Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Incorrect information

How can this footrace be the longest in the world if it's shorter than a marathon? This looks like incorrect information to me. Gerritholl 10:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I've removed the info, until I can determine the exact definition of the word footrace. Mgm|(talk) 09:17, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've sent out a message to the Bay to breakers website to ask for clarification. Thanks to RaD Man for pointing me into the right direction. Mgm|(talk) 21:23, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


The lead letter of "Balancing the ticket" doesn't need to be capitalized. 13:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lysa Hora

Please change incorrect translation/spelling in the Lisa Hora entry from "bold mountain" to "bald mountain". Also, move the quotation marks to go outside(around) the link. --Aramգուտանգ 13:29, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sealed Crustless Sandwich

Please correct the spelling of "frivolous". Please. LizardWizard 19:58, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sedan nuclear test

"...U.S. nuclear test from the 1962 named Sedan nuclear test..." (emphasis added)
Of course it is named that. That's its name. Please change this to "...the 1962 Sedan nuclear test...".
- Eric Herboso 02:41, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

why was Robert Calder bumped off after only a few hours ?

Why was Robert Calder bumped off after only a few hours on DYK ? Is there a problem with the page ? Is the Lansdowne portrait that good that it has to be featured right away ?

I'm not the one who bumped it, but I do think the substitution was appropriate. The Calder article did get a good 7 hours on DYK, which is fairly decent considering its stubbish length. (It was also submitted back on the 17th.) The Lansdowne portrait article is about twice the size, and more importantly, it includes a reference (see Wikipedia:Cite your sources); this makes it an even better choice for main page exposure. Does that answer your query satisfactorily? -- Hadal 09:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You could have asked me for the reference (it's there now, I just forget to add it). Gdr 14:14, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
:The editing of the Front Page of Wikipedia is monopolised by mighty WikiCops. Their creations have priority. Understand ? Get used to it .....


I'd like to complain about the dominance of Russian topics in today's Did You Know, this is just another example of Russian domination of the wikipedia and I'm tired of it. Just because the servers are located in Vladivostock, Jimboski is Russian and most of the users are Russian it doesn't mean that the wiki should use Russian-English, be swamped with Russian ideology, and focus overly on Russian topics and news stories... :) Rje 03:55, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

"On Wikipedia, there is a giant conspiracy attempting to have articles agree with reality." [1] →Raul654 04:02, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia learns interesting facts about you. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 01:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh, man. That's a riot! Hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. --Hersch 21:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't complain today, just wait until tomorrow and rewrite the history. Michael Z. 2005-03-27 04:39 Z

Anthony T. Rossi fact incorrectly shortened, doesn't make sense

When the Anthony T. Rossi fact was shortened for the Main Page it ended up being a run-on sentence that doesn't make sense -- can someone please fix this? Also, it seems to me the most-interesting part of the submitted DYK fact was cut out, and the least interesting part was left, so I would suggest this:

...that Anthony T. Rossi, who invented a pasteurization process to pack pure chilled orange juice in glass bottles, founded Tropicana Products in Bradenton, Florida?

If making a content change is undesirable, though, this would be good:

...that Anthony T. Rossi, who operated a small grocery store where he began making gift boxes of Florida oranges, invented a pasteurization process to pack pure chilled orange juice in glass bottles?

I have fixed the item I believe. The major point was, from modest beginnings, he founded Tropicana Products! I should have abbreviated it better earlier, and probably because we don't have an article for Tropicana, that major point was lost! Hope I got this right, as my browser has Saturday Night Fever. Could anyone else look and tell if OK space wise and content wise now and post a reply? Thanks. Vaoverland 00:04, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

It looks much better to me, thanks! jhf 05:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I propose we split this talk page

This talk page serves three purposes, making it messy, rather hard to read, and a pain to watch. I propose we split it into three parts:

With appropriate interlinks between the three. Does this seem like a good idea to others? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 01:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's too long. I'm on dial up, and it takes 11 seconds to load. -- Scott e 01:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't even think of dialup, that's another good reason. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 01:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm, pretty sure it'll help if I archive the talk items sooner. But if you have a little more patience, I'll do it tomorrow. I like the idea, but let's see if someone else wants to put in their opinion for a little while longer. Mgm|(talk) 21:44, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've moved everything I could find (including archives) to their new places. Hope you like it. Mgm|(talk) 14:23, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Purge link

It is my understanding that when a page is edited by an administrator, the cache is always purged. If that is the case, and this template is going to stay protected, then the above message is no longer necessary. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 12:49, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

