Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Natalia Poklonskaya[edit]

(
)

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 Wikipedia, Chinese people don't use it, only Taiwanese and Hongkongers do. Wikipedia was blocked by the Chinese government for many years, and Chinese people don't use Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 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? Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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: Wikipedia: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

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[1] 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,[2] 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.[3]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Notability (people).
Remember, you are trying to get a controversial article on a very recent event to DYK so that it will appear on Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

  • Do you think it would be perfectly fine if there were a Commons category called [[Category:Barack Obama]] with subcategories [[Category:Presidents of the United States]] and [[Category:People of the United States]] and [[Category:1961 births]] etc. that was filled exclusively with kawaii type anime images showing how "cute" Barack Obama is? Would such images be OK for a gallery of images in the BLP of Barack Obama?
    See: Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free. Which tag would justify illustrating Barack Obama solely with "cute" cartoon images of him?
    Is it that the situation in the Republic of Crimea is not serious, and that its current officials are not serious people worthy of serious coverage? And that cartoons are the best wikipedia can do for this article, if Natalia Poklonskaya is notable enough to have an article per Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the article is not a WP:BLP1E violation?

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 Wikipedia: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". Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, 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 Wikipedia". --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 ¡digame! 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 ¡digame! 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 ¡digame! 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 [4] and its popularity has been reported by all the major news agencies in Russia, Belorussia, etc.: [5], [6].) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. --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 Wikipedia editors have an different opinion. (Just think... If all the Russian news agencies reported and continue reporting about it, then why can't Wikipedia?) --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 Wikipedia. And, if I understand Benlisquare correctly, the article also appeared on DYK in the Chinese Wikipedia. --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 Wikipedia. --benlisquareT•C•E 20:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
And in the Polish Wikipedia:

In new Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 ¡digame! 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 Wikipedia 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. λόγοςπράξις 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. c.f. Cuteness in Japanese culture - those specifically involved with what's being described aren't of the same mindset, unless you're specifically implying that they have a culture of humiliating people. In addition, the description of 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)
This trash internet craze, fueled by the manga industry's fan base on a massive scale, does not represent the best aspects of Japanese culture to say the least. Calling a serious professional "daw-eyed heroine of manga", especially in a crisis region such as the Crimea, is humiliating under any standards. I hope you don't imply that every time something goes viral in the manga fan-base and a craze develops such as this one, the fans are untouchable and their actions are above criticism just because you are trying to cloak them with a faux mantle of Japanese culture so that your arguments can prevail. Your arguments are a red-herring. By the way, this is edit-warring on your part despite your edit-summary disclaimer that "technically" it isn't. In Wikipedia the term "technically" when applied to edit-warring is synonymous to gaming the system. So, please stop trying to game the system. And read WP:3RR more carefully going forward: Any change of another editor's comments counts as a revert. You changed my edit, you reverted me. You are now at the maximum three reverts in 24 hours. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy dictates that a montage is one image. If you don't like it, request for the policy to be amended at the Village Pump. Don't complain that people are using the way a policy is worded to their advantage, because that's like complaining to the referee about the rules of football: when it suits yourself, it's policy adherence, but when it doesn't, it's "gaming the system". This page used to have 5 images, what we have now is already a huge drop, and I'm not making any more compromises. If there is someone behaving stubbornly, it's you. I am specifically referring to your conduct within the past few days spanning multiple discussion pages. --benlisquareT•C•E 19:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Your reply is mostly incoherent nonsense. The edit-warring policy is specific: You changed my edit, you reverted me. End of story. You added a different picture, that's a revert. Now let's address the personal attack: I am specifically referring to your conduct within the past few days spanning multiple discussion pages.. First, in the past few days, I have not been in any other talkpage related to Poklonskaya, except this one. It was more than a "few days" when I was at BLPN talking about the BLP, but that discussion is closed and I have not participated in it, "over the past few days". Where exactly are the "multiple talkpages" you have seen me arguing "over the past few days"? As far as the personal attack, remember WP:NPA: comment on the contributions, not the contributor, in what way have I been stubborn, by expressing an opinion, that many other editors also support? I am not the only one here who insists this is not a suitable DYK. In what way is my opinion different from those of the other editors who also agree with me? And why have you chosen to attack me out of all the other editors? Aren't the other editors also "stubborn" since they have tenaciously, over many days, showed no signs of being persuaded by your arguments and are still arguing against them? Is everyone who opposes you "stubborn"? Or do you reserve this personal attack only for me? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
No - other opposers have legitimate concerns, you're just continuing the same old rhetoric at WP:BLPN as if you have an axe to grind, and hence I don't think anyone else here is stubborn in the same manner at all. I have much more to add on this topic, but all of this would be detracting from the actual DYKN discussion, and this isn't the place to be talking about all this; normally, people would take this to user talk pages for further discussion, but since you've explicitly told me that you don't want me on your user talk page at all, I can't really do anything about it, can I? --benlisquareT•C•E 11:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It may interest you to know that (prior to my edit), 275 edits have been made to this page. Of those, 117 were by Benlisquare, 52 by Moscow Connection, and 21 by Starship.paint. It's not axe grinding, but something odd is going on. Johnuniq (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Seems damn well like axe-grinding to me, unless trying to get a DYK promoted is an offence. starship.paint "YES!" 12:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I have a habit of making multiple edits to make one comment, due to my internet connection; you can see this anywhere I go. You might often notice how I'll first post a comment, and then make multiple amendments to it within the following minute - I never use the preview button, in case my connection drops. I would rather have an incomplete post sent to the server that requires fixing later, than no message at all. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
@Benlisquare: No - other opposers have legitimate concerns, you're just continuing the same old rhetoric at WP:BLPN as if you have an axe to grind, and hence I don't think anyone else here is stubborn in the same manner at all. This is utter nonsense obviously and just a thinly-veiled attempt to justify your PAs toward me. Many of the arguments by other editors such as Ohconfucius, Johnuniq, Future Perfect etc. are even stronger than mine and some of those arguments resemble mine even down to the terminology they use. My fault, according to you, is that I started my discussion at BLPN. I didn't know that I could not comment on other pages about the same subject once I participated at BLPN. I further did not know that I would be accused of "axe-grinding" and of being "stubborn" on "multiple pages over the past few days" just for coming to this page after the discussion at BLPN was over. Can you listen to yourself? Despite what your nonsense suggests, I am here, in good faith, to add my voice to those of many other opposing editors not because of what you imply in your PAs but because I think that the cartoon COATRACK you are attempting to put to the main page is damaging to Wikipedia and to the BLP subject. Yet you continue arguing by adding to your PAs. So far you have demonstrated failure to understand numerous policies. The latest baseless accusation demonstrates that you refuse to follow WP:AGF and, at long last, show some compliance with or respect for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I understand `that it is useless discussing this topic with you. Just don't expect that your PA strategy will be effective in deterring me from expressing my opinion about this trash cartoon phenomenon and on this page. By the way search for the term "trash" on this page. Ohconfucius said it before I even edited this talkpage. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Then contribute. If you want to talk about the shenanigans between me and you, come to my talk page, or let me on yours. This is a DYKN, not a talk show corner hosted by Jerry Springer. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
