Template:Did you know nominations/Trump Street

Trump Street

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• *... that Trump is directly connected to Russia? Source: Any London Street map, or Google Maps, also mentioned here

• Comment: The hook plays on the tendency in US English to drop the "street" qualifiers (cf: Haight-Ashbury) to be grammatically correct.

Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk) at 14:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC).

• Brilliant hook, which meets the length requirement. Accepting subscription-based source on good faith. ceranthor 16:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• I tried to think of something like ... that Trump's path to King runs through Russia, but I couldn't make it work and anyway there's no way to top the original hook. I bow down to its author. When it appears, beware of fools looking for excuses to pull it. EEng 18:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• I remember an Arbcom case that resulted from a “joke” about Trump. I would ask the nominator to rethink this. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wow! That was fast! EEng 19:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• "In authoritarian countries, creators of artworks may remove material that their government might find controversial". Is that what we've been reduced to? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• For the faint of heart, or those thinking of ArbCom, or whatever, I'll offer:

• ALT 1 ... that Trump Street is directly connected to Russia Row?

It's still funny this way, and all I did was un-pipe the links. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• That's about 20% as funny. Who asked you, anyway? EEng 00:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, it's 30%. And for those who don't know, EEng and I often joke with one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was just rushing back to add . EEng 00:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wait! I've got it!

• ALT2 ... that Trump runs away from Russia but is directly connected to it?

With any luck we'll get our own tweet: "Failing Wikipedia, with its fake news..." Not a big problem, but some of the stuff at the end is sourced to non-RS websites and probably needs to go. Ritchie333, have you a preference? If so I suggest you strike the other two, and if your choice isn't ALT0 ping the reviewer for a new tick. EEng 20:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Go with ALT2, I think Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Before we ping the reviewer back, can Philafrenzy modify the Digimap ref to spell out a specific map that gives the hook information (adjacency of other two streets, direction of travel)? There must be a map number or something that can be added to the cite. EEng 21:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• ALT 3 ... that Trump Street leads one way to Russia Row? (It's a one-way street in that direction since around 2000 as confirmed by modern maps and Google street view. Used to run in the opposite direction.) Philafrenzy (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• ALT 4 ... that Trump Street leads directly to Russia Row? Philafrenzy (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Both are the same level of humor-adjacent (i.e. not actually humorous) as ALT1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Possibly but I am not sure we should be truncating it just to "Trump" and "Russia". We are supposed to be politically neutral. Given in full it is a valid standard hook that allows the reader to have their own "Aha" moment. Certainly Russia Row should be in full in any case. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• There's nothing non-neutral about intriguing our readers using an opportunity that happens to present itself. If Uranium Street had run from Clinton Street to Russia Row, we'd be just as quick to offer ...that Uranium is Clinton's connection to Russia? Jesus, a joke's a joke. EEng 02:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• We are not in the business of making jokes EE because humour doesn't travel well and isn't always understood. At best we use a slightly amusing or curious way of putting things in a hook. We are humourless and dull, at least here, that's our strength and what readers want. If you want humour go to a comedy club. We certainly don't write hooks that wouldn't look out of place sprayed on a wall. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• We should not be basing this upon OR, especially as the connection is controversial. Here's some sources which explore the matter and which we might use to support the hook:

1. Richard Jones (2018), Trump Street and Russia Row – the story that keeps on giving!, London Walking Tours
2. Liam Pape (8 November 2017), "The Story Behind Trump Street and Russia Row", The Print
3. Scott Campbell (8 November 2016), "London has a Trump Street leading on to Russia Row and people who work there say it's "embarrassing"", Daily Mirror
4. What's the story behind Trump Street?, 15 November 2016
5. "Russia Row - Ryole", A Dictionary of London, H Jenkins, 1918

Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• What OR? There are multiple RSs that show a one-way street running from Trump Street to Russia Row. There is nothing controversial about that statement of fact. Most of those you have suggested are not RS Andrew. The difficulty is in the exact wording which if turned into a political slogan "Trump leads to Russia" then becomes non-neutral. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Currently, the connection with Russia Row is supported in the article by a fourteen year old street atlas. That's not adequate because the street layout can change. The sources listed above show that the connection still exists today and that people have noticed the amusing correlation with the US president. As people may want to pull the hook, we should ensure that there are no technical weaknesses. American politics is a battleground and so you can't be too careful. Andrew D. (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed (see my other comments here) but any modern street atlas will confirm the street layout, that's hardly controversial or difficult to cite. The one-way nature of the street is also confirmed in more recent street atlases and by Google Street view. I don't think the basic facts are the problem here. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• ALT 5 ... that Trump Street in London was probably named after the trumpet-makers who worked there in the Middle Ages? (A non-controversial Alt for the sake of completeness) Philafrenzy (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• That would be a tremendous hook! Better than any hook the world has ever known! And I know the best hookers, let me tell you! EEng 10:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly, I am sure I can make it even duller if I try. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Tooting your own horn. EEng 10:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• ...On the Bec and Broadway, presumably. FWIW, support the original hook as a return to the spirit of DYK. 10:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) -Jack Frost (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• ceranthor, can you re-tick for ALT0 and ALT2? EEng 14:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• ALT0 and ALT2. ceranthor 15:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Lodging a vote here against running this hook. Wikipedia isn't in the business of making political jokes, no matter how funny they seem. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• The purpose of a hook is to "hook" the reader, and to do that we run amusing hooks all the time, political or not. If you want we can hold this for April 1. EEng 19:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes I realize this of course, but the way it would show up on the main page would make it very misleading at best, and a BLP violation at worst. My 2c: ALT0 is very ambiguous and I'd avoid it in order not to cause unnecessary trouble, but the wording of ALT2 makes it clear that it's a joke and I don't think it's a bad idea. HaEr48 (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's factually incorrect. The street is one way from Trump Street to Russia Row. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, it's only fair to point out that when I wrote the hook, the article said The street runs one-way, west to east, from Russia Row to King Street; you changed it to say from King Street to Russia Row. Are you sure? This Google street view [1] from the intersection of Trump St. and Lawrence Ln. shows a Do Not Enter sign barring entry to the block of Trump leading to Russia Row i.e. traffic moves toward us from Russia Row. If you turn around, you'll see that the other block of Trump, from Lawrence to King, is two-way. This is also shown by the arrows (on one block) and lack of arrows (on the other) in this Google map [2]. I believe we're entitled to use a map as a source. EEng 19:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, good point, it looks like the arrows on my maps (2003 and 2007) may be wrong or it has since changed. Russia Row is one way to Trump Street for vehicles but two way for cycles. Trump Street is two way as far as Lawrence Lane and one way (east) at its western end. Not sure how to express all that in the article, it seems like a lot of detail, so I have changed it for the time being to "The street runs between Russia Row and King Street" pending the outcome of this discussion. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest you just leave it as you've got it now -- too complicated to explain all the details. I'll just strike ALT2. Now let me ping the nominator, Ritchie333, back to ask if he'd like to make this an April 1 nom. Ritchie, you agree just move it from Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved to Wikipedia:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Did_You_Know. EEng 20:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• You can do that if you want, I'm afraid the wall of text has made me want to go and improve some other article.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know if the hook will set a record for click-throughs, but Ritchie333 has a point that the discussion may be setting a record for verbiage. I'm OK with keeping it humorous if it is to run on April 1. But (and don't anyone accuse me of being a Trump apologist here!) I think Mr Ernie has a valid point. If we run it any day other than April 1, we should consider that the joke is not just something lighthearted and innocuous. It presupposes the outcome of the Mueller inquiry, and implies something that might actually be a very serious crime. I support running the hook before April, but I have low enthusiasm for Easter egg piped links. