Template:Did you know nominations/Élizabeth Teissier


 * 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) 04:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Élizabeth Teissier

 * ... that Élizabeth Teissier sued the Wikimedia Foundation (and lost)?


 * Comment: Translated from French. Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/I Will Possess Your Heart Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Translated from French. Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/I Will Possess Your Heart Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Created by Adam Cuerden (talk). Self-nominated at 17:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC).

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 17:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Some issues found.
 * &#x2713; This article is new and was created on 16:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article meets the DYK criteria at 5544 characters
 * &#x2717; Paragraphs [4] (Elizabeth ... results.),[5] (A ... (73%)) in this article lack a citation.
 * I think it was clear before, but I've made it explicit that it's covered by the cite at the end of the section. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
 * &#x2717; There is possible close paraphrasing on this article with 23.1% confidence. (confirm)
 * Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
 * I don't think this is meaningful; it appears to be catching titles and quotes and such. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 69 characters
 * &#x2713; This is Adam Cuerden's' 3rd nomination. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 2 more DYKs.
 * I think that's not counting some very old ones, but no matter: I did a QPQ. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I have reviewed the article and the bot's comments above. I agree with all of the ticks given by the bot, and accept the explanations by Adam regarding the crosses. To summarize, the article is new enough, having been created two days ago. It is certainly long enough, with three sections and several sub-sections. Considering the potentially controversial nature of the subject, I think it is neutrally written. I assume good faith on the French-language sources. The article appears clear of any copyright problems. The hook is short, within policy and topical. QPQ has been performed. The only issue I wish to bring to the nominator 's attention is that the first paragraph of the "Career" subsection about her modelling is unsourced. Apart from that I think it is ready to go. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll check if it's covered in one of the nearby sources. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't covered, so I rewrote the section a bit to match the sources I found. Google is blocking some articles from me under the Right to privacy laws of Europe; I'll need to poke around with other search engines once I'm home and see what comes up, and whether I can source the original, more detailed text. Is it good to go as it stands, though? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I've fixed some minor punctuation problems, so it looks ok to me now. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have pulled this nomination from prep as the rules say "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided" and in my view, losing a lawsuit counts as a negative aspect. Could we please pick another hook? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT1 ... that Élizabeth Teissier claims to have predicted Black Monday and the fall of the Berlin Wall? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, hell no. We are not doing a pro-astrology hook, that's a violation of WP:FRINGE, a subset of WP:NPOV - one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. The original is fine - it's well sourced, and is something she got plenty of press coverage about; it should never, never have been pulled. The new one - besides actual policy violations - also uses claims of success explicitly sourced only to the astrologer, ignoring that the article actually has a reliable source independently testing her success rate, which proved negative. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. It doesn't say she did predict those events, just that she claims to. It's interesting enough to make someone want to read more, where they'll learn about her actual success rate. clpo13(talk) 15:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Adam Cuerden. In it's current form the article clearly introduces affirmative claims regarding astrology, a subject that the community has long considered to be a Fringe Theory. The lack of any explanation that astrology is considered fringe violates both WP:DUE and WP:PROFRINGE. We do not allow articles to be used for the promotion of fringe theories and we certainly do not post articles with pro-fringe material on the Front Page. Mentioning fringe beliefs is not prohibited. Failing to include a clear statement explaining that such beliefs are not generally accepted and why, is. In its current form this article cannot be linked on the Front Page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, come. How is it pro-astrology? It includes lengthy analysis of her accuracy, and discusses the controversy about her defense of astrology. I can't see it as any way promotional of astrology (although the hook is, by taking one of the only sentences that's at all pro-astrology in the article, and choosing that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I took another look at it and agree that there is a pretty strong refutation of her particular claims, though I would like to see at least a sentence stating that the scientific community regards astrology as bunk, or words to that effect. I will remove the tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Clpo13. I've already read the article in this case, but even in general, any sentence such as "X claims to have predicted Y" (as opposed to an affirmative statement "X predicted Y") activates my bullshit detector. So I would not call this ALT blurb "pro-astrology". AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It may activate your bullshit detector, but we aren't writing for you; we're writing for everyone, and that kind of "coded" warning is only going to work on people who are already skeptical of such claims. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I just struck the original hook because it was the one that was pulled, and ALT1 given the objections of Adam Cuerden. I'm also copying over the following two posts by Gatoclass and Adam Cuerden from the WT:DYK discussion, since they seem to point the way to a possible new hook (which needs to be written). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well,, I think we could have a hook about the fact that she was controversially awarded a doctorate for a defence of astrology (assuming I have read the article correctly). That certainly strikes me as a very interesting and unusual fact worth highlighting. Gatoclass (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems fair. It's just having a hook pulled - and replaced with a suggestion for an arguably pro-astrology one isn't exactly what one wants to wake up to, you know? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find that this nomination hasn't moved on yet.
