The following 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: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Overall: A pair of well-sourced and interesting articles. AGF on the citations via ProQuest. Earwig detects a possible copyright violation for the arrest article, but this appears to be because of the extensive quotes included therein. The general thrust of the ALT is very appealing, but needs a little tweaking. Seeing West's image, his name mentioned first, and especial mention of his race (although it appeared not to be relevant to the arrest) led me to briefly misperceive this DYK nom being about him. If the syntax were reordered—say by first mentioning the arrest, then the officer involved, and finally Grant's tacit refusal to invoke presidential immunity—that would make the subjects of this DYK nom clearer to a reader. I would also suggest replacing the image used here with one of Grant; in this case, it's the arrestee and his office that make this incident notable and relevant. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
In case it's not obvious, the central claim of this article is in considerable question (Talk:Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant) and this can't run until that's well resolved. Also, why does the hook go to pains to point out that West was black? EEng 03:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I feel like it should go without saying why a Black man arresting the sitting president in 1872 is notable... Sources commenting on the event basically always emphasize this detail. That said, I've removed the detail from ALT1 for reasons of flow.And no, the central claim is not "in considerable question", at least not in any way relevant to how we write encyclopedia articles. You and one other editor don't think the arrest happened, which is a view that you're perfectly entitled to, and which may even be correct, but it's not one consistent with any reliable sources' analysis, including multiple high-quality sources that have examined the historicity of the event. No one seems to have been persuaded by your argument, and even if people were, a local consensus could not override the global consensus that we don't use articles to publish editors' personal theories, so I'm not sure what is left to resolve here. The article already notes, at length, the uncertainty regarding many details, but the hook focuses only on ones that, again, no reliable sources dispute. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Although I still strongly prefer ALT0, as I think it tells a more interesting story. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Actually, there are at least four five editors (me, at least two IPs, Oooooooseven, and Cullen328 -- who I'm pinging here so he can help me gang up on you further) who have expressed skepticism about this story, and against that there's you and 4meters4. No one's suggesting we publish anyone's personal theories; the question is whether we should present this story as fact narrated in Wikivoice, rather than as a tale which has been circulating recently. While it's clear the article should exist (either in the former or latter form), and I'm uncertain of how to thread that needle, there's no way in hell that DYK is going to feature on the Main Page this obviously questionable "fact" until that issue's resolved.And no, it does not "go without saying" that we should point out in a strained way that West was black. Were black policemen unusual in Washington at the time? Were black policemen less likely to do their duty, so it's nice to point out one who did? What exactly is the point of including this fact? EEng 07:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Those jokes about West's race are in exceptionally poor taste and I would urge you to rethink them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
They're not jokes. I'm honestly trying to imagine why in the world your first impulse is to reduce this man to his skin color. Christ, you don't even mention he was a policeman. EEng 14:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The only known contemporaneous coverage of anything like this event was published in the The Alexandria Gazette on April 12, 1866 and in the Camden Weekly Journal on April 20, 1866, roughly three years before Grant became president. These reports are not mentioned or referenced in this deeply flawed article, although they are discussed on its talk page. In my view, this article needs a major rewrite based on good editorial judgment, setting aside credulity. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Cullen328: EEng has been pushing a narrative here that this article is built only on clickbait and credulous coverage. This is, quite simply, false, and it has been explained to him multiple times now, but for a week he has persisted in repeating the same speculative arguments. To be clear, several cited sources do mention the 1866 arrest; they treat it as separate. As to "good editorial judgment":
Rosenwald in The Washington Post acknowledges issues with West's narrative but finds the MPD's statements about an arrest to be dispositive.
Solly in Smithsonian explicitly endorses Rosenwald's conclusion.
Rashbaum & Christobek in The New York Times acknowledge the lack of contemporaneous sources but also find the MPD's statements dispositive.
Marszalek, one of the preëminent Grant scholars, as interviewed in NPR accepts a version of West's narrative as fact. (EEng's rebuttal to this has been an unsubstantiated allegation that one of America's most reputable news sources selectively edited Marszalek's words.)
