Misplaced Pages

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Template:Did you know nominations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:19, 10 May 2014 editBenlisquare (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,233 edits re← Previous edit Revision as of 11:28, 10 May 2014 edit undoBenlisquare (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,233 edits reNext edit →
Line 228: Line 228:
::::I personally feel that the career section should contain serious business only. It feels like it flows much better that way. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 08:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ::::I personally feel that the career section should contain serious business only. It feels like it flows much better that way. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 08:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
:::::Exactly, undue emphasis is created as much by volume of text as well its position, such as in a separate section. And it's exactly why that text needs to be up there in a small paragraph that does not dominate or create undue emphasis. FWIW, I object to the second cartoon as excessive trivialisation. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 11:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC) :::::Exactly, undue emphasis is created as much by volume of text as well its position, such as in a separate section. And it's exactly why that text needs to be up there in a small paragraph that does not dominate or create undue emphasis. FWIW, I object to the second cartoon as excessive trivialisation. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">]</span></small>] 11:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
::::::I know that you have concerns about the added weight it gives to place something in its own section, but mentioning it all of a sudden in the section that focuses on her job gives an unnatural change of pace. If I were a generic English-speaking reader (say, some middle-ager from Tennessee), it would feel strange if I'm reading about politics, and all of a sudden there's a bit talking about a Youtube video going viral, and this gook cartoon staring at me. It feels less strange when you know that you're reading a section dedicated to talking about the viral video and the fanart. --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 11:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

===Let's get this shit over and done with=== ===Let's get this shit over and done with===
*'''ALT3:''' "... that ''']''' was appointed as Prosecutor of Crimea by the Prosecutor General of ], ]?" '''no image for DYK hook, no mention of internet shenanigans.''' --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 08:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC) *'''ALT3:''' "... that ''']''' was appointed as Prosecutor of Crimea by the Prosecutor General of ], ]?" '''no image for DYK hook, no mention of internet shenanigans.''' --]<sub>]•]•]</sub> 08:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:28, 10 May 2014

DYK toolbox

Natalia Poklonskaya

( )

Natalia Poklonskaya

Created/expanded by Moscow Connection (talk), Dainomite (talk), Aldnonymous (talk), Starship.paint (talk), Tktru (talk), Benlisquare (talk), Adelgado1313 (talk), RonaldDuncan (talk), Ging287 (talk). Nominated by Moscow Connection (talk) at 20:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment - regarding content: 1) Definitely don't link to Internet meme. Link to List of Internet phenomena. 2) I don't like "sensation" either, perhaps a rephrase is needed. 3) It's sourced that it's not only in Japan, but also China. I'm looking for a source that says "worldwide". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made a few amendments. "Japan" will do for now, unless you can find another source for it. Currently the sources we have say Japan. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • There are sources for China I previously added. See references 13 abd 15, IBT and Guangming Online. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If you can't find a ref, we could just make the hook say "became an Internet phenomenon in Japan and China". We will need to make do with what is available. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the amendments! --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Eh, since you thanked me for the amendments, I am going to make the China amendment as well. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I think "China" makes it longer and harder to read. Also, look at the views. She's not that viral in China. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Views? What do you mean? --benlisquareT•C•E 05:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
English (59,514 on 24th), Russian (just look, 72,998 yesterday), Japanese (10,459 on 25th), Chinese (1,662 yesterday), Spanish (7,473 on 25th). --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
If you're talking about the Chinese Misplaced Pages, Chinese people don't use it, only Taiwanese and Hongkongers do. Misplaced Pages was blocked by the Chinese government for many years, and Chinese people don't use Misplaced Pages nowadays, the large majority use Baidu Baike. It's also a nationalism thing, think of how Russians use Vkontakte instead of Facebook - it's a national pride thing in China to prefer domestic sites over foreign ones, hence why Tudou and Youku have more Chinese users than YouTube.

Natalia is trending on Chinese social networks such as Tencent QQ and Sina Weibo, and plenty of the art on Pixiv is created by Chinese artists (I've had to communicate in Chinese for many of my OTRS attempts). --benlisquareT•C•E 05:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Moscow Connection, you can play the page view card, but I can play the reference 13, 14 and 15 card? But anyway, how about my new comment at the bottom of the DYK. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Benlisquare, okay. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Natalia Poklonskaya

  • As of 2014-03-25 20:09 (UTC+11), the following images have officially been OTRS verified: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's maybe upload a different version of it, a version cropped to a square. (A special version to use for the DYK, under a different file name, cause now it is too small as a thumbnail.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. There's plenty of whitespace that can be removed from the sides. --benlisquareT•C•E 21:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you! (That was clever, I would never guessed to upload it like this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe "moe fan art" instead of "moe-style fan art"? (Easier to read.)
    By the way, can someone maybe come up with a crazy play on words for the hook? The crazier it is, the more views the article will get. The current one is okay (the words "Prosecutor of Crimea" and "Internet phenomenon" draw attention), but still a bit boring. Now we only have one version, we should come up with something completely different to choose from. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Putting into use of this citation, how does this sound?

    ALT 2: ... that the Prosecutor of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya, relies on her daughter to keep track of anime-style fan art of her (example pictured) on the internet?