 * ALT2: ... that Élizabeth Teissier was controversially awarded a doctorate in sociology for a thesis in defence of astrology? Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can live with that, but I still say the original hook is better and nearer DYK's original mandate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I wasn't keen on the original hook either, because I think it wasn't informative enough. It tells you absolutely nothing about who Teissier is or what she is known for. It doesn't even explain what she was suing about. I'm strongly opposed to hooks that read like clickbait, that fail to give adequate information about a topic simply in order to incite curiosity. Your hook may, or may not, have attracted more page hits, but page hits are far from the sole criterion by which hooks are selected. In any case, while I may be biased, I think my alt above is pretty interesting, there can't be too many people getting doctorates these days for defences of astrology! Gatoclass (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg ALT2 is now ready for review. Gatoclass (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg It still seems to have a negative focus. We generally avoid the word "controversially" in BLP hooks. StAnselm (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Per Gatoclass, the doctorate "in" astrology is in itself pretty interesting. So we could have
 * ALT3: ... that Élizabeth Teissier was awarded a doctorate in sociology for a thesis in defence of astrology?
 * StAnselm (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It waas controversial. We can't violate Wikipedia policies because you don't want to say a major scandal was a major scandal. NPOV - which includes WP:Fringe theories - is more important than saying nice things that also distort the documented facts, because you don't want to offend someone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Adam here. "Controversially" is not a banned word at DYK, and the fact that something is controversial does not necessarily imply a negative - it just means there is disagreement about something. In this case, the award has clearly triggered a major controversy in academia and I think it would smack of censorship if we were to avoid reference to that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The only time it was used in anything BLP-related was for the song White Privilege II. Here it is certainly negative, for it implies that Teissier and/or her work was not worthy of a doctorate. DYK hooks are censored - we don't have a policy of excluding negative material from BLPs, but we do from BLP-related DYK hooks. StAnselm (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I think ALT3 is still a good hook, even without the word "controversially", and would still make a good quirky. So maybe we should just go with that. Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite the person who wrote the article being strongly against it, as it implies that astrology is an academically-accepted discipline? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could rephrase the hook somewhat to accommodate StAnselm's concerns. However, for the following hook to work, I think something would have to be added to the article regarding the wider debate about the definition of sociology that has apparently been going on:
 * (ALT4) ... that Élizabeth Teissier's award of a doctorate for a thesis defending astrology has sharpened a debate among sociologists about the nature of their discipline? Gatoclass (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have put an ALT4 label on Gatoclass' suggestion, but I think the best alternative so far is ALT2. Reading ALT2 I think "yeah, I bet it was controversial, I wonder how that happened", whereas ALT3 makes me think "I wonder what tin-pot university would give a doctorate for astrology, was it basically a degree factory?"  ALT4 gives me a WTF feeling - do sociologists seriously debate whether astrology is part of their discipline, don't they realise it is pseudoscientific bilge?  Frankly, a doctorate in defence of astrology that was not controversial to me would suggest it was dismissed out of hand and reflects poorly on the awarding institution, so I think using the word "controversial" is absolutely appropriate.  I agree with Adam that a pro-astrology hook is unacceptable, and I agree with others that highlighting the loss of the lawsuit on the main page would reflect poorly on Wikipedia.  EdChem (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would be fair to react to ALT3 by assuming it was an unaccredited university. One way around that is to specifically say it was Paris Descartes University. StAnselm (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT5:  ". . . that in France, former television personality Élizabeth Teissier, publicly defended a thesis that astrology is oppressed?"  That's interesting, true, and does not promote anything but facts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's kind of hard to parse, though I could almost live with it. Alt 2 is far, far better though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just don't find that very interesting, because it omits the crucial detail that the thesis was actually accepted. Gatoclass (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "...that former French television personality Élizabeth Teissier, publicly defended a thesis that astrology is oppressed?" --Khajidha (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * So while the original hook has a certain "hey-nana-boo-boo" quality to it, that is not the same as saying "don't do a hook around the lawsuit at all" to me. It is pretty apparent that the nominator is not really feeling the astrology hooks but that's all that's bening suggested. If the hook is a factual, neutral statement about the lawsuit such as the Alt suggested below I don't see why it could not run on the main page?  MPJ  -DK 00:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt6= ... that Élizabeth Teissier sued the Wikimedia Foundation to allow her to make a personal response to statements in the French Wikipedia article on her?
