Template:Did you know nominations/Symbolic ethnicity

The following discussion 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Symbolic ethnicity

(

)

... that the celebration of the Saint Patrick's Day in the United States (pictured) by Irish Americans is ~~highly~~ symbolic?

Reviewed: Belgian Government in Exile

Moved to mainspace by Yerevanci (talk). Self nominated at 19:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC).

Article length and date fine. Hook and reference for it are direct and correct. Have questioned on talk page a few other things that I think would better addressed b4 posting on Main Page.Djflem (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Created Decemeber 1 2012; no significant expansion.(btw, find it hard to believe Yerevanci unaware of DYK conditions and would self-nominate this unknowingly) Djflem (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was moved to the mainspace on July 14, 2013. I an very well aware of the DYK requirements. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

With regard to:

User:Yerevanci/Symbolic ethnicity: Revision history [1] and:User:Yerevanci/Symbolic ethnicity [2]

can you explain how very well aware of the DYK requirements you are? Djflem (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be new here. That's the way I work on most of my article. Look here. Look at the Eligibility criteria.

d) Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage or at articles for creation and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace.

You see now? --Երևանցի ^talk 21:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really quite sure what the above explanation has to do with what do did, namely publish an article in the mainspace on December 1, 2012 and bring it to DYK on July 14, 2013? How does creating a userpage as redirect for a already published article make it a new article? How many DYK self-nominations have you previously made in this manner? Djflem (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The page clearly states it. What's the problem here? I've been doing this for months and almost all of my DYK were done in this manner. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

For months you've been taking articles that are six months old, creating a Userpage with their title and redirecting to that article, and ignoring the 5-day new article criteria, to make a self-nom at DYK? How did you manage that? Djflem (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We just went through this on another nomination. It's easier to refer to This Discussion. DYK Check on this article clearly says, "Article moved from User:Yerevanci/Symbolic ethnicity on July 14, 2013". That makes it a new article as of July 14, 2013. As DYKFN#F3 says, ""Five days old" means five days old in article space. You may write your article on a user subpage and perfect it for months. The five days start when you move it into article space. Such moves are often overlooked when enforcing the five day rule..." This article qualifies as a brand new article as of the date it was moved to article space, July 14, 2013. If you are still confused about this, I suggest the discussion continue on the DYK Talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The diff you're looking for is here. Before that point, this article was in userspace (and thus the clock had not started ticking yet). Age is fine, though the other comments need to be taken care of before this can reach the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion. Clearly an off-day, just wasn't seeing it. Djflem (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs a new review. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Long enough and well sourced. Looks good to me. Alex Shih ^Talk 19:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I pulled this from the prep area. The hook fact isn't in the source. The source indicates that Saint Patrick's Day commemorations are an example of symbolic ethnicity, but nothing in the source says the celebration is "highly symbolic". --Orlady (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If the word "highly" is that problematic for you, simply remove it. Check out the two new hooks.

ALT1 ~~... that the celebration of the Saint Patrick's Day in the United States (pictured) by Irish Americans is symbolic?~~
ALT2 ~~... that the term symbolic ethnicity only applies to White Americans?~~
- I approve the same hook, without "highly". SL93 (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

- Pulling from queue once again. The source still doesn't say what the article indicates it says. --Orlady (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  - "An example of symbolic ethnicity is individuals who identify as Irish, for example, on occasions such as Saint Patrick's Day..." What does this mean? --Երևանցի ^talk 20:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    - This is very interesting. SL93 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      - As I read the source, it says that the phenomenon of some people identifying as Irish on St. Patrick's Day, but not generally treating their Irish ethnicity as an important aspect of their lives, is an example of symbolic ethnicity. It does not say that the celebration of St. Patrick's Day is "symbolic" nor that the celebration is "symbolic ethnicity". --Orlady (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
        Alright, but you never mentioned it, and I will not accept any type of blame. I'm not saying that you are blaming me, but I will not accept any blame from anyone. SL93 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm being blamed by Orlady. I do blame Orlady for not mentioning all of the issues, leading me to believe that it could be considered an actual review. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