If not for these four sources, yes, we'd be in the territory where editorial judgment governs. But the source analysis has been done for us here—by The Washington Post, The New York Times, Smithsonian, and John F. Marszalek. They all find that the arrest occurred. If we were judging based just on primary sources, of course we would be more cautious. And I have my own doubts about MPD Chief Lanier's statement in 2012... But that doesn't matter, because actual professional RS have weighed in on that statement and said they take it at face value. I don't see how we can second-guess that. That wouldn't be editorial judgment; that would be supplanting individual editors' pet theories for what reliable sources say.
Keep in mind, the article makes almost no claims about the arrest in wikivoice—just the broad strokes, the ones that are accepted by these four sources (and by many others, but I stress these four since one is an expert and the other three all demonstrate they looked at the story critically). Verifiability issues are stressed in both the lede and the body. I don't know how else it could possibly be written. To say anything other than that Grant was arrested would be a violation of WP:NPOV, failing to represent the consensus of reliable sources. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you ought to step back for a day or two. EEng is not pushing any narrative or POV, and we should AGF. In fact, it's a position that is based on research (admittedly original, and so cannot be included as such) and very soundly calls into question these sources. I and two others have very similar positions to it as well. This is without an RfC or post to the NPOV board or something. Which is actually what I would want to suggest at this point. We need more eyes and evaluation on the issues I, @EEng:, and @Cullen328: have raised. But the source analysis has been done for us here actually, we are challenging that notion entirely. A relatively light dive into the topic leads to a great deal of skepticism for us that these sources have actually lived up to our editorial judgement expectations. actual professional RS have weighed in on that statement and said they take it at face value. I don't see how we can second-guess that. That wouldn't be editorial judgment; that would be supplanting individual editors' pet theories for what reliable sources say. Don't stretch the bona fides here. Marszalek is the only source reasonably called "professional", but his venue for this source is a pop culture interview which we don't even have the full audio for. If he put it in one of his books, then we'd have something. Actually, the fact that no one seems to have put it in their books about Grant should tell you something. These concerns are not "pet theories", and I don't think any of us are advocating OR or Synth be in the article either way. Instead, it's concern over the fact that clear evidence from the primary sources shows that these secondary sources are not being rigorous with their assertions. As you say, they simply take it at face value. I don't know how else it could possibly be written. Well, I agree. WP rules are what they are, which leave me with the only solution that it ought to remain unwritten on WP. And the onus is on you for inclusion. From WP:verifiableWhile information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This article contains much information that very possibly could be false. This is the objection you have to overcome. See my reply to 4meter4 for more on this. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment. The criticisms being raised here by EEng are not found in any of the published literature, and are entirely original research. The 1866 arrest is addressed in the current published literature as a prior arrest to the later arrest while he was president, and has not been used in any sources to challenge or check the historicity of the 1872 arrest as editors are trying to do here. WP:WEIGHT policy states, If you can prove a theory that few or NONE currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included. The article as written is balanced and is an entirely accurate reflection of all published literature anywhere on this topic. The fact that Eeng and a few others are questioning the historicity of the event in a new and novel way not found anywhere in published literature should be dismissed as entirely spurious for wikipedia's purposes. We are not interested in what may be true but what is verifiably true. Wikipedia isn't the place to bring original analysis or material and promote one's own original pet theory.4meter4 (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
You are obfuscating the issue by overstating the verifiability of the story and misapplying what wp:verifiable policy comes from. It comes from the evaluation of the sources themselves, not an authoritative decree that some sources are always right (ie GREL). This issue is specifically addressed While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Do you believe it's ok for WP to make articles based on secondary sources that are not supported by primary sources? This is the crux of the problem. I think it's a bad idea. Verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. When we click through and down the rabbit hole on this article, we find what I put in the other talk section. Primary sources that are like this story, but a far cry from it. This should be a concern for technically verifiable content from GREL sources, but very possibly false information. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. I think you are applying an entirely original analysis of primary materials, making assumptions not found in textual evidence, and essentially arguing for an original take on the source materials not supported by an expert on this topic or in any published RS. In short, the language at WP:WEIGHT and WP:No original research is 100% applicable to what you are trying to do here, and rightly should put a stop to this nonsense in favor of the article as it currently stands.4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