 * The astrology thesis angle is far more interesting IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT7: ... that Élizabeth Teissier was awarded a doctorate in sociology by Paris Descartes University in 2001 for a thesis in defence of astrology? Gatoclass (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with this, of course, but I don't think the nominator will be. StAnselm (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging Adam Cuerden for comment. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE seems dubiously served by not mentioning it was controversial. It's not the worst suggestion made, but I think it's far more open to challenge than the one that was pulled, as that one at least went with weight of sources; this one actively ignores that there's basically no simple "statement-of-fact" coverage of this event. Whether savaging the university for awarding it or defending her thesis, all sources discuss the controversy. I think the only way to avoid it is to make the content more clear, which would make the controversial nature obvious without saying so. But I still think it should be included, lest it appear Wikipedia is promoting her views: Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt 8 ... ... that Élizabeth Teissier was awarded a controversial doctorate in sociology by Paris Descartes University for a thesis that claimed astrology was being oppressed by science?
 * I think Alt 8 suffers from the same problem of Alt 2 - we don't generally focus on controversy in BLP DYK hooks. StAnselm (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not be the only source not to say something's controversial. When both sides of the issue accept it's controversial, Wikipedia can too. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And for that reason I don't think this will make it at DYK. We are hamstrung by policy to some extent, but that's fair enough - it's certainly not an IAR scenario. StAnselm (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is NO DYK policy banning the word "controversial". It would be... infuriating... if non-policy, non-guideline statements of opinion killed a DYK because I wasnt' willing to have it violate actual policies in what facts were selected. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but there is a policy banning negative BLP hooks, and saying the doctorate (and not just the thesis) is controversial is indeed a negative hook. Also, "claimed" is also POV; a more neutral word would be "argued". StAnselm (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Show me this policy. Because the nearest I can find to what you are saying is from Did you know and says, "Articles and hooks that focus  unduly  on negative aspects of living individuals [...] should be avoided" - whioch does not in any way forbid talking about a persobn most notable for a controversy by discussing the controversy. Have we really been blocking this DYK because of a misreading of the DYK rules? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not a misreading - it's up to editorial consensus to work out how the "unduly" bit applies. The words in bold are your extrapolation - that's certainly not written in the policy. (Even if it was, you'd still have to demonstrate that Teissier is best known for this particular controversy.) StAnselm (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

, though I'm inclined to agree with you about the word "controversial", in my experience if one person objects on the grounds that the hook is too negative, there will be more complaints when the article is actually run, probably resulting in the hook either being altered or pulled. I think if you re-read ALT7, you might agree that while the word "controversially" isn't actually used, the wording strongly implies a controversial result that most readers with an interest in the topic will immediately recognize. Gatoclass (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this, then:
 * ALT9: ... that Élizabeth Teissier was awarded a doctorate in sociology by Paris Descartes University in 2001 for a thesis that claimed astrology was being oppressed by science?

Much better. As a I argued above, though, "argued" is more neutral. (I don't think we need the year, either): StAnselm (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT10: ... that Élizabeth Teissier was awarded a doctorate in sociology by Paris Descartes University for a thesis that argued astrology was being oppressed by science?
 * I'm not going to fight over a nearly-identical word. I can live with that. But may I suggest a small change for flow? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT10A: ... that Élizabeth Teissier was awarded a doctorate in sociology by Paris Descartes University for a thesis arguing astrology was being oppressed by science?