    ...or something along those lines. "Anime" and "moe" can be interchangable, I picked anime in this case because our article on moe isn't really that great or easy for readers to understand. --benlisquareT•C•E 19:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't like ALT2... I think the current one is better cause "internet phenomenon" looks much more interesting. And she doesn't say in the source what ALT2 says. She actually says that she personally doesn't have time to care about what's happening cause she comes home late and doesn't have time at all. So it's like she knows but she doesn't even say she actually looks at anything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - maybe change to worldwide instead of Japan and China? See new sources describing as... Gulf News: has become a sensation around the world. IBT: Her popularity appears to be growing in the West too. Maybe change the text of the DYK to "has become a worldwide Internet phenomenon"? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    "Worldwide" looks good. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's probably for the best. If we do keep Japan/China in there maybe something along the lines of "originated in..." but yeah. "worldwide" sounds good to me. —  dainomite   09:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, I've thought of something. April 1 is coming up soon, right? And DYK on Misplaced Pages is usually silly on April 1, right? Why not make a silly and awkward pun? Something like ALT3: ... that the prose-cute-or of the Republic of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya, annexed the hearts of countless Japanese internet users, in defiance of the threat of international sanctions? --benlisquareT•C•E 14:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    I like it very much. There isn't much time left until April 1, but it doesn't have to be April 1. If we go with this hook, we should add a couple of sourced statements about Japanese people falling in love with her and about a threat of sanctions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    I beg you not to go for April 1 on this. There are just so many waiting and this seems lovely enough to go at any time. Panyd 11:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you! You are right, it was a bad idea to go for April 1. Too much competition, it would be published wihout a picture and go unnoticed. (Also, I think an April 1 hook must be misleading, and this one isn't.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a BLP about a female public official in a geopolitically sensitive area, with a majority of the article currently devoted to anime focused on this woman's physical appearance. Mainpaging the article in its current state and with the current hook is not in the best interest of the reputation of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Is this man an authoritarian ruler? Misplaced Pages seems to say so. He is a living person, but we follow the word of third-party sources.This scenery is beautiful, however it does not have any sexual implications. The abstract concept of beauty can refer to admiration of aesthetic or non-aesthetic qualities, and is not concretely affixed on human sexuality.
  • Yes, it is a BLP, but does that mean we should censor things that are well-covered in third-party reliable sources simply because some might find it objectable? On Misplaced Pages, we call many people dictators, even though they might personally object to such statements. We continue to call these people dictators, because the majority of third-party reliable sources refer to them as so.

    Furthermore, nowhere in the article does it mention anything about physical appearance. Quote: "She soon caught attention on the Internet because of her particular attractiveness amongst Japanese internet users", with a piped link to kawaii. She is adorned by people because of her mannerisms, behaviour, facial expressions and patterns of speech, in addition to her strong and important political position and ability to firmly speak her opinion, which provide a sense of moe and beauty in the eyes of these people. Whilst the article uses the word "beauty" (the original Japanese word is "美人すぎ"), this term is open, vague and flexible - the countryside of Tibet is beautiful, however I am not sexually attracted to grass fields, snow peaks and rock cliffs. You're making assumptions on things that aren't implicated in the article. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that the biography section currently takes up the majority of the article, not the Internet popularity section. Why does gender or "geopolitically sensitive area" matter? I don't understand. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, I don't understand this "geopolitically sensitive area" reasoning here as well. Recently 1954 transfer of Crimea was passed through DYK and displayed on the front page, despite the current shenanigans in Crimea. In my opinion, I don't believe that these arguments are grounded in policy, logic or reason. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've never had any experience with DYK, so can I check how does this DYK process work exactly? We've had a lot of discussion on how to improve content, and one oppose vote. How far are we from getting this passed as a DYK? I say this because I might not have much time to contribute to this article any longer. There's a ban on my future edits on BLPs being discussed. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    We need a reviewer, someone will eventually come. The reviewer will read the article and check it against the requirements. The requirements we must remember when editing the article now are:
    1. The article must have minimum of one citation per paragraph, possibly excluding the introduction, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize information that's cited elsewhere.
    2. The hook fact(s) must be stated in the article, and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source.
    Read all the rules here: Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Reviewing guide.
    There's nothing to worry about. The vote doesn't really matter as long as the article is okay. But I would still make the internet popularity section more encyclopedic and the gallery less conspicuous. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Full review needed. The bulk of the above discussion is by the creators; there are BLP concerns expressed, so the reviewer should keep that in mind, along with the usual length, newness, sourcing, neutrality, close paraphrasing, hook requirements, and other DYK review points. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • for ALT1. Length, date and hook checks out. Image is on Commons. Bloomberg, definitely RS, is the main source for the hook and checks out well. Not sure what the BLP issue would be, there is nothing derogatory in ALT1. --Soman (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Just a note: I swapped out the picture that was originally submitted for another one that's also in the gallery. There is some rumbling in the Commons community about whether the fan art that is directly based off of the press conference is considered derivative work, and therefore, non-free. I replaced the image that was there, since it copied the pose and microphone setup of the press confrence, with one that still captured the 'press conference-ness', but wasn't based off of the video itself. TLDR: I swapped the image out in case Commons zaps the one that was there before. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I've swapped the image back cause we chose this one as the best. I think your reasoning is incorrect. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Since the image swapped back has not been approved, I'm putting a temporary hold on this until Sven Manguard can comment. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
            • I don't see any problem with the image. It has not been tageed for deletion at Commons. --Soman (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
              • BlueMoonset - The relevant discussion is at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04/Category:Natalia Poklonskaya, and until that is resolved, I won't personally push any image substantially similar to the press conference into a prep area (other people can if they want to), becuase I am concerned that the image might end up getting zapped. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
                • It won't get zapped that fast, even though there is discussion ongoing (and it's disputed as to whether they are derivatives, but let's not go that deep in right now). Discussions on Commons seem to happen very slowly, and Categories for Discussion on Commons take damn forever, I started this CfD at Commons on 27 September 2013, and it still hasn't closed; hence, I don't see the likelihood of anything being done for the duration where the DYK is taking place. That said, what is being discussed on Commons are allegations, and are not actually proven yet, so it would be unfair to assume that they are correct.