: Getting back to the DYK nomination, thank you Tamzin for your reply. Approval for ALT1; you're all set to go! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but while DYK reviews are a lightweight, one-editor process in straightforward cases, where issues arise it becomes a consensus process just like everything else on WP. There are three editors here objecting, and at least two more on the article Talk. This cannot run until that discussion is resolved. EEng 00:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
That's fine. I will say that this debate would be better served by keeping it at the article, rather than letting it spill over here. The discussion here should be about the merits and qualifications of this DYK nomination, which, at least to me, seems OK. So—my approval stands, albeit contingent on the fracas over the Grant article being settled in its favor. If this is going to turn into an internet shouting match, however, then I withdraw from reviewing this DYK nomination. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
There's no shouting. I simply noted above that there was a dispute on the article Talk. Others decided to fork the discussion here. EEng 03:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Notice. I have reported EEng and 76.178.169.118 to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. The objections being raised to this article are entirely based in original research and synthesis, and have no validity whatsoever in regards to published RS. In my opinion, this article is absolutely fine as is under wikipedia's policies, and should pass a DYK review without any modifications. However, it shouldn't get ticked until the conversation at the noticeboard resolves this conflict one way or the other. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment. I have no opinion on the adequacy of sourcing, one way or the other. But as a matter of policy, we should not be putting anything on the Main Page when there is a legitimate dispute about verifiability that remains unresolved. And there is a legitimate dispute about verifiability, insofar as stating the hook in Wikipedia's voice. I ask the admin who considers promoting the hook to hold off until editors resolve it. (I was pinged some time ago to the article talk page, and didn't have much of an opinion on the content dispute. My attention was drawn back to it by seeing the notification about the NORN report, which is how I got here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
FYI, Tryptofish, with the ? icon being the last on the page, the bot won't even move this from the under-review pool to the approved pool, so no danger it will be promoted. EEng 03:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that. But I still feel moved to express my indignation. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Alrighty, so, after a few weeks' more developments, which have now seen both pages rescoped and renamed, I think the best thing to do here is split the nom (see Presidential immunity in the United States nom) and restart this discussion as a new review from the ground up. Since this is a rewrite, I've contributed a new QPQ. Ping @CurryTime7-24: if you'd like to review either article's new version. EEng is on vacation, but I think would be happy with the changes that have been made; pinging Tryptofish in his stead to see if there are any outstanding objections. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks for the ping, and I have this template page watchlisted. I'm replying with my own opinion, as I know better than to try to speak for my excellent friend. Anyway, I do think that things are much better now that the page has been renamed and rewritten, so my previous strong objection to the DYK no longer applies. Instead, I see this as a simple situation of tweaking the hook. I don't like the phrase "according to a popular narrative", because it isn't apparent to a general reader of the Main Page that this refers to the fact that the popular narrative is likely to be untrue. As before, I want us to be very careful about not misleading readers into thinking we are saying that something happened, when we cannot be sure whether it happened. (Also, "speeding with a horse" sounds like he was racing against the horse.) I also think that the hook can be simplified. So I'll propose ALT1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done. Although the entire West's 1908 Star account very obviously comes from that one source at the end, each paragraph/quote does need a source.--Launchballer 13:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Would this not fall under the "plot summary" exception to the citation-per-paragraph rule? Or at least the spirit of it. Otherwise it seems strange for DYK rules to require footnotes in a case where I think most GA or FA reviewers would say there shouldn't be footnotes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Fair cop. Good to go.--Launchballer 22:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
With it being good to go, I want to note that I strongly prefer ALT1 over the original ALT0. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This was originally a double nomination, but has been split into two separate nominations, the other being Template:Did you know nominations/Presidential immunity in the United States. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
Alrighty, so, after a few weeks' more developments, which have now seen both pages rescoped and renamed, I think the best thing to do here is split the nom (see Presidential immunity in the United States nom) and restart this discussion as a new review from the ground up. Since this is a rewrite, I've contributed a new QPQ. Ping @CurryTime7-24: if you'd like to review either article's new version. EEng is on vacation, but I think would be happy with the changes that have been made; pinging Tryptofish in his stead to see if there are any outstanding objections. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done. Although the entire West's 1908 Star account very obviously comes from that one source at the end, each paragraph/quote does need a source.--Launchballer 13:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