 * Very happy with that - I'm glad we could find a mutually acceptable solution. StAnselm (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I was about to call for a new reviewer, but on looking at the article, discovered some refs that are only bare URLs, which is not allowed by DYK rules. FN 25 and 34 are bare URLs, and FN12 appears to be one but may just need reformatting. Once these have been expanded into proper refs, I'll be happy to make that call. I've also struck the various prior hooks now that ALT10A has been set. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This should be fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check ALT10A hook. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

[E.C.]The source doesn't present it as a disputed characterization; it quotes the statement as fact; we have no source saying that she doesn't argue that astrology is being oppressed by science. Indeed apparently, on p. 767 of the thesis, she makes it explicit she feels astrology is being oppressed by "The militants of established science. - but the problem is, the nine hundred page thesis isn't available in full outside of the university, so we have to use summaries.  similarly states she states sociology is being oppressed by science. Is there a single source saying otherwise, or is this yet more pillorying
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Unfortunately, I don't think ALT10/10A work because the assertion that the thesis argues that astrology is oppressed by science is the characterization of a critic and not an objectively established fact. At this point, I think it would be best if we just went back to ALT7. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the abstract of her thesis there's certainly some hints to that (scientism, an attack on the Enlightenment for harming astrology's place) so I'd imagine it's a fair assessment. Further, she quotes the article that quote is sourced to on her own website, without any additional commentary. : It does seem that if she's willing to quote the article, it's legitimate to use it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I find that "abstract" pretty much incomprehensible, so I don't think it's useful as any sort of source, except for the fact perhaps that it clearly reads as some sort of defence of astrology. The fact that she quotes the NY Times article is almost certainly due to the fact that it places her thesis in the context of a broader debate about the meaning of sociology; I very much doubt she put the article there as an endorsement of the multiple disparaging comments about her thesis from her critics included therein. Gatoclass (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So this review started June 27 and there has been no activity or comments since August 21, - Perhaps this is one of those hooks that we just let go? Just a suggestion to either move on or complete this. 01:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Every single hook I've suggested has been sourced to reliable sources. This was due to be published with the first hook months ago. I propose that it is published with either 1 or 10A, both of which are reliably sourced. No-one has ever said the information shouldn't be in the article; if it really was problematic, there'd be much bigger issues. The trouble is that this DYK nomination has been pilloried. Pulled up, in a manner that doesn't actually serve DYK at all, merely serving to humiliate the person writing for Wikipedia. End this farce: publish the fucking hook. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was very disappointed 10A was rejected - I thought we'd worked hard to find a consensus hook, and that Adam graciously conceded a lot of ground. StAnselm (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's really what gets me: It's sourced to a reliable source, summarising an unpublished and highly controversial thesis. No sources exist to counter the summary, and the person in question directly quotes it on her website. If even that gets rejected, it feels like this whole thing never had the goal of finding a good hook; it was just a pillory. And then there's things like Alt 1, which I was being actively yelled at for not accepting, which use exactly the same source as Alt 10A, but moved claims explicitly credited to her out of their balanced context, thus promoting astrology - but that's not a problem, it's only a problem if anything the slightest bit negative comes across in our discussion of a person most notable for a major controversy on which she was unambiguously on the pseudoscientific side. I leapt through hoops to try and find something that at least makes clear she's not on the side of science, without taking a stance on that, simply reporting what the thrust of her argument was, so it was clear that she's promoting fringe theories and attacing mainstream science - which is kind of required by the WP:NPOV policy. And if that's going to be rejected, DYK needs to change itðs policies..  Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the issue of use of sources, I do not understand how you consider ALT1 as being "pro-astrology" when all it does is state a couple of the subject's claims. By analogy, if I submitted a hook saying "Did you know that North Korea claims to have won the World Cup?", does that make it a "pro-North Korea" hook? Of course not, it is just stating a claim, and you can click the link for all the discussion and debunking which doesn't fit within the 200-character limit of DYK. If someone looks at that ALT1 on the front page and says "oh, so that lady predicted Black Monday? Gee she's clever" and carries on with their life without reading further, then they won't even know she's an astrologer. So I can't see how the act of merely stating her claims is automatically seen as promoting those claims, let alone promoting astrology in general. On the other hand, if the reader does click the link, then they get the full story.
 * As for ALT10A, if the problem is that the assertion is a "characterization of a critic", then why not make the hook "...for a thesis characterised as arguing astrology was being oppressed by science?" AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because no reliable source characterises it otherwise. This is basic WP:NPOV - you don't present undisputed summaries of material as beingin doubt unless they are.. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What about my point concerning ALT1? What is not neutral about simply stating she made the claim? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As for her claims in Alt 1: The only thing not outright promotion of pseudoscience in that is the one word "claim" - which is very weak given the only source for the claim is very explicitly Teissier herself. It's promotional material that the independent sources cast doubt on. We can't choose the worst-sourced, most likely to be false information, quoted in the article and reliable sources only to give context, and make THAT our hook. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This nomination needs to be resolved or closed. To that end, I offer:


 * (ALT11): ... that four French Nobel Laureates protested Élizabeth Teissier being awarded a doctorate in sociology by Paris Descartes University for a thesis defending astrology?
 * (ALT12): ... that Élizabeth Teissier was awarded a doctorate in sociology by Paris Descartes University and her thesis defending astrology was criticised for failing to meet minimum academic standards?
 * ALT12s source is "the debate has only gathered steam, pitting sociologists who insist that the case concerns a thesis that fails to meet minimum academic standards against those who argue that the real target isn't Ms. Teissier but a maverick strain of sociology that has failed to win establishment approval" from this New York Times article.