As expected you got this backwards. I already contributed great arguments that you are in a hurry to dismiss. You should start contributing. Except if you consider your PAs and obtuse, repetitive arguments "contributions". They are not. And don't try to deter me from replying to you here. You try to discredit me here. Here is the place where I reply to your nonsense and I will not hide it on your talkpage. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not "hiding", anyone can see my talk page. It's not detracting away from the topic and being a hassle for others. It's a basic courtesy that if there is a personal dispute, it's taken to a more suitable location. You're making it sound like you want to pick a fight for spectators to watch, like on ESPN - that isn't the purpose of this page. Or, are you the type who fistfights inside the restaurant and causes trouble for the waitresses, instead of taking your opponent out on the street where it should be taking place, without bothering or troubling anybody? --benlisquareT•C•E 17:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, if you feel free to personally attack me on this page, then I feel free to rebut your arguments here. You should realise that you cannot personally attack people on talkpages and when your nonsense is exposed to want to hide it on your talkpage. You are also adding to your PAs in your replies to me: You're making it sound like you want to pick a fight for spectators to watch, like on ESPN. You can't have it both ways. You add PAs here but then expect me to reply on your talk. Stop your PAs here, I will not reply any more, here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I will. On the condition that you do your part as well. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
For the original nay-sayers[edit]

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 Wikipedia pages? Are any? This remains an article about a police officer whose notability rests on her appearance; I'm not convinced it belongs in Wikipedia, 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 ¡digame! 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 ¡digame! 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 ¡digame! 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, 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 silly 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 over and done with[edit]
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 ¡digame! 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)
  • What makes little sense is that we had an acceptable hook (ALT2 from Gerda) that could be called "interesting" and an article that could have been called "sober" and you decided to reverse their natures. That's what I meant by "shome mishtake". -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that everybody didn't like making any references to internet culture on the front page. If that wasn't the case, well then ALT2 works better. --benlisquareT•C•E 13:03, 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 ¡digame! 11:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Comments like this are called trolling. Please stop. And please, please don't edit the article cause you again changed it to say something completely untrue. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Calm down, MC. Let's just find a way to finish this 2-month deadlock for now, and concern ourselves with how to shuffle everything around. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Benlisquare: ALT3 is incorrect. (Thanks to Ohconfucius who, again, changed the article without understanding of the matter. I would probably revert most of his edits, but I don't want him to endanger this DYK nomination any further.)
I will explain here and you please change the article and the DYK hook accordingly.
So... What exactly happened:
  1. Crimea became part of Russia. (A new federal subject of Russia was formed).
  2. Now Crimea is part of Russia. Chief prosecutors of Russian federal subjects are assigned by... [I don't know by who, but certainly not by the Supreme Council of Crimea].
  3. First, General Prosecutor of Russia Yury Chaika appointed Poklonskaya acting Prosecutor General of Crimea.
  4. Then, Putin appointed Poklonskaya Prosecutor General of Crimea.
Also, Ohconfucius added strange words to link sentences that aren't connected to each other whatsoever. ("... the naming Poklonskaya to acting chief prosecutor. However, Poklonskaya was listed as a wanted criminal" ← Why "however"? And by the way, why "to acting"?)
By the way, I agree with Ohconfucius. The hook proposed by Gerda Arendt is better. But something about Poklonskaya being appointed by Putin may also work cause any hook with Putin's name in it is good. But it should probably sound more interesting than the one you proposed. (As for the other matter, I did what I said I would. Now let's wait. People are having holidays in Russia now.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Moscow - I'm sure Ohc didn't do it in bad faith. He was just doing a copyedit. starship.paint "YES!" 12:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I put down ALT3 as an alternative if people wanted something that made no mention of anything internet-related. Of course I would prefer ALT2 better myself. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
ALT3 is still incorrect. "Ratified" is not the correct word to use. You can say that Chaika appointed her to temporarily act as the Attorney General (pending the decision by Putin) and then Putin appointed her. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It's what the article prose says, and that's where I got it from. Feel free to tweak the hook, or the contents of the article. --benlisquareT•C•E 19:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • My reservations herein have been expressed in the context of article quality, and hook quality vis à vis DYK rules, custom and practice. As I said, I felt that the entry was DYK-compliant at one point in time, but I tremble at making judgement as to the political wisdom of the entry as such as much as I may have concerns on that front.

