Template:Did you know nominations/Rector v. MLB

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Rector v. MLB[edit]

(
)
  • ... that Rector v. MLB was a $10 million defamation lawsuit that came about after the plaintiff was filmed sleeping at a baseball match with comments made about him by announcers? Source: ESPN
    • ALT1:... that Rector v. MLB was called the "Worst Lawsuit Ever" after a baseball fan sued the MLB and ESPN for $10 million after they broadcasted him sleeping at a game and made comments about him? Source: Daily Beast

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 10:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC).

  • While a very interesting article, I'm not exactly sure about the reliability of some of the sources in the article. In particular, ALT1 (The C of E's preferred hook) links uses The Daily Beast as a source; in additoon, the article also uses the NY Daily News, and the New York Post as sources. Might need second opinions about this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
As interesting as ALT1 is, the hook uses The Daily Beast as a source, the site being of questionable reliability. Since no other source has said the same thing, ALT1 is struck. In addition, I find both hooks question could fall afoul of WP:BLP. As such, if this nomination is to pass: 1. the questionable sources I mentioned in my previous comment should either be removed or replaced, and 2. more BLP-compliant hooks should be proposed. NY Daily News is an acceptable source per RSN, and the NY Post articles seems fine in this context, but the nomination still needs work for reasons I've mentioned. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Actually The Daily Beast is considered RS. I fail to see how there is a BLP violation as there is no personal mention of anyone in the hook beyond the case title and it is discussing the lawsuit, not the person and any mention or insinuation of the person is made simply by stating the facts that are reliably reported with no opinions given negatively towards them. I have unstruck ALT1 as I believe you were not aware of the RSN decision (please correct me if I am wrong). I don't see a need to change either, did you ask for that second opinion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@The C of E: The same discussion said: "I would rather we source items in BLPs to it as little as possible"; this implies that using it to source information about BLPs is discouraged. Also, that discussion was from 2009, and based on subsequent discussions in more recent years, the use of TDB has become less and less encouraged (a search for "The Daily Beast" in the RSN archives shows this). Also, please do not unstrike ALT1: it's already been struck for a reason, and only reviewers can unstrike rejected hooks. As for the hooks themselves, them focusing too much on the sleeping does sound vaguely WP:BLPish, I would suggest you provide other hooks just to keep on the safe side. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I do not see a reason to change it as the sleeping is what the lawsuit was about. BLP requires that content be NPOV, verifiable and NOR as well as not focussing on unduly negative things under WP:DYKHOOK. I do not believe that this can be considered unduly negative as all it says was that a lawsuit came about because someone was broadcast sleeping at baseball. The hook makes no assertions beyond the verified facts of the case. I would suggest we get that second opinion @Narutolovehinata5:.
I've started a discussion at WT:DYK, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Template:Did you know nominations/Rector v. MLB. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: As time is drawing near and granted we have only had 1 opinion on WT:DYK but I am happy to use ALT2 as proposed by Yoninah just so we can get this on in time for the 2nd. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@The C of E: As time is running out, I'll be willing to approve this promptly, provided that you replace The Daily Beast reference. Yoninah and Alex Shih have raised no other objections so once that's done, this will be good to go. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I have replaced the ticket terms cite. However with the other use it is being used in context simply to cite that one organization did call it the "worst Lawsuit ever", maybe I could reword that to directly say TDB. @Narutolovehinata5: The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@The C of E: I guess that could work, since there's a citation and it would now only refer to the quote itself. I'm still somewhat hesitant about the source, but considering a lack of time, I guess I can't do much here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I have made the change now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • And with no further objections from two other users and myself, this is now approved. A prompt posting to the April 2 prep is also appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Rector_v._MLB&oldid=960223455"