 * (ALT13): ... that the editor-in-chief of Science & Vie Junior described Élizabeth Teissier successful defense of her sociology doctorate from Paris Descartes University in support of astrology as "a joke"?
 * Do any of these have any potential? EdChem (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. All three are focusing on a negative aspect of the case. StAnselm (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I still say that's a misreading of the  DYK rules, which only forbid undue focus. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What the DYK Reviewing guide says is Consider very carefully whether the hook puts undue emphasis on a negative aspect of a living individual. Err on the side of caution, and when in doubt, suggest an ALT hook. I can see that applying to ALT12 and ALT13, but am less clear about why ALT11 applies. Perhaps if you specified that these were Nobel science laureates, it would be less negative? The negative aspect seems to me to be more about the awarding university than the person who was given the degree. Ultimately, this comes down to WP:BLP: if a hook violates that policy, then we cannot run it. Perhaps this issue would benefit from a wider discussion at WT:DYK, since even if one of these hooks were to pass muster here, we wouldn't want to risk it being pulled from prep or queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I take you point about ALT11, and would agree to that being the hook. StAnselm (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend towards Adam's view, that a respected university awarding a PhD supporting astrology is inevitably controversial, and that is not undue focus. However, as BlueMoonset notes, the university focus of ALT11 does reduce the potential for BLP controversy.  That three of the Nobel Prizes were in science and one was in medicine is easily added.  How about:


 * (ALT11a): ... that four French Nobel Laureates in science or medicine protested Paris Descartes University's decision to award a doctorate in sociology to Élizabeth Teissier for a thesis defending astrology?
 * This version focuses the protest at the university, IMO. If this is seen as acceptable here, I agree that seeking input at WT:DYK would be wise.  EdChem (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think "in science or medicine" is a good addition. It makes no difference to neutrality, it makes it unwieldy, and it sounds like we don't know which field the Nobel prizes were in. Also, "laureates" should be lower case. StAnselm (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * (ALT11b): ... that four French Nobel laureates protested Paris Descartes University's decision to award a doctorate in sociology to Élizabeth Teissier for a thesis defending astrology?
 * Made the sugggested change. I can live with this one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep - so can I. StAnselm (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion – WT:DYK – and in it poposed: This proposal addresses StAnselm's point about clarity while retaining the softening BlueMoonset suggested by including the laureate's fields; I also copyedited for brevity to stay under 200 characters. I also fixed the capitalisation error in ALT11 and ALT11a. Hopefully we can get consensus and promote this hook to the queues. EdChem (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (ALT11c): ... that four French Nobel laureates from scientific and medical fields protested Paris Descartes University's awarding of a sociology doctorate to Élizabeth Teissier for a thesis defending astrology?
 * Could we just say "Nobel Prize-winning scientists"? E.g.Þ
 * (Alt11d): ... that four Nobel Prize-winning French scientists protested Paris Descartes University's awarding of a sociology doctorate to Élizabeth Teissier for a thesis defending astrology?
 * Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * as the proposer of ALTs, I can't close this nomination; it will be up to someone else. As I see it, though, the issue is whether Jean Dausset is a scientist or a medical professional as an immunologist who received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.  As immunology is a biomedical science, I think "scientist" is a justifiable description.  You can see how I was influence by this in composing ALT11c.  If the WT:DYK discussion reaches consensus on ALT11b, I think asking a closer to accept 'd' instead should be fine, the differences are minor.  EdChem (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the "decision to award" wording is much better. But I'm happy with "Nobel Prize-winning", too. But putting them together yields 212 characters, so I still prefer 11b. Also, Nobel should be linked, somehow. StAnselm (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * (ALT11e): ... that four French Nobel Prize-winning scientists protested Paris Descartes University's decision to award a doctorate in sociology to Élizabeth Teissier for a thesis defending astrology?
 * I get ALT11e at 185 characters. EdChem (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK - my mistake. I'm happy with either 11b or 11e, then. StAnselm (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Think 11b or 11e's best too, leaning towards e. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed to check the various ALT11 variants (most of the people here have contributed to one or another of them). Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not liking the ALT11s as they seem too wordy. What seems an extraordinary omission is that none of the 13+ hooks use her picture.  To help this along, here's my suggestion.  I have edited the article to provide supporting sources such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * (ALT14) ... that Élizabeth Teissier (pictured) was the personal astrologer of French President François Mitterrand?