    If some editor would object to every attempt I made at opposing tabloidisation of WP or removing their fucking precious fancruft, or have a fit because one word was incorrect in their estimation, the problem isn't mine. Dragging my name through the dirt for it is rather dishonourable way of winning their argument. -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't mind if we don't mention the internet thing in the hook, and make it real-world politics related instead. There's been concerns that I've worded my Vladimir Putin hook poorly, and so if there are any suggestions on how to word it better, anyone can write down a replacement hook. --benlisquareT•C•E 03:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • While a BLP article is being used as a WP:COATRACK for another topic (trolling of public officials with caricatures), there should be no mention on the main page, regardless of the hook. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Please add a citation for the bold claim "trolling of public officials with caricatures", in accordance with WP:RS. Prove that what is being done around the internet is "trolling". What is being covered in the article is well covered in third-party reliable sources, and your disagreement amounts to an opinionated WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Please stop playing that silly "DONTLIKEIT" card. Indeed, we don't like it, and we stand by that. And yes, we are opinionated; we have opinions. Editorial opinions about what is good for putting on our main page. And these editorial opinions count. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is about what's an invalid argument in deletion discussions. When it comes to filling slots on the main page, "I don't like it" is in fact a perfectly valid point. What goes on the mainpage is a matter of editorial judgment, and if a significant number of editors express good reasons for "not liking" something being on the main page, then it won't go on the main page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • express good reasons for "not liking" - I fail to see any "good reasons". Ironically enough, within Wikipedia where sources are especially valued, some editors think their opinions are more correct than the sources? Sources have described the fan art as created by "admirers" and "artists". Instead editors label "sexist basement-dwelling nerds" and now apparently "trolls". From what sources say depicting the subject as a "heroine", editors say "humiliation". I'm not sure how we can value these opinions which are obviously at odds with the sources. starship.paint "YES!" 12:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Newsworthiness is not a valid substitute for encyclopaedic content. Even less is trying to turn WP into a tabloid just because DYK hooks are supposed to be "interesting". Most of us try hard not to write like a news site, but some think that the only acceptable format is one that caters to the lowest common denominator. Sometimes our role and that of newspapers overlaps – as in the case of MH370, but that is not the case most of the time. -- Ohc ¡digame! 15:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Since I doubt anyone wants to sift through the mess above, how about we summarize everybody's points in a table, and work from there? I've created a table for starters below, feel free to make additions.
In favour of passing DYK In opposition to passing DYK
  • Other language Wikipedia projects have passed this article through DYK (specifically the Polish, Chinese and Russian Wikipedias). Although what happens outside of enwiki has little holding here, it can be argued that this sets a precedent, and also emphasizes the difference in cultural values between each project.
  • It is not unusual for individuals who have significant online notability to have a section within their biographical article to contain a small section explaining it. An example is Edward Khil#Internet meme, and others exist as well. This may be WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but it also sets a precedent and the question of double standards.
  • Much of all this internet phenomenon coverage is from mainstream and reputable third-party reliable sources from around the world. To say that we shouldn't cover this is to throw a blanket over it and pretend that it doesn't exist.
  • There have been more risque things on DYK, this article is nothing new or special. DYK has covered famous prostitutes, famous rapists, controversial novels, banned films, all sorts of things. From memory, Gropecunt Lane was the front page featured article once, and this page is hardly as detestable as that.
  • Evidence proving that these images are intended to defame this individual is practically non-existent, and is merely speculation on behalf of editors who have grown up within a western society, and may not understand how things work in East Asia. WP:SYSTEMIC suggests that this project shouldn't be specifically built towards a "western civilization" bent, and that it should be as inclusive as possible.
  • Natalia herself is indifferent towards the artworks, and does not appear to be offended by them. She states herself in an interview that her daughter collects the artworks for her, amongst other things. Concerns regarding WP:BLP and offense in this regard become speculative and non-conclusive.
  • The article has changed significantly during the two months of DYK deadlock, and issues raised in the past have been addressed by contributors.
  • Regarding the argument of WP:NPOV (see oppose arguments): She is the de facto Prosecutor of Crimea, and third-party reliable sources describe her as so. The position of the Ukranian government does not take priority over WP:RS. It is Natalia who handles criminal matters in Simferopol, and not a representative from Kiev. Wikipedia also describes Taiwan as a real country, despite the protests of China; this isn't any different.
  • Here on Wikipedia, we should not be encouraging anything which may harm or offend individuals by advertising such content on the front page. DYK is an editorial matter, and the community can choose not to pass a nomination if contributors feel that it does not do good for the project.
  • The content regarding the internet phenomenon is WP:CRUFT-y and WP:UNDUE for a biographical article, and detracts away from the more important information regarding her career. As she is a person of office, the priority of coverage should be serious information.
  • In the western world, the artworks can be seen as sexist and degrading; including them may be seen as an act of humiliation against this individual. Since the subject is a woman, we must be extra careful.