                  If we really do need to use a different image, then so be it. We've had previous community discussion on the talk page regarding which one everyone found preferable, though. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

                • It's been days, are we really having a deadlock over an image? The current CfD discussion on Commons is already leaning towards the idea that nothing is going to happen to the commonscat as a whole. That said, for the sake of getting this DYK nom out of limbo, if we really need to change an image at the last minute, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Saramoka.jpg, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by As109.jpg, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Haiashi.jpg, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Kriss Sison.png and File:Natalia Poklonskaya by phanc002.jpg are unaffected by the discussion. That said, worrying over the present DYK image isn't necessary, and we shouldn't leave this nom hanging like this. --benlisquareT•C•E 13:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
                • Yeah, this is really taking a bit too long. Could some other reviewers help? Thank you! starship.paint "YES!" 10:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a BLP about a female public official in a geopolitically sensitive area, with a majority of the article currently devoted to anime focused on this woman's physical appearance. Mainpaging the article in its current state and with the current hook is not in the best interest of the reputation of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The TOC shows the article's emphasis:
  • Biography
  • Internet popularity
  • References
  • External links
  • The gallery of five Natalia Polonskay fanart sample: Sample fanart of Natalia Poklonskaya originating from Pixiv plus the link there to view full gallery here focuses the article on her physical appearance and "cuteness" (Kawaii); there are no images of her real life appearance. The readers eye is drawn immediately to the many, colourful fanart portrayals. The Bloomberg News reference is an opinion piece, a primary source and not a "third-party reliable source" as stated by Benlisquare. Yet it is referenced 6 times in the article - way more than any other source. It's headline is "Cartoonish Crimean Prosecutor" and at the top over the headline is banner saying "If you were a Japanese man who spent too much time with comic books, would this be your fantasy woman? Source: YouTube". Opinion pieces are not considered reliable sources for news organizations:

    "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

  • Please see Biased or opinionated sources from WP:RS. Also see Reliable sources for BLPs.
  • Most of Natalia Poklonskaya suffers from Recentism and undue weight and therefore is not NPOV, especially bad for a BLP. 1954 transfer of Crimea happened 64 years ago.
  • Also, barely mentioned in the article, and not mentioned in the lead: "On 27 March 2014, she was promoted to the rank of Senior Counsellor of Justice."
  1. 2014-03-27, Прокурора Крыма Поклонскую повысили в звании до старшего советника юстиции, Росбалт.RU

Is this a higher position (a promotion) than that of Prosecutor General of the Republic of Crimea? What is the meaning of this. The lead doesn't even mention the fanart stuff, yet roughly half of the article (including the many fanart images) focuses on this issue.

  • The 4 citations to a BBC article are very questionable as a reliable source for a BLP. The article written by "as found by BBC Monitoring" and is sourced to a youtube video in Russian with no translation, and to an article in RocketNews called "Japanese netizens put reality on hold for a moment, fall in love with new attorney general of Crimea" containing attractive pictures of Poklonskaya gathered from personal websites.

Parabolooidal (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • In regards to the youtube inline cite, if I recall correctly the person who added it wrote in the edit summary that the purpose of the cite was only to cite the date the video was uploaded, and nothing else.

    "Senior Counsellor of Justice" refers to her rank, "Prosecutor" refers to her occupational position. Rank and position are not the same thing, so please don't get them confused. A tank commander can also be a sergeant, but a sergeant is not necessarily a tank commander.

    Now, when you refer to Newyorkbrad's comment, I don't find it particularly convincing, because it is not grounded in Misplaced Pages policy, and is largely based on subjective personal feelings and "I don't like it" sentiments. If he would like to clarify his comments, he is more than welcome to do so, but at this stage I don't believe that his words are to be taken much heed to. The statement that the article is about a female BLP in a contentious geographic region doesn't hold much ground policy wise (would it be any different if she was a man?), and it's nothing strange to have some coverage over internet phenomenon that's widely reported on. This article definitely can be expanded so that more biographical information is included (if you take a look at the Russian Misplaced Pages article, there is much more content).

    You mention that there are no images of her real life appearance, however this is definitely beyond our control: There have been numerous discussions regarding a non-free fair use image of her in real life, and such an image that was previously uploaded has since been deleted. It's an unfortunate case that there is no free-license photographic imagery of her available, however this is a sad truth that we can't really solve at this stage. Artists who draw cartoons of her are more willing to release their works under free licenses than media photographers working for Russian agencies (apparently on the Russian Misplaced Pages, people have attempted to contact various media agencies, but these attempts have yet to bear any results), most likely because these photographers rely on such photographs to make money. Good faith donations are more likely to occur when people are creating works voluntarily, as opposed to it being part of their daily employment, and I don't blame them for that. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The lack of free-license photographic imagery of her is not an excuse to include a gallery of five cartoon kawaii images of her plus a link to some 20 more. Also you chose the most kawaii of the images, instead of this one on the right.

Newyorkbrad is the senior member of WP:ArbCom, a member for some five years or so, has had input and contributed to existing policy guidelines, so I find it hard to take your word that his comments are not based on policy. Also, ArbCom has made binding decision on BLPs and WMF has made policy regarding what is appropriate content for BLPs.
Another editor has commented on the article talk page: "The citations are clearly not enough for WP:BLP, and the obvious WP:BLP1E violation and therefore lack of WP:FUTUREPROOF has been pointed out."
Have you complied with Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons?
Your explanation about Tank commander which redirects to Tank and sergeant do nothing to clarify what her job actually is or that she is notable per General notability guideline and Misplaced Pages:Notability (people).
Remember, you are trying to get a controversial article on a very recent event to DYK so that it will appear on Misplaced Pages's Main page. Do you think it follows WP:BLP1E?

Parabolooidal (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that the status of a user on Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with the validity or merit of their arguments. Being a member of ArbCom doesn't make his opinion any higher than anyone else's, and we don't take Jimbo's word as holy gospel either. If he wants to convince me, he is going to have to clarify his position based on Misplaced Pages policy, because his current position is left rather vague and unfulfilling. In fact, one might even say that his comment is rather sexist, as he indirectly implies that men cannot be idolised or made into popular cultural symbols. In my original response to his claims, I have referred to Misplaced Pages policy, phrase definitions and logical reasoning in my arguments. On the other hand, he has only mentioned his feelings, and provided his opinion on what he believes to be the best interests of the project. So in other words, he just doesn't like it. What is in the best interests of the project is subjective, and varies from person to person.