 * That feels too promotional; after all, she runs a business doing readings still. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * She's French while we're the English Wikipedia so I doubt that this is a significant market for her services. Her web site's English news still has Obama vs Romney, not Clinton vs Trump... Andrew D. (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We've finally got general agreement on 11e: Can we please just go with ALT 11e, and not propose anything more. This has been running for four months. Promotional is just as bad as too negative. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from being too verbose, the ALT11 variants are not well supported by the source. This seems to be a second-hand cutting from Le Monde which says "L'astrophysicien Jean-Claude Pecker, professeur au Collège de France et président de l'AFIS, indique que quatre Prix Nobel, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Jean-Marie Lehn, Jean Dausset et Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, doivent adresser des lettres de protestation à Jack Lang, ministre de l'éducation nationale."  This is just an indication from one chap that another four chaps were going to do something, not that it actually happened.  And because it's all in French, we're not in a good position to argue about it here.  ALT14, by contrast, is supported by English language sources.  And it has a nice picture. Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But it is promotional'. Promotional hooks cannot go on the main page. It fails on that front: I mean, it's great information for the article, but on its own, with no context, it too-easily reads as that sort of gossip-magazine pseudo-advertisement headline, y'know, probably with a title like "She reads the stars for the stars!" Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Here:
 * (Alt 15) That over three hundred and fifty sociologists wrote a letter protesting Paris Descartes University's decision to award a doctorate in sociology to Élizabeth Teissier for a thesis defending astrology?

I think that gets around the issue, and is very firmly sourced. There are other sources for the Nobel Prize winners, but I think that they're less important than the sociologists, on the whole, whose field it directly affects. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's very poorly sourced. The list of signatories doesn't indicate anything: the page says neither what they are signing, nor that they are all sociologists. The NYT article is much better, but it doesn't say anything about protest: "More than 400 sociologists have signed a petition asking the president of the Sorbonne to make an independent evaluation of the case." StAnselm (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The petition text is also linked, and summarised. That said, I'll change it to one reference, which'll be more easy to interpret. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't help at all, I'm afraid - I don't read French, so I don't know if they're protesting or not. And I don't know if all (or any) of the people are sociologists. StAnselm (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * DYK sources are not required to be in English. Google Translate it if you want to get a rough idea what it says, otherwise, that's what the AGF tick is for, same as a book source. It's not perfect, but it should pretty readily show that the sources back it. Plus, if you don't want to ue the list, that's what the Eakin source is for. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't use the AGF tick when the foreign-language source conflicts with the English source. The petition itself does not contain the word "protest"; the Filâtre article says "dénonçant les déclarations d'Elisabeth Teissier" but that is not the same as "protesting the decision to award". StAnselm (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if the exact problematic word is that "protesting" might be a paraphrase too far can we just tweak the hook? There's text in there saying the award puts the University, French sociology, and the field of sociology itself into disrepute - if you don't think that's too negative to her, we could easily make something out of that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "signed a petition asking Paris Descartes University to reconsider its decision to award..." ? StAnselm (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec) Comment: We're definitely back to square one here. For my part, I'm sorry I got into proposing ALT11 variants without checking the sourcing. Kudos to Andrew Davidson for picking up on this - this is why we need reviewers even after extensive discussion. StAnselm (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Would help support ALT15? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it most decidedly does, I'll add it with the magazine citation. There's also a Le Monde article discussing it, if further proof is needed. Remember, no requirement that the sources are in English. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after four months I think it is time to call "bullshit" on this idea that anything mentioning astrology is somehow automatically promoting it. A DYK entry yesterday was that "Akiyama Tokuzō became Master Chef of the Imperial Court of Japan at only 25 years of age" Does that hook promote the field of cooking? Of course not. So how does ALT14 promote astrology? Both hooks simply state a historical fact. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * She's a working astrologer. Akiyama Tokuzō is dead. One of these people gets a free advertisement by pointing out their famous clients. Hint: It's the one who's actually able to get new clients because they aren't dead. It may not promote astrology that much; it certainly promotes her, in the classic gossip magazine style of "look at all the famous people you could emulate by going to her" way.
 * Is the point of DYK really meant to be to try and force a hook the nominator dislikes onto the nominator's article? Because if it's not, frankly, stop attacking me in my nomination.