  • Many of the people in opposition are respected people. This includes one senior member of ArbCom.
  • This internet phenomenon is an active campaign by (nerds? manga artists? Russians?) to defame the subject.
  • This article is non-notable to begin with, having not met WP:BLP1E, and should be deleted via WP:AfD rather than featured in DYK.
  • We should not word DYK hooks in a manner which resembles tabloid journalism.
  • A DYK hook must not state that she is the "Prosecutor of Crimea" as a fact, as this is disputed by the government of Ukraine and allies of the United States, in accordance with WP:NPOV.

Might I also suggest that people add a non-timestamped signature to the end of additions (3x ~) to make it easier to figure out who's making additions. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that some of those commenting here have no idea what WP:COATRACK involves. The principle is seen in this case—take an article about a minor living person, add a current "phenomenon" and post it on the main page because omg it's cute. The BLP article is being used as a convenient hook to promote caricatures. No one wants to put this article on the front page because of its subject—the only reason is omg it's cute. The Wikipedian response is to write an article on the topic (an Internet phenomenon), then DYK that.

The spectacular mind reading seen in "Natalia herself is indifferent towards the artworks" again misses the point—I am offended by the misuse of Wikipedia to coatrack silly cartoons in a BLP, and if a sufficient number of editors agree, editorial judgment will apply and the DYK will not occur. If we were discussing Barack Obama, would you refer to him as Barack? Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to question, have you even read the article in its current state? WP:COATRACK: the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject - the sheer volume of the Internet popularity section is not even 10% of the body of the article. Clearly, the nominal subject of her legal career is hidden. I'm afraid you've got it all wrong - the phenomenon is being used as a convinient hook to promote the BLP article. Also, Poklonskaya is quite a hard word to remember and type compared to Natalia - the same does not apply to Barack Obama. starship.paint "YES!" 00:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but do you know what DYK is? It's not the "Article of the Day" or whatever.
  1. The DYK section is a way to reward editors for creading new articles over 1500 characters in length. The section is full or random articles and full of humorous, stupid facts. Just look: Wikipedia:Recent additions. And please read the rules. An article doesn't even have to be good or whatever. It simply must be new or expanded 5 times and over 1,500 characters in length. The article qualifies. (And it has been improved since it was nominated. So the purpose of DYK has been achieved: some editors worked very hard to add new content and create a decent page. If not for the DYK nomination, the article would probably be several times shorter or most of it would be about the Internet meme. I think that now the article and the editors should be rewarded for improving Wikipedia cause it's not nice to deny them the reward.)
  2. And another purpose of DYK is to make people read Wikipedia by luring them with stupid things they would want to click on. Is the proposed hook about the Internet phenomena looks worth clicking on? Is the picture cute and interesting? I think they are. (And as it has been already said, there have been ugly, terrible DYK facts on the main page. But for some reason, no one cared. But here, something cute and people don't like it. [As I already suggested, maybe some people, I'm not talking about anyone in particular, don't want her on the main page simply because she is a Russian/Crimean official. I'm not sure it's a valid reason to reject the nomination.]) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This is obviously too controversial and has too many opposes to have any realistic chance of passing the review. If the discussion is this long, it's time to let it go. Rcsprinter123 (confer) @ 16:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    Whai s controversial exactly? I'm sorry, but it looks like you voted against the topic of the article, rather then against all of the proposed hooks. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not voting on anything, just pointing out that the discussion has been very long and isn't worth it. I'm not talking about the topic of the article either, just the community's reaction to its DYK nomination. Rcsprinter123 (chatter) @ 20:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    But you "voted" to reject the nomination. Moreover, it may look like you reviewed the nomination (looked at the proposed hooks, looked at the article) and it is your own opinion that the article mustn't be promoted. (It's worth it for me for me and as I can see it's also worth it for other people who expanded the article and made this nomination possible.