No, admins also have to do this manually and it's easier to purge using the link than it is using the adress bar. Mgm|(talk) 14:45, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it would be nice if the cache was always purged. What's the point of a cache that has outdated data in it? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 03:11, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
Yes, it would be nice if it's done automatically. Feel free to request a feature at Bugzilla. Mgm|(talk) 22:01, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wilfredo Gomez is not new

Wilfredo Gómez was started at 03:22, 7 Sep 2002. Surely, being 2 1/2 years old, it doesn't qualify for DYK? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 14:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Not sure how that happened, it seemed pretty new when I checked it. Maybe I just checked Wilfredo Gomez (hence punctuation on the o). Feel free to contact me personally if I do such a thing ever again. - Mgm|(talk) 09:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Broadfish tapeworm

That article is incorrectly named, I've left notes on the talk page, but don't have time to do the merge now.--nixie 01:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) Monkey

This would have been a perfect article for about 2 weeks ago.... - UtherSRG 16:35, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Distinguished Artists

TVO should disambig to TVOntario:

--Foobar 04:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Length of nominations

I think to ensure everyone's nomination be shown, and yet not go over that three-day freshness limit, is to possibly cut down the spotlight from 24 hours to 18 for the time being, until we flush out the excess nominations. Mike H 22:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, the minimum time items are supposed to be in the spotlight is already 6 hours. I just can't update that often. Mgm|(talk) 09:57, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Run-on sentence

I know it'll get replaced by something else relatively quickly, but could someone edit the Benedict Arnold entry?

that Benedict Arnold was an early American politician, who was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1829 despite being named after Benedict Arnold, who was revealed as a traitor two weeks before he was born?

I can see what it's trying to say, but what it actually suggests at the moment is that Benedict Arnold was plotting treachery in the womb. -- 08:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • It was clear to me. The item did link to two different people. The congressman was named after the traitor. He didn't plan to commit treason in the wonb. Nevertheless, I've changed it to something clearer. (Hopefully) Mgm|(talk) 11:02, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Chrissy Snow

Second time this article appeared on DYK. I guess the archive for old DYK submissions was not updated. Can someone find another article to replace it? -- llywrch 02:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Can't remember it being featured. At least, I'm sure I didn't. Maybe it appeared briefly before being removed for later use? When was it and can you provide some proof? 07:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just created the article so I know it hasn't been featured before. Mike H 08:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I remember it appearing earlier this week for the simple reason I enjoyed reading it the first time I saw it. When I saw it again, I immediately looked thru the archive of older DYK candidates, & didn't see it there. However, a check in the history for DYK doesn't support my recollection; but I'm puzzled at how I saw it before it made the Front Page, especially because I remember it had the honor of being the top item. -- llywrch 15:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One-room schools

I noticed the image wasn't protected, so I protected it. I know we don't want unprotected images on Main Page as the high visibility there makes them a target for vandalism. I also edited the DYK item to add Canada, Australia, and Ireland as places after other users added content to the article itself. I made sure the revised words still fit OK on Main Page, but we are reaching for non-U.S. diversity for this WP feature. I think it is neat to see people editing and adding content (usually) to the DYK articles after reading them. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 12:39, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Cornelius O’Rourke

The "Did You Know" template says:

...that Irish Count Joseph Cornelius O’Rourke fled to Estonia, became a Russian Lieutenant General, and was honored with a statue in Belgrade for his victory over the Ottoman Empire in 1810?

However, O'Rourke didn't himself personally flee to Estonia, his family did about 80 years before he was born. Can someone change it to:

...that Joseph Cornelius O’Rourke, an Irish Count born in Estonia, became a Russian Lieutenant General, and was honored with a statue in Belgrade for his victory over the Ottoman Empire in 1810?

Thanks, Seabhcán 15:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony Lema is not new

Just a note that todays DYK item on Tony Lema refers to an article approximately 1 month old and therefore does not qualify for inclusion. -- Longhair | Talk 19:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Typo in the current template

The current template reads "principals of bird flight" where it should read "principles of bird flight". — Ливай | 23:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Unclear entry: Magnaporthe grisea

The Magnaporthe grisea entry in the current DYK is unclear. It says that the fungus "was prepared as an anti-plant biological weapon during World War II", which makes it sound as though the fungus was engineered or bred, not simply harvested for its spores. -FunnyMan 06:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed change to process

According to the current process for updating Template:Did you know, as described at Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide, we are supposed to archive "did you know" entries (in the "Archive" section of Template talk:Did you know) before putting them on Template:Did you know. This means that the archived entries don't get the benefits of the improvements made to the entries while they are on the Main Page.