You asked a question about what "Senior Counsellor of Justice" means, and I explained it to you, I don't understand why you need to bite back for it like that. You originally mentioned nothing about notability, and made a statement which seemed to confuse what a rank was. When you say that I have failed to address WP:GNG when explaining what her rank is, this is known as moving the goalposts, as this was not in your original question. As for what her job is, her job is not her rank; I've explained this clearly, and if you still don't understand, then the problem is not on my side. Furthermore, tank commander redirects to a very useful section which I actually intended for you to read, it doesn't just "redirect to Tank".

I personally can't make the call for WP:BLP1E, but based on an earlier AfD, it appears that community consensus is leaning towards the article meeting notability requirements at least. Finally, I'm pretty sure the choice of images is the least of concerns at the moment; these images can be changed at any time, and the current selection is purely arbitrary. Let's keep the primary focus on the reliability of sources, which is more pressing, and concern ourselves with the triviality of images after that is done. The present state of the article can be fixed and our priority at the moment is sourcing, let's not lose our focus here. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Parabolooidal (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I've already explained to you my position regarding BLP1E, stop drilling it in like a broken record. If you believe that this fails BLP1E, nominate it for AfD, it's as simple as that. Your Barack Obama example is also moot, as there is already Commons consensus to move the category, and artworks of Obama are hardly covered in mainstream media. I also have no idea why you're linking to Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags/Non-free, as it has already been explained to you that we have earlier had problems with using non-free photographic imagery of Natalia. Consider reading WP:NFCC - we are not free to use any non-free image whenever we want, because we "feel like it". Misplaced Pages is a 💕, free as in freedom and not free beer, which is why WP:NFCC exists - if you don't like NFCC, don't complain to me, complain at WP:Village pump. Furthermore, none of this Commons business has anything to do with this current DYK nom on enwiki; if you want to discuss this, do it on the article talk page, and not here. There is no clause within the DYK rules regarding the titles of Commons categories, and you're essentially forum sliding here and distracting away from the main topic: address the DYK, and nothing else. Also consider reading Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, which states, very clearly: "Commons is not Misplaced Pages". --benlisquareT•C•E 07:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Seriously what is going on here? A protest because there's no real-life pictures? A free real-life image simply is not available. We tried to fair-use a screenshot of the conference, but it was deleted. There is no better alternative at this point. starship.paint "YES!" 07:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with NYB's comments above about the inappropriateness of this content in a biography. The person is a politician first and foremost, and while she may have made it as an internet icon, the amount and type of content is not warranted. If carefully worked, I can imagine a sentence in the biography about her profile, but it certainly does not warrant an entire section and a picture gallery. I have now removed the offending section as trivia, undue weight and recentist. -- Ohc  03:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted Ohconfucius' total removal of the Internet popularity section. The information has been in the article since its creation and such a controversial edit should not be done without consensus. I find it ridiculous that just because it might be undue weight or recentist, the section deserves to be omitted entirely. See Edward Khil#Internet meme for an example of an article of featuring a person's dual thrusts for notability including being popular on the Internet. Ohconfucius can perhaps start a section on the talk page to discuss which sentences to trim from the section and from there obtain consensus. starship.paint "YES!" 04:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I removed it as a starting point. I'm open to having a sentence or two in the bio per my last comment, but what's there is simply ridiculous. You may add something back, but please don't put back all the fancruft. And as to the "has been in the article since its creation", this has little relevance as it's a very recent article whose content seems to be jealously guarded by the posse that created it and has not settled down (witness the discussion raging here). Whilst I have crossed paths with Moscow, one or two of the other nominators surprised me as born-again crufters who I never thought were particularly keen on trashy trivia. If you want the article to pass DYK, I suggest you so some trimming yourself. Regards, -- Ohc  04:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Uh, what's the point of this DYK nom if there's no longer a hook? And I'm quite certain that changing it to something bland and political like "did you know that she's a lawyer, yay" would be quite a disappointing outcome. I also think you're misusing the term WP:FANCRUFT, which is pointless drivel that only niche groups care about, and does not necessarily apply to things that are well covered by a country's national or mainstream media in significant quantities. I'm quite certain that rickrolling isn't fancruft either. Not personally liking something doesn't equate to fancruft, otherwise I'd finally have an excuse to delete all those rock bands that I personally dislike. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
This edit by Ohconfucius looks like something specifically aimed at destroying this nomination. He did absolutely the same thing here: Template:Did you know nominations/Kanako Momota, repeatedly deleting the part of the article that was used for the hook. I believe his aim was to make it impossible to use the hook that had been already approved. These kind of edits are bordering on vandalism. (By the way, in case of Kanako Momota he succeded in changing the hook. He practically destroyed all my work cause the article appeared on the main page with a very uninteresting fact and went practically unnoticed.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ohconfucius: The way you say it implies this is again something aganst me personally... --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not even the one who wrote the section you deleted. Please, could you leave the nomination? Cause the article is a creation of many people who's hard work you are destroying... --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I vehemently reject the accusation that I'm trying to sabotage. I have a problem when one or two editors insist on turning the project into some crufty tabloid, and I will fight same as long as there is any breath left in me. I would point out that the reminder at the bottom of the edit window, just above the "save page" button, says: "By clicking the 'Save page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." -- Ohc  09:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • To all those who have concerns in the past: The article has been reworked a bit; how does the current revision fare? The other sections have been expanded, and the internet section has been trimmed down, so right now it takes up a significantly less proportion of the article prose. Furthermore, additional citations have been added in line with BLP requirements, and the article now clearly demonstrates that this individual is notable for more than just one thing. The internet section is also no longer WP:UNDUE in size, since it has been suitably trimmed to a relevant length. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I am new to this, which looks good at a glance, please place a hook right here. - Article: the "full gallery" link should not be bold, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Here:
Also, I attempted to debold that link you mentioned, but {{nobold}} didn't really seem to work. The bolding is a part of the wiki syntax, I'm not sure what can be done. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I think a simple <gallery></gallery> would look better that the current version. To be honest, I don't like that it (and especially its header) is centered. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The mentioning of the full gallery could be below the other gallery, instead of in the header. - Hook: with respect to some criticism in the discussion, can you propose a fact - perhaps without image which at a glance simply doesn't look "serious" - which doesn't mention "onslaught", perhaps not even "fan-art", (- that link is simply distracting)? In short: something she does, not just causes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
ps: perhaps compare, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave the decision on the hook to the other people involved in the nomination (Starship, Moscow, Dainomite, etc), it wouldn't be fair if I unanimously made the decision. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
If you have a good idea, propose it, - no "decision"/ approval will be made without leaving time for discussion, as so many contributors are involved, also not without hearing Newyorkbrad whose reasoning I have admired for years. - I am reluctant to show any of the anime pics because it will exclude readers who have a prejudice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I just want to say that there's nothing bad in the current hook and the nomination can't be compared with some hot fact about a Greek politician. This hook is not derogatory. Poklonskaya fandom is all over the Russian news. (Yes, it's still is. The latest video already has 8 million views and its popularity has been reported by all the major news agencies in Russia, Belorussia, etc.: , .) But if you say the "fan art" link is distracting, let's unlink it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. We shouldn't even have an article on this woman - she's not notable beyond WP:BLP1E and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    WP:DEADHORSE. Please ignore this user, he nominated the article for deletion (here, closed as Snow Keep) and just can't stop and go away. And I believe he does this simply because he doesn't like both anime and Russia (read his comment). --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