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you don't like any of the DYK hooks, propose another one. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, this has gone on long enough--I can't even see what I'm typing in the edit screen since this template is so huge. The only thing that's changed, as far as I can see, is Newyorkbrad's opinion (on their own talk page, via Blackberry), but NYB still does not favor "mainpaging" it. BlueMoonset, Crisco 1492, Casliber, Victuallers--anyone, please put this out of its misery. There is clearly not enough support for this to run. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq opposes the whole article, but User:Dr. K opposed the hook about the Internet meme and Newyorkbrad opposed the state of the article as of a month and a half ago and the hook about the Internet meme. There's another hook (ALT3) now and only a small part of the article is dedicated to the Internet phenomenon. If they agree to run it without the picture and with some other fact in the hook, I can propose more alternatives. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • A quick word count, apparently the Internet popularity section is now still under 10% of the body. The rest is her career or personal life. A lot of policies have been addressed: WP:BLP1E (notable than more than just one event), WP:UNDUE, WP:GNG, WP:RECENT, WP:RS and WP:COATRACK. This is not going to pass ... politically. starship.paint "YES!" 10:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I actually opposed the article appearing on the main page. I also think the double cartoon image places too much emphasis on the cartoon phenomenon. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I firmly oppose this appearing in the front page as a matter of editorial judgement. It trivialises a touchpoint area and its obvious that the key driver is Poklonskaya's apparent "cuteness" which is frankly just sexist misogyny. Spartaz Humbug! 05:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you need to define what you mean by "this". I fail to see how ALT3 without an image would "trivialize ..."? Or
ALT5: "... Natalia Poklonskaya was appointed as Prosecutor General of Crimea?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
For clarity, here is ALT3: "... that Natalia Poklonskaya's appointment as Prosecutor of Crimea was ratified by Russian president Vladimir Putin?" <no image> starship.paint "YES!" 11:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for the opposes, but, imo, any hook would be unsatisfactory because the article contains the cartoons. The way I see it, we should not generate additional DYK traffic from the Main Page so that more readers can see the Internet fad and cartoons in the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Also the article is not stable. An obscure, sexist, video game keeps getting added in the Internet section. This BLP is a mess. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree with User talk:Dr.K. and Spartaz's comment that "its obvious that the key driver is Poklonskaya's apparent "cuteness" which is frankly just sexist misogyny". Parabolooidal (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@Dr. K: Would you agree to run the DYK if we leave only one image in the Internet section? Or if we temporarily remove all images for the day it's on the main page? As for the Internet section, I see no mention of a video game there. Also, if I rewrote the section, I would remove the part saying "Reddit and Vkontakte" and just say "Russia" or "worldwide".
I won't propose anything definite now, but I see many events that are mentioned in the article and can be used in a hook, for example:
  1. In 2011, Poklonskaya was the state prosecutor in the trial of a gang that terrorized Crimea and was led by a deputy of the Crimean parliament. [I have a Russian source for these exact words, for the "terrorized Crimea" part.]
  2. Something about her resignation from the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office and that it was not accepted.
  3. Poklonskaya was listed as a wanted criminal on the website of the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs.
  4. She personally received her papers as a Russian legal officer from the General Prosecutor of Russia.
  5. On May 2, Vladimir Putin appointed Natalia Poklonskaya the chief prosecutor of the newly created Crimean federal subject of Russia.
