether. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

We should probably make sure no prep area is more than 50% Russia/Ukraine hooks, the same way we avoid having preps that are more than 50% US hooks or more than 50% biographies. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mx. Granger: I'd be surprised if we put more than two in a set, to be honest. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument is that the English Wikipedia shouldn't appear to be picking a side of an ongoing dispute. English Wikipedia should totally pick a side in the brutal war against Ukraine. Just like the overwhelming majority of the free world has already done.
  CapnZapp (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I only realised a RfC was open this morning, here's another potential DYK which is relevant to the discussion. Thanks for all the measured debate going on. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would have preferred to have the refugees "in the news" but they rejected it twice. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The hooks are piling up now—we shouldn't be waiting three more weeks to close this RfC. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I had a reminder set for today to see if there is a consensus. I'll be doing a read through to see if this might be ready to close per

  WP:RFC#Duration which notes that there is no minimum or maximum. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Anna Korsun is on the MP now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as usual

The comment "we should proceed as usual" seems to summarize what many feel. How is this: we pick one hopefully uncontroversial hook to here, ask if there are any opposes, and if not bring it to a prep, then the next? We will not want to drown readers with a flood of hooks when the RfC closes, better only one per set. I suggest this one which I reviewed:

• ... that before Vladyslav Buialskyi sang the Ukrainian anthem with the Metropolitan Opera, he told his mother not to listen to the broadcast due to a power outage in her city of Berdiansk? (nom which has also an alternative) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]