I would like to propose that entries by archived after they have been removed from Template:Did you know, so that we archive the improved versions. Any objections? Gdr 18:31, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think it would be better to archive both before and after an entry has appeared on the Main Page. Before, so that we don't miss any; after, so that we get the improvements. This is a bit tough on editors doing it by hand, though. Gdr 16:34, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • People often forget to archive afterwards, and it's IMO better to miss improvements rather than complete facts. Archiving both before and after is better, I think. - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Please, respect Wikipedia's official policy Naming conventions. The article's name should be "Infectious salmon anemia" instead of "Infectious Salmon Anemia" and "Spinifex people" instead of "Spinifex People". --Eleassar777 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

DYK Bot and stubs

I've noticed several stubs make it trough onto DYK, can the bot be made to check for stubs? Or should an editor systematically exculde stubs (many tagged as stubs probably aren't technically stubs which also complicates the issue)--nixie 06:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Which articles are you referring to? Articles like Stephanie Beacham are not really stubs, just short articles. (Bigleaf hydrangea seems to be a genuine stub, but I didn't add it.) I could add a step to the DYK procedure whereby bogus stub templates are removed, but is it really worth it? Gdr 09:07, 2005 May 23 (UTC)


I updated Template:UpdatedDYK to follow the standard for talk page templates agreed at Wikipedia:Template standardisation. It now looks like this:

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article {{{1}}}, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Gdr 15:42, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Chinese BASIC?

What's with the entry about Chinese BASIC? It's pointlss. What else would BASIC in Chinese be called, "Russian BASIC"?!?! That's just a stupid "Did you know."Superm01

If you want better DYKs, you have to suggest them! They don't appear by magic… Gdr 13:38, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Jack Jack Attack

Was made in April. --nixie 01:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was a redirect to The Incredibles until 2005-06-03. Gdr 10:03, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)


Is there any reason that DYK has not been updated for more than a day? — anon 14:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • There are only three suitable suggestions at the moment, not enough for an update. Perhaps you could suggest some more at Template talk:Did you know? Gdr 15:44, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)


Moved here from Template talk:Did you know.

...that after Peter the Great's reform of Russian military, the recruits, mostly drawn from the enserfed peasantry, and their children born after the recruitment were liberated from the serf status with the boys from the age of 7 mostly being sent to specially created Garrison schools? (Image:Peter_der-Grosse_1838.jpg) --Irpen 17:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • This DYK is a bit long. Can you edit it down a bit? (I tried doing this myself, but you didn't like the result.) And why the italics? Gdr 08:54, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Of course it is your call whether it is acceptable. I tried to make it shorter and maybe it can be done better. However, original editing down made some importnant info lost.
Edited down version:
... that after Peter the Great of Russia liberated the military from serfdom, their children were also liberated and at the age of seven sent to specially created Garrison schools?
Partially restored version:
... that after Peter the Great's reform of Russian military, the recruits, mostly drawn from the enserfed peasantry, and their children born after the recruitment were liberated from the serf status with the boys from the age of 7 mostly being sent to specially created Garrison schools?

I restored some text because Peter didn't "liberate the whole military". Many there were not serfs at the first place. What he did, was making a law providing that those serfs that were recruited were liberated upon recruitment. As for the children, it is important that liberation didn't apply to all children but only to those born after recruitment. It is very peculiar, hence italics. Children born from a serf remained serfs. Children born from a person released from the serfdom (that is after the recruitment) were not enserfed. I just created the article about the Garrison schools provided for those children and this trivia became qualifyed for DYK. I found this little known fact in Britannica and the full quote says: "The army—and, for the first time in Russia, the navy as well—was manned by recruits drawn from the peasantry (and other taxable groups) whose service obligation was for 25 years (i.e., virtually for life). Recruitment entailed liberation from serf status both for the soldier and for all his children born after his recruitment. Eventually this provided a path, however steep and narrow, for lower-class children to follow to join the ranks of petty officialdom and nobility." If you can edit this down to preserve the info, I would be pleased. If it cannot be done, that's fine. The Garrison school article is there and with some time it will hopefully get improved anyway. -Irpen 16:51, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is inevitably a compromise between succintness and complete accuracy when turning a complicated article into a short and interesting teaser. It's my opinion that it's OK for caveats and concerns to be elided: the article is there for people who need the full story. (But I would appreciate comments if there are people who disagree.) Gdr 18:04, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Is new material added to old articles suitable?