--Moscow Connection (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
In reply to your question, yes. If there was only one image then, imo, it would no longer be WP:UNDUE and I would not object. As far as the mention of the video game, it's no longer there because it was finally removed by another editor. If it doesn't come back, then I would no longer object to this DYK, if for nothing else than out of respect for your efforts and those of Starship.paint and Benlisquare. BTW, Dr. K is not me. I am Dr.K.. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I've done enough budging on the issue of the number of images itself, no more of that from me. Any other issues, I'm willing to discuss. starship.paint "YES!" 11:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
for ALT3 with no image. I'm going to stick my oar in as an uninvolved editor who admires how much work has gone on above, but which really should be brought to a conclusion. The celebrity-anime-oriented beginnings of this item did raise issues about good judgement, BLP and balance, which were entirely appropriate to be debating, given our desire to present the encyclopedia as a positive experience to its readership. Since that time, the hook options have moved away from the anime focus, while the article has been hammered into very sound shape. I see no BLP issues - her career is thoroughly presented; criticisms of her position are presented with counter views. Given the extreme conflict characterising the situation within which her rise took place, i think editors have done very well on this front. The pop culture / internet phenomenon thing is now a tiny part of the article. The hook fact is cited, as indeed is the entire article, to a standard well above what we need at DYK in general (though this subject certainly is a case for careful referencing). The single reference to the subject's physical appearance, late in the body text, is appropriately (indeed multiply) cited. Overwhelmingly the focus of the article, and the significance of this person, relates to her role in the Ukraine/Crimea conflict. As for claims that the hook is boring: really? I never saw a boring hook at DYK before ;-) I say this is good to go. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • To choose that ALT3, which had already been objected to by one of the nominators as inaccurate since Putin appointed her, he didn't ratify the appointment (MoscowConnection has made this clear more than once, the last time just above the outdent) is highly unfortunate. ALT5 is indeed boring (I've struck it and all the other remaining unstruck hooks, including a second ALT1 and more than one ALT3, and also commented out the image, since it isn't usable), but it could be made more interesting as an ALT6 or so by adding the Putin appointment as an actual appointment, and/or the fact that she's now on the EU sanctions list. (Also, don't omit the initial "that" from the hook, as was done with ALT5). BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
ALT6 ... that the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin appointed Natalia Poklonskaya as the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Crimea?
(In one sense boring but accurate, but what makes it interesting to me is that a head of state would appoint an official in another Republic - a term i expect to denote a sovereign state, but which is not the case in the Russian Federation)
ALT7 *... that the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya is barred from entering European Union countries?
I've checked a ref to confirm that Poklonskaya is on the visa ban list.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that ALT6 may face some "political opposition" ... Crimea is not even a country, Putin has no power over Crimea etc. Though I'm fine with both ALT6 and ALT7. Thanks, hamiltonstone! starship.paint "YES!" 01:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
We could just say "Crimea", instead of "Republic of Crimea". That way, we don't have to worry too much about the whole "Crimea is not legitimate" thing. By referring to a geographical region instead of a disputed political entity, we can avoid the whole political mess. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
ALT8 *... that the Prosecutor General of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya is barred from entering European Union countries? starship.paint "YES!" 04:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
How about ALT8, Hamiltonstone and BlueMoonset starship.paint "YES!" 02:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes to all of these. Will someone please just run one and close this out? If ALT8 is the least politically contentious, then run with that, though supporters of Crimean independence will presumably have their own issues with it. Nothing will satisfy everyone, but any of these meets our DYK criteria,and points to a well-constructed neutral article. I don't think we can ask for more. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I think there is no consensus to run the double image/collage on the Internet popularity section per WP:UNDUE. At a minimum, one pic has to go. And I am not speaking on behalf of those who have expressed additional doubts. I don't think this is resolved. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It's already a 200px × 110px rectangle, what more would you ask for? It's so tiny right now. How could it be any worse than one image that's sized at 450px, which is the usual generic size for illustrative images like these? --benlisquareT•C•E 06:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Can both of you please not muddy the waters? No-one in this latest interchange has suggested running the images on the DYK page, and my proposed tick explicitly said the contrary - Bluemoonset, who is monitoring here, appears to agree. So why raise it? If it is an issue regarding the article itself, the DYK page isn't the place to discuss it - particularly as there appears to be no image with the image licencing (the only reason i can imagine it would find its way here). As to every other issue people have raised (many when the article bore little resemblance to its current form), I think people at this stage need to identify specific, actionable problems that nominators and editors can address, and which relate only to DYK or BLP. And every time someone raises this, editors who might otherwise action this through to the prep queues feel they have to sit for