SL93, as I told you on my talk page, I pulled the hook from the prep area after identifying a non-trivial problem with the hook. If my only concern with the hook had been with the word "highly", I would have simply removed that one word from the article and hook. My comments in no way suggested that I had done a thorough review of the article and its sources, and I most definitely did not so much as hint that I had personally determined that everything except the hook wording was fine. The person who OKs a nom is assumed to be attesting to their own evaluation of the adequacy of that nom. You approved it, not me. --Orlady (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, you did. "The source indicates that Saint Patrick's Day commemorations are an example of symbolic ethnicity, but nothing in the source says the celebration is "highly symbolic". This is saying what the hook says. I approved it, but I shouldn't have to do a review on top of what I considered to be a review, so I took care of what I thought was the only issue based on your comments. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@Orlady, the source clearly says "an example of symbolic ethnicity is individuals who identify as Irish, for example, on occasions such as Saint Patrick's Day". I still don't understand the problem here, but whatever, take another look at the article. I added more sources to prove that statement. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

She said the wrong issue, as she told me on her talk page. Her comment was based on her not reading the source thoroughly, while now making statements about everyone else not reading it thoroughly. SL93 (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic, but I find that the article (which I have not so much as pretended to have thoroughly reviewed before now) lacks sufficient original prose content to qualify for DYK in its present form. It consists largely of direct quotations from sources. Moreover, some of the quotations are presented out of context, so the meaning is distorted. The above quotation about St. Patrick's Day is part of a longer quotation given in the article. From the article, it is clear that it is only part of one sentence and does not even convey the entire thought in that sentence (much less the meaning of the associated sentences, not all of which are copied into the article). --Orlady (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- I do agree about the sheesh comment, but if I am always supposed to do a second review on top of another, we should both take the blame. Incorrect statements about sources in a review or even a comment is not a small issue. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  - Do not assume that the comments made when a hook is pulled out of a queue represent anything other than a rejection of the prior approval. Do not assume that they indicate approval of anything. They don't. --Orlady (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    - Fine, do not say incorrect statements after not thoroughly reading the source. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      - Don't blame other people for your actions. As I said on my talk page, if I had intended to suggest rewording of the hook, don't you think I would have done so? My comment identified a problem, not a solution. --Orlady (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
      - I admitted that you were correct and it has nothing to do with rewording the hook. It has everything to do with saying incorrect statements about a source, in a review or a comment. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
        With all the DYK participants who have approved this nom and moved it to the queue, how is it that I seem to be the only one around here who noticed the basic deficiencies in this article? Articles should not be so heavy on quotations and so light on prose. And reviewers are supposed to look at the sources, not rely on comments made by others -- particularly not comments made on the fly while rejecting a hook. --Orlady (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
        Ignoring all of that, it is still wrong to make incorrect statements about a source, whether it was meant or not. Why are you so focused on just this nomination? This is a general comment. Also, I already said that you are correct. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
        Regarding my alleged "focus on just this nomination", perhaps some history will help you understand what happened here. When I first removed this nomination from the prep area, I had just approved and moved another set of hooks to the queue and I was engaged in cleaning up the queue page and trying to figure out what was going on with the prep areas, which were being filled out of sequence. I reviewed the hooks in the prep areas (something administrators should do before promoting them to the queue) in hopes of promoting another set of hooks to the queue. I identified this hook as problematic -- first because I wondered what was so "symbolic" about the image of the guys with the fake green beard and green hats, and then because I found that the source didn't support the idea that the celebration of St. Patrick's Day was symbolic. So I pulled the hook -- and I gave up hoping to promote another prep area to the queue (instead, I went to bed).

The second time I pulled it was because I saw (on my watchlist) that it had been promoted again. I was curious to see how the issues had been resolved. When I saw that nothing had changed other than the removal of the word "highly", I looked at the article and source once again to see how they supported the hook. The rest of the story is already documented here.

A bit of advice: Once a DYK volunteer has removed a hook from the prep areas or queue, it's reasonable to expect that there will be some extra attention to the subsequent fate of that nomination because the removal places that nom on at least one more person's radar screen. --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought that this discussion was over. So I will just say, Ok. SL93 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)