- per Gerda Arendt, an alternative hook... without fan-art? Though I still prefer ALT1. starship.paint "YES!" 02:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

  • ALT3 ... that Russia has confirmed Internet phenomenon Natalia Poklonskaya as the Prosecutor of Crimea?
    I'm against it, it sounds strange... I think there's nothing wrong with ALT1... Gerda Arendt compared this nomination with this one, which had a derogatory hook. But the hook that was proposed here initially is positive and bright. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    Maybe change ALT1 so that it don't feature the words "onslaught" and "fan art"? The hook can be improved (made more concise and "hooky"). --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    I'm kind of leaning against an alt change compromise, after all the effort that has been made to bring the page up to standard. A hook without an image, that features a generic and ordinary sentence about politics is unlikely to get any clicks at all, it really wouldn't do the page much justice. I personally know from past experience that a bland DYK hook results in very few hits, I've seen this multiple times before, and such DYK hooks are a waste of everybody's effort. To most people, politics is the second most bland and boring subject in the world, behind lawn bowling. It's a compromise that I really find bitter in the mouth. I wouldn't mind modifying ALT1 so that fan-art is delinked and "onslaught" is reworded; as it currently stands, the ALT1 hook doesn't break any DYK rules, nor does it break any Misplaced Pages policies; the hook is cited by reliable sources, and that's the most important thing. In my view, a hook about the images, and featuring an image, is a must; how it is worded can be negotiated and modified. This is hardly a controversially worded hook in the history of DYK on the English Misplaced Pages. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose all Fails WP:NPOV through providing inadequate context, or just being wrong. The individual in question is not "the Prosecutor of Crimea," a position that, according to the vast majority of governments in the world, and the UN, does not exist. Merely stating that "Russia has confirmed," fails NPOV by omission. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Let me get this straight: You believe that Ukrainian boots are on the ground in Crimea, that Taiwan is not a real country with its own democratically elected government, and that you can travel to Northern Cyprus without applying for a visa at the Turkish embassy first, simply because the UN and the majority of national governments say so?

    Also, if she's not the prosecutor of Crimea, then what is she? --benlisquareT•C•E 15:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The hook is based on reliable sources that call her the Prosecutor of Crimea. You comment is purely political, while this DYK nomination is not and was not intended to be political. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to remove your political content from the hook. Hipocrite (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
What you call "political content" is just an explanation who she is. It wasn't intended to be political. but it makes the hook more clear cause she is known worldwide as the Prosecutor / Prosecutor General / Attorney General of Crimea. (It doesn't even say which Crimea, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the independent republic, or the federal subject of Russia. Originally, on March 11, she was appointed the Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which was still part of Ukraine.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Your comment talks for itself. Your political views are not relevant here. The nomination passes the DYK requirements, and that's the only thing that should matter. (And the hook is absolutely apolitical and absolutely harmless.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't have political views with respect to the situation at hand. I do know that there is a dispute regarding the existence of the position she is stated as fact to hold. One side of that dispute is stated as fact in this article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
And we can't say statements that are de facto valid, because one or more parties have a disagreement? There are all sorts of disputes out there for big things and small things, and if that were the case, then we can't even do anything at all on this encyclopedia. Taiwan is de facto a real country, and Natalia is de facto the attorney general in charge of the geographical stretch of land called Crimea. No other person is able to perform her job; Natalia does the paperwork for criminal investigations, and not some office-bound figurehead in Kiev. Do we really need to pander towards every single person's viewpoint for a DYK hook? Last time I checked, whenever a Taiwan-related DYK hook is made, we never go "... that _____ is a major league baseball player from Taiwan (which according to China and the UN, is a part of China)?" or "... that in 200X, Typhoon ____ caused $300 million worth of damage in Taiwan (which according to China isn't a real country)?".