In this exchange from Template talk:Did you know, anonymous user suggests that new material added to old articles may be suitable for DYK

...that in 1992 a lost Assyrian frieze was rediscovered on the wall of the sweet shop at Canford School in England? (Image:Canford Assyrian frieze.jpg)

  • Not suitable for DYK: created on 2005-04-08. Gdr 11:54, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
    • Main article (basic school details) was created then. Assyrian frieze information has only just been added.
      • Noted. You can see the rules at Wikipedia:Did you know and you can propose changes at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Gdr 13:21, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
        • No skin off my nose - just felt it was interesting, newly added information and therefore appropriate. Guess it depends on whether you view those rules as flexible guidelines or inflexible restrictions. I thought we were meant to be bold here?

I'm away

I won't be updating DYK for some time. So someone else will have to do it! The programs I use are available via User:Gdr/DYKbot if anyone wants to use them (they aren't particularly robust, so use with care). Gdr 22:27, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

  • My guess is, that like AllyUnion's bot it probably needs an upgrade because of Wikimedia 1.5. I've recommenced updating manually. - Mgm|(talk) July 4, 2005 12:43 (UTC)

Factual error in Did you know template entry!

In the most recent entry of the section, we state that "the bite of the hematophagous assassin bug, which causes the rare South American parasitic infection known as Chagas disease (...)" (my bolding). That is incorrect. As the Chagas disease article shows, the disease occurs in all of the three American subcontinets (South, Central and North America — the latter being represented by incidence of the disease in Mexico and, more rarely, in southern parts of the US). As the article states, the disease "occurs in the Americas", therefore, should be listed as an "American disease", instead of "South American disease", as it now states. That ought to be corrected... Regards, Redux 22:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, never mind. It's already been replaced anyways... Regards, Redux 13:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Antonio Martorell

I see the statement about Antonio Martorell on the DYK template has been removed from the article because it had no source (it said that he narrowly avoided boarding one of the trains bombed in London). Unless it's restored to the article it seems like a good idea to either use a different fact or remove the link from DYK. Andy Smith (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposing extension to pages up to 7 days old

Given a number of concurrent issues and some suggestions around, I think it would be best to extend the limit of 3 days/72 hours to 7 days/168 hours. One major issue is the decision to put featured articles on the main page on the weekends, which puts articles nominated for DYK late in the week in a difficult, well actually impossible situation. Another problem is issues with article quality, which could be helped by having a greater selection of articles available from which to choose for each DYK update, giving creators more time to perfect their work, and importantly allowing articles which have been nominated to improve through their prolonged publicity on the suggestions page. Remember, the average reader is not unimpressed by a good encyclopedia article because it's stale at a week old :) Responses?--Pharos 05:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  • After 7 days you can hardly call it a new article, but I guess we can stretch it to 5 days to counteract the two picture days in the weekend. - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Certainly it's still a "new" article after 7 days, but for practical reasons I like five days better. -- Scott e 21:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree entirely, and I'd personally be perfectly happy calling a seven day old article new. That said, I'm not sure how much articles will get improved by this method - in practice DYK articles get improved much more when they're on the main page than they did in several days on the queue. I do think 7 days will improve the pool of articles, so that makes it a worthwhile change. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 09:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, at least there's agreement now for at least 5 days. That can be used for the next update.--Pharos 20:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Extending the timeframe is a good idea - it gives us more of a buffer if the flow runs dry briefly. It also means we can have more flexibility in when to put articles up, if an out-of-sequence one will nicely complement something else on the main page, without as much need to make sure they don't "expire". Shimgray 01:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • 5 days doesn't sound bad, 7 is a bit too long.--nixie 02:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • 5 days sounds good -- Solipsist 15:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Candidate tools

Although in principle extending the acceptance window for new articles is a good thing in terms of having more leeway to select interesting articles, I suspect it also introduces problems on identifying articles to select.

Back in the mists of time (around last December) the cutoff was 24hrs, and I suspect the DYK selection process was something along the lines of: someone took a look at Special:Newpages for the last 24hrs, picked half a dozen that had the largest byte count and selected the three articles that weren't text dumps or bulked out with a list.

However, now that Newpages extends to over 1000 articles in 24hours, and the DYK acceptance window gets wider, that approach isn't practical. As a result more reliance has to be placed on the list of suggestions. The downside there is that it looks like most of the suggestions are self-nominations. That means the DYK may not be doing all that it could to encourage new editors; you have to be reasonably experienced and quite bold to realise that you should be making self-nominations here.