 * I'm actively trying to work with others, now that we've found a formulation that all factions agree is okay, but which had a sourcing problems that got carried over when I translated the French Wikipedia article. I'm trying to fix that by providing more sources. You're just attacking me. Some of us - including the proposer of ALT14, it must be said - are behaving productively here, getting more sources and editing the article to help bolster arguably-weak points, and trying to find some way to move forwards. You're just attacking people.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Adam, stating my view on what does or does not constitute "promotion" was not an attack on you. I think ALT17 below is a very good suggestion, so I'll leave it at that. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just... I'll say this and then drop it: If you don't want it to be seen as an attack, don't swear. It tends to make it read a lot more aggressive. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Why not, perhaps, avoid the whole "denounced her work" vs. "denounced her doctorate"? Something like ALT16 ... that French president Francois Mitterrand asked Élizabeth Teissier when he should speak?" or ALT17 ... that Élizabeth Teissier advised French president Francois Mitterrand not to speak? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh. Going with a vague statement that forces people to read the article to get the context, avoiding the issues? I like that, and could support either. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, waaaay too vague. "Advised him not to speak"... ever? StAnselm (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could get away with that in April. Say, 1 April. Though I suspect that going with Alt 16 is better the rest of the year. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe ALT16 if we add the word "once": "once asked Élizabeth Teissier when he should speak". But even that is too vague, really. StAnselm (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, back to 15. Can we just tweak the wording on that to remove interpretation? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, Adam doesn't want to include the term "astrology" in a way which would appear promotional (i.e. astrologer to the president), and StAnselm takes issue with the "protest" line as the French source says "denounced her work" rather than "protested her being awarded a doctorate". ALTs 16 and 17 are vague, yes, but both are technically correct, supported by the sources, and avoid mentioning astrology in a promotional context. Being vague helps increase reader interest and reduce hook length; can you imagine "... that French president Francois Mitterrand once asked Élizabeth Teissier when was the best time for him to deliver a speech" being effective? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That would work, especially with the addition of the word "astrologer". Surely that's not promotional, is it? (As opposed to asking a political advisor about timing a political announcement...) StAnselm (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, so two more:
 * (Alt 15a) ... that over 350 sociologists signed a petition asking Paris Descartes University to reconsider its decision to award a doctorate in sociology to Élizabeth Teissier for a thesis defending astrology?
 * (Alt 16a) ... that French president Francois Mitterrand once asked astrologer Élizabeth Teissier when was the best time for him to deliver a speech?

I see no reason why we can't have the picture with either of them. StAnselm (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope that the picture is not used; it looks odd, and I frankly wonder how that posed self-portrait (Teissier herself apparently uploaded it, and it's listed as "own work", which should mean she's the creator) could have been taken. To me, it appears to be a face superimposed on another image, and with a not-quite-right alignment—unsuited for the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, fine - no picture then. StAnselm (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this discussion has drifted in an unproductive direction. The 11s are gone on sourcing grounds (absent new sources), Adam is right that 14 is inappropriate. 15a is wimpy, IMO. And I don't like the vagueness of the 16s - not that it is all up to me, of course. I've looked around and I think options closer to Adam's intent and any objective consideration of astrology, are:
 * (ALT17): ... that after Paris Descartes University decided to award a PhD to Élizabeth Teissier, her astrology-defending thesis was savagely critique by AFIS and she branded them the "Taliban of culture"?
 * (ALT18): ... that AFIS concluded that the merit in Élizabeth Teissier doctoral thesis was that she had "demonstrated once again that [astrology] does not deserve the status of an intellectual discipline"?
 * (ALT19): ... that the AFIS team who critiqued the decision of Paris Descartes University to award a doctorate to Élizabeth Teissier for her thesis in support of astrology felt a duty to defend their institution?
 * The Taliban of culture quote is presently in the AFIS article, and looking at the discussion of the thesis here, I think "savagely critiqued" is justified. The first section, by Audouze and Savoie (two of the academics on the critique committee) includes that "Teissier had actually delivered a text whose value, both sociologically and academically, raises the most extreme reservations and certainly fills in no way ordinary academic criteria", that this was accepted "in defiance of basic academic requirements of objectivity and intellectual honesty ... no relevant standard (analytical rigor, objectivity, indication of sources, style of writing ...) has truly been fulfilled".  The doctorate was awarded "by a jury, in defiance of ethics that applies in such cases, despite the harm it could cause to sociology that was used in the attempt to give astrology a recognition that it does not deserve."  Finally, the "only merit" of the thesis may be that it has "demonstrated once again that [astrology] does not deserve the status of intellectual discipline that can be taught in a university course."  The "duty to defend their institution" is also in this same source.