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that reliable sources such as International Business Times, Huffington Post, BBC, The Independent, ABC News, The Japan Times don't have any disagreement that she's the "prosecutor" or "attorney general" of Crimea. Are you really going to ignore what these largely-respected western news outlets say on the matter? --benlisquareT•C•E 18:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I really dislike this hook. " has confirmed Internet phenomenon Natalia Poklonskaya makes it sound as though she's been confirmed because she's an Internet phenomenon. I know it isn't meant to, but it rather encapsulates her as an an "internet phenomenon" rather than a professional in her field. 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
Also, ALT3 sounds incorrect. She wasn't "confirmed". When Crimea officially became a part of Russia, she was reassigned to the position, this time by a Russian official. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
If the hook is to be reworded, it would be better off as "Russia has re-appointed ... as Prosecutor of Crimea". "Internet phenomenon" sounds shoe-horned in and unnatural within this hook, though. There must be a better way of wording it altogether. I get the feeling that mentioning "internet phenomenon" would only work if we're not talking about being appointed. --benlisquareT•C•E 19:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

INSIGNIFICANT: We have here a marginal article about a minor official who achieved slight notability because a handful of amateur artists drew cartoons of her. In practice, the article exists only because a minor official happens to be pretty. It probably belongs at AfD, and certainly not on the main page. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable with this on the main page, mainly as it appears to be lampooning a figure in a real powderkeg of an area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I've already explained that it's a perfectly normal hook. The Internet popularity section is not "lampooning" her, it just reiterates what has been already reported by numerous news agencies. It looks like people in Russia (and China, and Japan, etc.) think it's perfectly okay and harmless to talk about it in the news (about the pictures and songs about her, etc.), but some Misplaced Pages editors have an different opinion. (Just think... If all the Russian news agencies reported and continue reporting about it, then why can't Misplaced Pages?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not a valid point to make on a DYK nomination. The article passes all the DYK requirements and there's no reason not to approve it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Any content that folks feel shouldn't be on the mainpage is open for discussion on that fact. We have discussion about FAs quite often too. Hence, I personally would prefer this not being on the mainpage due to the reasons I just outlined. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@Casliber: No one has ever started any dispute on the page or its talk page because of "powderkeg" politics though. All the nationalistic warring has been occurring elsewhere (e.g. Talk:2014 Crimean crisis‎), with nil over here. The only issues so far have to do with alleged sexism. Also, I think he was talking about MarkBernstein's comment, not yours. He didn't indent. (actually, it looks like you indented for him. I've undone your indent) --benlisquareT•C•E 20:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, no worries - look, if there ends up being a consensus to run it, I'd not oppose it, I am just voicing my opinion that I am uneasy about it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment. Almost the same exact hook (ALT1) appeared on the main page of the Russian Misplaced Pages. And, if I understand Benlisquare correctly, the article also appeared on DYK in the Chinese Misplaced Pages. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it did, it was mainpage DYK on 30 March 2014, with a artwork picture for the entire time it was on there. The DYK went completely unopposed there with zero opposes, because western culture and its sensitivities aren't as prevalent on the Chinese Misplaced Pages. --benlisquareT•C•E 20:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
And in the Polish Misplaced Pages:

In new Misplaced Pages articles:
... what is the military rank of the "pretty prosecutor" of Crimea?

--Moscow Connection (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I bet you 50 roubles that someone is going to say "what the other Wikipedias do has nothing to do with what we do here". --benlisquareT•C•E 21:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I weep at Western culture and politics. starship.paint "YES!" 04:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This is nuts. On the one hand, we have an extended debate at AN/I regarding the BLP issues presented by this article and discussed above; that discussion might well result in the article losing its emphasis on fan art, which would likely make it too short for DYK. At the same time. we're told that "This is not a valid point to make on a DYK nomination. The article passes all the DYK requirements and there's no reason not to approve it." So let me get this straight: we're going to feature on the main page an article with BLP problems that may well be stubbed or deleted while its in the queue. Meanwhile, DYK has three scandals in the past twelve days, and its defenders explain that there are too few people reviewing submissions. How many thousands of words, and hours of volunteer time, have been wasted on this one silly article about a minor Russian police official? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You're really complaining about what volunteers put their attention on, within a 100% volunteer-based project? You're sounding like a government bureaucrat at a stockholder meeting here. People participate in whatever they believe they should participate in, it's as simple as that. If there are other pressing issues on Misplaced Pages, someone else with the motivation to fix it will eventually get to it. The people who get involved here do it on their own choice, and there's nothing strange about that.

Also, please don't say things that are misleading. There is no ANI discussion going on. CTRL+F "natalia" at WP:ANI gives 0 hits. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • This is a discussion, and not a vote. Arguments should be made based on the merit of reasoning, and not the number of supporters - this is part of the WP:CONSENSUS building process. Many of the comments were made prior to major changes to the article; previously the article had multiple problems, however as the problems have been addressed, it is arguable that the prior concerns mentioned on this page have lost their inheritance. These users should address the current article, and not the article as it stood in March 2014. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Serious concerns were raised by respected users, however mind the dates. The article was improved, the phenomenon is a fact.

Natalia Poklonskaya art work

ALT2: ... that the Prosecutor of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya, became an Internet phenomenon (example pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, some people did provide genuine and serious concerns, I don't disagree. The way Drmies includes Barney the barney barney as an editor with "serious concerns" to me suggested that he was basing his argument on numbers, though, and not merit.