What might help would be some tools to help filter Special:Newpages and highlight potentially interesting articles within the 72hr window. -- Solipsist 15:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Quite an impressive display of our admins' intelligence - they managed to spell "principal" wrong while also making it a run-on, eh? 01:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, give me a break... I just copied and pasted the suggested wording quickly because the DYK up was three days old.--Pharos 01:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


Someone please correct this typo. The fact that a redirect exists doesn't make it any better. RodC 04:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol

It's like Recent Changes Patrol but more uplifting; instead of vandalism by megalomaniacal miscreants we'll be looking for wondrous contributions by newbies and more experienced but modest Wikipedians. Starting today, we can just split split the 24-hour UTC day into six lovely bite-sized 4-hour chunks. When you're done looking through a time block, just write "Done" next to it and put your sig.--Pharos 08:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • August 2
    • 0-4
    • 4-8
    • 8-12
    • 12-16
    • 16-20
    • 20-24

Ignored articles

I'm wondering why some recently suggested DYK articles were ignored without comment. I've been through this process several times (in fact I have an article on today's DYK). These articles were submitted the day they were written and then passed over for several days. Today, they were 5 days old and removed. Who decides this? What criteria are used? Where is the discussion? These were the items...

1 August

According to The Rules... DYK is NOT a general trivia section.

these items were definitely not trivia.

This section is only for items that have been listed on "NEW PAGES" within the last 72 hours. [edit]

They were posted less than 36 hours after being written.

Selections Look for articles that are +1,000 characters in size. NO STUBS.

They were detailed and longer than average DYK entries with photos.

Try to pick articles that are a.) ORIGINAL to Wikipedia (not 1911 or other data sources) and b.) interesting.

They were original to Wikipedia. I thought the article about the two boys ranked as one of the most interesting things I had ever read on Wikipedia."

The "Did you know?" fact MUST be mentioned in the article.

They were mentioned

Try to avoid country-centrism and topic-centrism. Wikipedia is a general-interest encyclopedia with a global audience. No DYK installment should have more than two entries relating to one country, topic, or issue

Iran and Egypt are not often mentioned.

The articles are not about pleasant subjects. The inhumane execution of two teenagers. likely because they had engaged in gay sex, turns my stomache. But is partly for this upleasant reason that I think people SHOULD know that these things happen in the world. Please explain what happened and why these items were passed over. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 06:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the delay in response; I just saw your notice on Template talk:Did you know. Anyway, the DYK are normally just chosen by whatever administrator is around to choose them when they need updating. There's a 'guideline' page here. There is almost never any discussion, unless someone thinks that an added item is inappropriate. I can't speak as to why these particular items weren't chosen as I did not update DYK during that period, and I don't think I should second-guess the admins who did. I will say that the updating system is a little irregular, and it might be improved if we just edited things directly on the Wikipedia:Today's second feature daily pages. This would make the process more collaborative and less idiosyncratic; it would also mean updating exactly once every 24 hours, when now it is sometimes updated at shorter intervals. Having a somewhat longer period between updates should increase the average quality of DYK items.--Pharos 19:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with Pharos that there is no real way to choose DYKs. I just updated the DYK for the first time, and I chose articles/facts that were interesting and varied (for example, one history, one nature/science, one political, and one biographical, though you could argue some of the DYK overlap). There is no way that we can fit all the suggested DYKs in the main page; I recommend that you keep trying and chipping in interesting facts. Thanks for all your work! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
P.S. As for your facts, I suspect many admins have reservations about putting controversial topics on the main page; it might cause people to infer that we support such causes. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Controversy is different from information. I did not write either article, but I thought they were written in a NPOV way and presented the facts of the events. If there was policy that said that DYK should not address any topics related to current events, I would understand not choosing the topic. I don't agree with such a policy, and none currently exists. What I think happened is that either the editors fear of controversy or personal prejudices came into play. Both of these are destructive to an encyclopedia that strives to be a repository of objective information. This is akin to avoiding writing about evolution because it is a "controversial" subject.
Of my 6 other suggestions for DYK, 5 were accepted and used, and one (my first submission) was not. The editor who rejected it, did so with a comment as to why it was being rejected. This allows for a dialogue. With these two submissions, both were rejected without comment. The irony for me is that the Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni article has prompted me, more than any previous Wikipedia article to say in my day to day conversation "Did you know that..."
Might I suggest that some discussion go into how items might be chosen? One possibility is to have a list of criteria for what makes a good item. Anyone, using the criteria could choose to rate a submission by adding a comment. Selection could be made by editors choosing the submissions based on the comments. Potential controversies could be discussed and resolved instead of avoided. -- Samuel Wantman 23:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)