Template:Did you know nominations/David Dayen

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 Cielquiparle talk 20:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

David Dayen

(
)
  • ... that David Dayen, the executive editor of The American Prospect, wrote a book that argues that antitrust law has been watered down and must be restored and used to break up monopolies? Source: “One reason anti-monopolism is so popular among a certain set is that the solutions to monopoly power are easy to find. In fact, we often don’t need anything new. “We know how to handle monopolies,” Dayen points out, citing existing laws that can protect us against antitrust abuses but that have been misinterpreted or watered down. To him, this should be at the center of any anti-monopolist movement: restoring these laws with their original power and using them to break up monopolies, block mergers that create future ones, and regulate any that remain as public utilities. That’s all “entirely possible under existing law,” he adds.” The Nation
  • ALT1 ... that according to David Dayen, the executive editor of The American Prospect, monopolies are so interwoven with our lives that it is impossible to escape them? Andreas JN466 11:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Created by Thriley (talk) and Jayen466 (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 03:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/David Dayen; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • I prefer the ALT hook. It is much hookier. Thriley (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Article is new and without outstanding policy issues, but barely passes the length requirement. While the character count stands at 2,078, a lot of the text is made up of extensive quotations, and the count drops below 1,200 if you exclude them. While technically the rules only say to exclude blockquotes, it would be better if the article could be further expanded at least a bit. The original hook isn't supported by the article text (no direct mention of anti-trust laws). The wording of Alt1 needs clarification. The interwoven comment is not a direct statement from Dayen, but Covert's assessment of the book's message, and since it's replicated here almost verbatim, it should probably be presented as a quote and given proper attribution. QPQ has been supplied.
    I haven't been active in DYK for some time, so do let me know if I've missed something, and feel free to ask for second opinion if you disagree. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for your review. I’ll reduce the quotes and expand the number of reviews for the books. Thriley (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thriley, any progress? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Currently fixing it up! Thriley (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    Thriley, theleekycauldron: I've added a bit more content as well, so the character count looks healthy now, even without quotations. Andreas JN466 20:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
    Well then, back to Paul_012 for assessment :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
    Right. I think quoting the reviewer paraphrasing Dayen would be too cumbersome. We could write are so omnipresent in our lives to gain a bit more distance from the reviewer's words, but personally I don't think it matters here. For reference, you can see the publisher's blurb at Google Books, which presents the same essential idea – that there are monopolies everywhere – in a variety of ways. Best, Andreas JN466 22:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
    Looking at this again, attributing the reviewer does seem cumbersome and unnecessary for DYK. But I'd still prefer some sort of wording that attributes the idea to the book rather than sounding like Dayen directly said this in person. Not sure if I'm overthinking it, but what about this?
    --Paul_012 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
    Great hook. Perhaps mention of the book? Alt1b ... that in his 2020 book Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power, The American Prospect executive editor David Dayen writes that monopolies are so interwoven with our lives that it is impossible to escape them? Thriley (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    That would be quite too long, at 215 characters. An alternative would be to drop the editor role, i.e.
    Alt1c ... that in his book Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power, David Dayen writes that monopolies are so interwoven with our lives that it is impossible to escape them?
    I'm going to approve with Alt1a and Alt1c only. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
@Thriley, Jayen466, and Paul 012: I was close to promoting ALT1a...but technically "writes that" is misleading since the part about "monopolies are so interwoven with our lives that it is impossible to escape them" actually comes from a review describing the fact that Dayen successfully "demonstrates" this. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Cielquiparle: Do you think "argues that monopolies ..." would solve the problem? I.e.:
Or:
Andreas JN466 20:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
OK. I do think that ALT1d is better. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/David_Dayen&oldid=1175846007"