ALT2 looks fine from here. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I would still strongly object against having the cartoon on the front page. If the pics have to be in the article, okay, but there really is no need to further highlight them on the front page. What this DYK does is essentially still celebrating how the public image of a young woman, entirely without her own doing, was dragged through the degrading, objectifying machinery of a sexist popular-culture mob on the internet. We should not be giving this "phenomenon" more air time than needed. Don't cite "notcensored" at me – WP:NOTCENSORED is about not avoiding offensive content in articles where they are genuinely part of encyclopedic topics, but it doesn't force us to arbitrarily highlight offensive material in our most visible places. What goes on the frontpage is a matter of editorial judgment; there is no entitlement for any article to run on DYK, no matter how well it "meets the criteria", and there is certainly no entitlement for any one DYK entry to occupy the "pictured" spot. ALT2 without the "pictured" is just barely acceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
"there is certainly no entitlement for any one DYK entry to occupy the "pictured" spot" - exactly - so leave it up to the sysop in charge of the DYK queue whether or not the image is used. Images don't always end up on DYK even after DYKN discussion: When I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/China, it did not appear on the front page with an image, because the sysop in charge decided that it was better to have a photograph of an 1800s Englishman instead from a different hook. Why not leave the suitability judgement to that person? That said, if all it takes to get this through DYK is to have the hook text only with no image, I wouldn't be that opposed to it, if it's what's needed to get DYK passed. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, forgot to mention, myself and Moscow Connection are contacting the Prosecutor's Office of Crimea (the official website has a contact email) to see if we can get a free-license real-life photograph of Natalia. If we succeed, then I personally would prefer using a real-life photograph for DYK, rather than an artwork. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think all the points for and against have been covered. It's quite some achievement that two of the longest discussions ever held at DYK are at the hands of the same editor. The fancruft and drama are mind-numbing. I think that there are enough editors with concerns about the trivialisation of the subject and of DYK with respect to this entry. -- Ohc  09:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The drama is conjured by those opposing the DYK. The hook doesn't have fancruft. The article has trimmed down the Internet popularity section to 17% of the body. Seems that some people are just more offended than the subject herself. Meh. starship.paint "YES!" 13:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure it's not a vote. It's the quality of the comments made, and now Fut.Perf.'s voice has been added to the choir of editors opposed to this running on the front page. And let it be noted that, whatever the nominators might say, Fut.Perf. is correct when they say, "What goes on the frontpage is a matter of editorial judgment; there is no entitlement for any article to run on DYK". Clearly a large number of qualified editors (half a dozen already?) have very strong arguments against running this on the front page, and I would ask BlueMoonset or Crisco 1492, or any other seasoned DYK volunteer, to formally close this--and let me put that another way, I don't remember ever having seen a DYK nomination with this much participation and so many seasoned editors opposed to it running. The conclusion should be clear. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    I'm afraid some of the editors oppose the DYK not because of the quality of the article, but simply because of their political views. Simply because Poklonskaya is the General Prosecutor of Crimea and they don't like the idea of saying anything good about Crimea joining Russia on the front page. I would appreciate if you helped with the DYK hook. I'm sure it can be tweaked so that some of the people who oppose it won't oppose it anymore. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Moscow Connection, I am not sure you realize what you're saying. You completely fail to assume good faith, and please look at the names and track records of the people you accuse of having some sort of political agenda. It includes a couple of admins and an ArbCom member. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Make an article on the topic—caricatures of public figures—then DYK that. Meanwhile, if the best DYK about this article concerns an "Internet phenomenon" it is obvious that a BLP is being used to coatrack cute cartoons. Putting this on the front page allows Misplaced Pages to be used to amplify any public humiliation of a living person. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The DYK hook is about a person, however. If I were to say, "who is the attorney responsible for overseeing the Ruvim Aronov case" or "who is the attorney who's become an internet phenomenon", there would be no other topic other than that of Natalia, the person. Saying that the solution would be to make a separate article about a completely different topic doesn't really address our problems here. It's a non-solution, and a suggestion merely for the sake of making suggestions. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Future Perfect and Johnuniq. As I mentioned recently at BLPN, this is a cultural assault by the anime/manga industry and its followers on Poklonskaya on the basis that the BLP subject is "cute". It does not get any more unencyclopaedic or mindless than that. Δρ.Κ.  23:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Reply to both Johnuniq and Dr.K. How did this turn into a public humiliation of a living person and a cultural assault? Sounds all very negative. How about producing some reliable sources of your own to back your opinion up? Here's what the Japan Times had to say: shrine of manga-style illustrations. Here's what AFP said, republished by the Japan Times: the doe-eyed heroine of manga. Not as negative or as offended. starship.paint "YES!" 07:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Dr.K, why do you keep bringing up the alleged conspiracy of the "anime/manga industry"? You've done this multiple times at WP:BLPN as well. Do you have any circumstantial evidence to prove your allegations? All of the people involved in the Natalia thing are volunteers, and have nothing to do with the anime industry. Individuals who chase a personal hobby drawing things are something completely separate to professional anime studios such as Gainax and JC Staff which are integral parts of the industry. People such as Akira Toriyama and Masamune Shirow draw designs as part of their job, to make profits for their company - this is the face of the industry, which has nothing to do with anything you've mentioned. If you're going to continue making absurd claims like that, you're further proving that you know little or nothing about what you're talking about.

We don't let cheese manufacture experts run nuclear power plants, so why do you think that your 100% incorrect opinion matters? You've proven again and again that you simply have an absence of knowledge about the situation here. I might sound like a dick right now, but so would anyone, really - I wouldn't be trusted with operating the Large Hadron Collider in the same regard, I'm not the right person for it. You need to realise this. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't go off on a tangent. What does it matter if Dr.K. was using the word "industry" correctly here, or whether he should have said "subculture" or something else? His argument still stands. So, it wasn't an "industry" but just a bunch of sexist basement-dwelling nerds on the internet collectively celebrating their wet phantasies. Does that make it any better? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Where are you getting sexist basement-dwelling nerds on the internet collectively celebrating their wet phantasies from? The English sources in the article say... "netizens", "artists", "fans", "admirers" and "some people". starship.paint "YES!" 08:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
You're going to need a citation for that "sexist basement-dwelling nerd" claim. :^) --benlisquareT•C•E 08:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't, because I'm not writing that into an article. It is my personal conviction that that is what they are, and, based on that, it is my personal editorial opinion that we shouldn't cater for them on our mainpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
You're making a claim as part of your argument, and you need to prove your claim, verifying that your claim is correct. As for Dr.K's statement, I assure you that it's much more than misusing a few words. When you make an allegation that a commercial industry is involved, you are implying that there is financial backing and some sort of monetary gain behind the actions. Dr.K's choice of words provides a much more radical viewpoint of the situation than you may believe. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, they don't have basements in Russia, everybody lives in Commieblocks. But now I'm just being a smart-arse, so carry on. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course there is something with the same effect as an "industry" behind this—whether it is three amateur individuals or an army of paid hacks is not relevant. Meanwhile, anyone who thinks that "doe-eyed heroine of manga" is not a public humiliation of someone with a serious role in a serious situation should not be editing BLPs. If the topic (Internet phenomenon) is notable, write an article about it. Otherwise, do not use an article about a person as a substitute to coatrack caricatures. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe you need to learn to leave an Americentric mindset at the door and respect the cultures of other people that exist on this planet. A heroine is hardly a humiliation, unless you're claiming that Joan of Arc was a humiliation of a human being. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