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Anyone interested in taking the nominator role for this? Otherwise, I guess we should consider this nomination dead because Ritchie333 said he's moved on? HaEr48 (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• May I point out that ALT 5 ... that Trump Street in London, was probably named after the trumpet-makers who worked there in the Middle Ages? is still there and non-controversial. Pity to waste the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• It doesn't have to be dead at all, just a matter of consensus on which hook. And I really see no problem with using one of the "Russia" versions, so long as we don't pipe the links to an Easter egg. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can't tell if that means A0 is ok. A0 is the one approved hook we have. EEng 21:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• What about ALT 1 which is the same but unpiped. The point is that it is connected to Russia Row, i.e. a row or argument about Russia. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I proposed it, so of course I like it, but I do think that it would be a good way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Seems a waste not to pun on Row, and it's less slogan-like. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, Pf, do you think you elaborate the article to bring A2 back, and if so would everyone be OK with it? It's piped like A0 but sufficiently playful that I don't think anyone can mistake it for an assertion of fact even without following the links. I appreciate the Row idea, but it would be a lot better if we could somehow get it rephrased to Trump is directly connected to the Russia Row -- a lot of Russians I know are always inserting the where it doesn't belong. I just can't figure out how to do it. It's too bad we don't have a Donald Street or something, so we could have the Donald is connected to the Russia row. EEng 22:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• For the reasons I've already explained, I cannot support a piped version such as ALT 2, unless we wait until April 1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Then we're all set, because I moved this to the 4/1 nom area long ago. So if you swing A2 in the article I think that would be smashing, otherwise we can settle for A0. Did we agree we could use Gmaps to source the direction of flow? If so, I'll write it up in the article if you like. EEng 23:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• You already moved it? Why didn't you say so! But anyway, ALT 2 is fine with me now. See you in April! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Alt 1 3 and 4 are ok, but Alt0 and Alt2 are not. It is ok to be interesting and draw people in, but not to be misleading. To somebody who doesn't go to the linked articles after reading the hook, Alt0 and ALt2 are both misleading and potentially libelous. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Alt1 only. Per discussion at WT:DYK, ALT0 and ALT2 risk BLP violations. But it should be fine based on newness, length, neutrality, and citation of this fact within the article (accepting source in good faith). ceranthor 20:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• Alt1 is still not in line with neutrality. Please do not use this hook in any form, until after the results of the investigation are available. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• What? The hook is neutral, it's a fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• @Mr Ernie: (edit conflict) Yes it is. See this citation: Noack, Rick (2017-01-19). "Most Europeans predict a rocky future for the U.S. and Europe, a new study says". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-01-31. After Donald Trump was elected president in November, British academics, politicians and entrepreneurs pointed out what they considered a rather fitting coincidence: The capital's Trump Street, a small street in London's financial district, feeds directly into a one-way road named Russia Row., as a AE admin who is extremely familiar with this area, I can state with high certainty that such a hook is merely factual yet still very interesting. I also accept ALT1 (only). The rest of you are reminded that WP:AC/DS apply to all pages related to AP2, which includes the template space. You have all already been alerted to this within the past year. Please take our Arbitration rulings a bit more serious please. Crack some jokes on a hot beverage if you'd prefer, but let's try and keep the humor away from already severely controversial topics. Thank you. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the responses. Ok, taken literally this hook is neutral. But I do not believe that the intended joke is, and at the very least, this hook will be needlessly disruptive. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Another alternative: "DYK investigators finally mapped out Trump/Russia intersection?" --DHeyward (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I agree with EEng that it's criminal to neuter such a brilliant hook, with Mr Eppstein that we shouldn't be our own thought police, and with Coffee that we have a special responsibility not to mislead here, given the polarized political situation. This isn't a BLP issue at all, though; it's an article about a street.
  
  What's wrong with Tryptofish's compromise that we run this on and only on April 1, when the reader will be doubly responsible for any conclusion jumping they make if they don't Read The Whole Thing? Any Twitter outrage on Mr Trump's end would just provoke mockery (It's about two streets, not him) and free publicity; and there are months and months to let the Wikipedia Foundation people know this is here and think about if there are any actual implications as far as petty grant disapprovals and the like. We shouldn't be the ones saying that something so obviously factually correct (and objectively and provably amusing to many) is out of line, so long as we're making it clear that our tongues are in our cheek. — LlywelynII 04:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)