days, waiting for someone to express yet another opinion. It's a single sentence in the DYK box that will be there for less than a day, so there's also a need to maintain perspective, particularly if there are no BLP or DYK rule compliance issues. What is it about the article as it currently stands that requires it to be held up further? hamiltonstone (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Can both of you please not muddy the waters? Please leave the personal comments out of this. No one is "muddying" anything. This and other issues have been raised multiple times, just read the long discussions above. The article as it stands is not ready for the main page and it is not even stable. The current state of the article with the montage is the result of an edit-war and it has not been resolved. That it has not been reverted does not imply that it is an acceptable version. Not for the main page at least. If it is an issue regarding the article itself, the DYK page isn't the place to discuss it The DYK page is exactly the right place to raise problems with this article, before it hits the main page. And it has nothing to do with licensing but with WP:UNDUE emphasis on the cartoons. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
"Edit war"? Please do not write fiction. Where are the diff links for this so-called "edit war"? The article's current state is due to talk page discussions which suggested that an alternative compromise would be to use a WP:MONTAGE, which per the policy page is considered one image. If you did not participate in the discussion, you cannot place the blame on someone else. The page is quite stable, there hasn't been a major reshuffle within two weeks, apart from a few small updates regarding her career as new reports emerge. Also, he did not make a personal comment, it was a valid opinion of his, don't be so quick to label it as such. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fiction? Nice try. Revert 1, Revert 2, Revert 3, all three in less than an hour. Remember now? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Post-(edit conflict): Also, he did not make a personal comment, it was a valid opinion of his, don't be so quick to label it as such.: That's your opinion. I don't have to share it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
...there hasn't been a major reshuffle within two weeks, apart from a few small updates regarding her career as new reports emerge.: Not so. Last edit-war was eight days ago about the video game and it still has not been fully resolved. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The video game situation has not been fully resolved? Because of who? Read the talk page regarding the game, it is both Dr.K. and Johnuniq who have opposed the information and stopped replying to the talk page. The article doesn't even have information about the video game now, so I guess they won. starship.paint "YES!" 08:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • As for the pictures, just look at what it was before this DYK cut it down. A centered gallery with five pictures and a link to the whole Commons gallery. Us editors of this article have listened. We have budged and budged and budged and cut down to four, three and now one shifted aside montage of two pictures with no link to the whole Commons gallery. As Dr.K. has said above on this very page, he essentially objects because it is his opinion that the pictures are a cultural assault by the anime/manga industry, an opinion which he seems to have pulled out of thin air. starship.paint "YES!" 08:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Starship.paint, I'm starting to get the feeling that this whole thing is just a personal vendetta against me due to something that happened a long time ago that may have offended him (I recklessly said something about Greeks and Turks, however only once, and a very long time ago), and it's just a small cog in a much larger picture. I'm finding it really hard to comprehend why Dr.K has such a deep interest here otherwise. I really don't think that it's because of a genuine hatred of "anime" or anything like that, and in hindsight, perhaps none of this would have happened if I watched my tongue a bit back then. Oh well, too late for me to grovel now. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Eh Ben, I really hope not. But let's stick with the DYK at hand? starship.paint "YES!" 13:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Starship.paint, I'm starting to get the feeling that this whole thing is just a personal vendetta against me... It is one thing to not WP:AGF toward me; I am used to it by now. But it is quite another to construct conspiracy theories based on suspicion. Please do not repeat these nonsensical fantasies. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dr.K: Nice try, but number 3 wasn't a revert, it was a one-image compromise, unless you specifically want to propagandize it as that way. You have to shoehorn it in really tightly if you want it to work like that. A revert is a WP:REVERT. It was accepted at WP:BLPN that a single image would be a compromise (and you remained notably quiet on the final aspects of the issue despite not being absent at the discussion), If you're not happy with the policy wording at WP:MONTAGE which reads "Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts", suggest a rewording of the policy at the WP:Village pump. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • First, you call this edit-war "fiction" and then when I supply the diffs of the edit-war, as you asked me to, you don't accept that the third edit was a revert. We've had this discussion before so I will be brief. Please consult the WP:3RR policy about that. Also ask an admin or another editor if this edit constitutes a revert or not. It does, obviously, but it will serve you well in the future if you understand this as well. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
whatever. Glad to see some of the discussion now moved to the article talk page where it belongs. I remain of the view this article is good to go on DYK. Stability is not relevant, and there actually isn't much happening at the article anyway. Don't use an image on DYK and there's no problem. Someone just needs to tick any or all of the hooks.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll bite. ALT8 approved. Good to go with no image. Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Natalia_Poklonskaya&oldid=1222149329"