For the original nay-sayers

At the insistence of Gerda Arendt I have left a message for all the nay-sayers on their talk page. Gerda says the article is much improved since they opined here, and they may have changed their minds. Below is space for them to say if they are still opposed to running the DYK. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Better, but not very good: The page is indeed improved, but even with the improvements, the case for the subject's notability is weak. She has just been appointed Senior Counselor of Justice; are all the other Senior Counselors of Justice in Russia also the subjects of Misplaced Pages pages? Are any? This remains an article about a police officer whose notability rests on her appearance; I'm not convinced it belongs in Misplaced Pages, but surely we need not call attention to it -- especially with a DYK hook that is completely about her appearance. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

My view is this - I feel uncomfortable with any article on this subject (Ukraine/Russia standoff) that appears in any way flippant or casual. The subject is notable, but not thrilled at what is intended to appear on the main page. If there was a consensus for support, I'd not kick up a stink or anything but still think it is better on the balance of things to leave this off. If I ever found out this caused some furore somewhere I'd be unhappy. I really don't think people are appreciating how serious this whole situation is. 00:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

  • I have once again attempted to copyedit the article, and I believe it is now close to how an encyclopaedic biography should look. I don't want any more bad faith accusations that I am opposing a certain editor not because of the quality of the article, so I fixed it. I'd much happier see the the anime section gone, as I believe this to be in violation of WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:RECENT, WP:TRIVIA. But I have now cut it down to 45 words or so and left one image that I would also rather see removed. At least now, I hope that compromise can be accepted, and the sense of her popularity with gawking anime fans remains but with perspective. I feel there is now some balance with her minor sex symbol being mentioned while the gravitas of her position is preserved. On that basis, I would be happy to support the nomination and go with ALT2 (as proposed by Gerda) for the principal reason that terms like "onslaught of anime-style fan art" is thoroughly tabloid, although have reservations about the "internet phenomenon" bit. That word "onslaught" has been excised from the article by me. -- Ohc  04:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Naturally, a copyedit is a good thing. What I don't understand is the merging of the Internet popularity section. Editors above like Parabolooidal and Casliber have stated the point of the apparent seriousness of this whole situation. Another point brought up by Dr.K. somewhere was that the subject did not purposely engineer her Internet popularity. I am doing a copyedit of my own that separates the legal career from the Internet popularity section. starship.paint "YES!" 07:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I object to restatement of the separate crufty section on "Internet popularity". The section was merged to de-emphasise the recentist and "newsy" paragraph, which I don't otherwise fine objectionable. The arc lends itself well to being merged into the career section – which is how this video came about anyway, and there's nothing to say the DYK hook has to be based on something in its own section. -- Ohc  08:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I personally feel that the career section should contain serious business only. It feels like it flows much better that way. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, undue emphasis is created as much by volume of text as well its position, such as in a separate section. And it's exactly why that text needs to be up there in a small paragraph that does not dominate or create undue emphasis. FWIW, I object to the second cartoon as excessive trivialisation. -- Ohc  11:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I know that you have concerns about the added weight it gives to place something in its own section, but mentioning it all of a sudden in the section that focuses on her job gives an unnatural change of pace. If I were a generic English-speaking reader (say, some middle-ager from Tennessee), it would feel strange if I'm reading about politics, and all of a sudden there's a bit talking about a Youtube video going viral, and this gook cartoon staring at me. It feels less strange when you know that you're reading a section dedicated to talking about the viral video and the fanart. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's get this shit over and done with

But that one is far too boring. Really, I don't understand why some people are giving the impression they are fighting tooth and nail to run this DYK. Why? Being on DYK is not a big deal, and not being on DYK shouldn't be a big deal either. There is no entitlement for any article to run on DYK. It's a matter of editorial choice, and we should become far more selective in what we choose to include or not to include. There clearly is no consensus for running this thing, so it shouldn't run; simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
LOL, now too boring? I think this Russia and Crimea situation is some serious business, and it's rather interesting how Russia is even extending its legal authority to Crimea. Do we really need to Wiki-link Russia? starship.paint "YES!" 09:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
@Benlisquare: DYK hooks are meant to be interesting, and articles sober. You seem to be insisting on making the article fancrufty-interesting and the hook boring. Shome mishtake?? -- Ohc  11:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Aren't 99% of DYK hooks boring? "So and so is the lead researcher into reptiles in Botswana". Oh wow, how amazing. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
(Note: The following comment should be read in a sarcastic tone. The writer of this comment is being as non-serious as possible.) For all the shit I've gone through for this page, I want to wake up out of bed one day to find that a bot has put a little box on my talk page telling me that this page has gone through DYK. Whenever that happens, it's like the feeling you get when someone tells you that there's free beer being offered somewhere. Normally I wouldn't give a shit about any old article, but since I've probably typed at least 200,000 bytes worth of words for this page, on mainspace, talkpages and elsewhere, I sure as hell feel entitled to a damn chocolate bar and a damn carton of beer. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Have a carton on me. -- Ohc  11:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:
Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya: Difference between revisions Add topic