 * My preference would be ALT17, though it may be criticised as "unduely negative". ALT18 is a twist, using the quote from the critique on what the thesis achieves to recognise astrology as pseudoscience.  ALT19 obliquely places the focus on the critique of the thesis on the potential for damaging the institution, and another ALT could be written with a similar slant for protecting sociology.  I want to say that I am sorry to  as I am offering more options in an already overly long discussion.  However, I am trying to stay true to what I see as his intent.  I do not believe DYK should (or does) force hooks which the nominator does not support.  I really really really hope we are in the home stretch of this nomination.  EdChem (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The latest hooks like 17-19 seem just as bad as the earlier ones – verbose, ponderous and boring. If you leave the picture out too then the click-throughs will be negligible and so you might as well not bother. The failure to achieve consensus after so long also indicates that this is going nowhere. Andrew D. (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I ask that you remove your DYKno. Policy says that a DYKno applies when the article "is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible."  Neither applies here, the topic of ongoing discussion relates solely to the hook and addressing the potential for "unduly negative" content about a living person; the article is ready.  Since I re-ignited the discussion two days ago, there have been more than 70 edits to this page, indicating an active discussion.  I note your view that these hooks are boring, but I do not share it, and judging by the discussion to date (where you are the first to use the term "boring", and where I count at least three editors having described the doctorate-related hooks as interesting), you are in the minority.  In any case, as a proposer of an ALT, which has not found support, you are no more in a place a DYKno than I am as an ALT-proposer able to give a DYKtick.  EdChem (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, 17 - 19 are all pretty terrible. I'm amazed you can even think 17 is neutrally worded - there is no way "savagely critiqued" can be in WP voice. StAnselm (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, looking back over everything here, my preferred hook is still ALT1 - it's interesting and neutral. StAnselm (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We could argue about what adjective appears before critiqued, or even if critiqued should go unmodified, by speaking with my academic hat on, what was written by that critique is savage. It translates (roughly) to "this contains nothing of value, lacks academic rigour, and should never have been awarded a PhD.  It is flawed in every category and seeks to paint an utterly discredited pseudoscience with a patina of legitimacy based on anecdotes from believers.  It disgraces the university that accepted it, damages the field to which it purports to belong, and the outcome cannot have been obtained ethically" – but academics don't write like this.  Seriously, no one who knows the academic world would disagree that "savage" is a fair descriptor of the critique.  Also, I used a word of that strength because it indicates why her response was as nasty as "the Taliban of culture."  If AFIS had offered a simple critique, a response like that looks hugely over-the-top.  Anyway, while I like ALT17, I can and will accept if the conclusion is that it is inappropriate under DYK rules.  As for ALT18, try reading it without knowing that her thesis was pro-astrology, and it sounds positive.  And ALT19 is focused on the critiquing organisation having been motivated (as they say) by the integrity of their institution.  Having said all of that, I looked back to the early suggestions (I agree with Adam on ALT1, it suggests astrology has validity, and coming from a PhD graduate whose work has been savaged for concluding that astrology has validity, that is definitely not acceptable IMO) and thought of:


 * (ALT2a): ... that the Paris Descartes University decision to award Élizabeth Teissier a doctorate was harshly criticised by the French Association for Scientific Information as her thesis defended astrology?
 * We can consider whether it is criticised / strongly criticised / harshly criticised / critiqued / harshly critiqued / something else if the basic idea is ok. I suggest it because I was thinking that ALT2 was criticised for the word "controversial", and this describes a controversy without saying it was one.  EdChem (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My Symbol delete vote.svg rating is not final – closure happens when an administrator removes the nomination from the queue. But I still consider the assessment to be appropriate for the following reasons:
 * I came here as a fresh reviewer because the nomination was highlighted as over 3 months old in the list of oldest nominations. It was therefore already at risk.  I try tackle the oldest cases because they are usually awkward or jammed and, being bold, I am willing to shake things up or say no.  I am usually quite inclusionist and supportive of DYK but, as Frederick the Great said, "He who defends everything, defends nothing."
 * The article is a BLP and is especially sensitive because the subject has already sued the WMF. There is therefore a significant risk that it will be sued again.  Despite this, there have been repeated efforts to present the subject in a negative way, contrary to WP:NPOV.  DYK rules emphatically require that "Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided."  This has not been done.
 * The article seems to have been created by running the French version through Google Translate. This is quite inadequate and we have other editors telling us that they don't understand French.  I checked a French source myself and found it wanting.  My own French is not perfect and so I confirmed my understanding by consulting a professional translator.  This is the level of care and expertise required as you can be sure that someone like Fram will pounce on any further errors and make a meal of them; let alone the lawyers.
 * Even the English was sloppy as, when I edited the article myself, I immediately spotted a typo – "bagan" rather than "began" which had been in there throughout. I wouldn't trust anything in this article without going through it systematically and double-checking everything.
 * We now have multiple editors engaged and, per WP:LIGHTBULB, this tends to make it more difficult to achieve consensus. The article should now have some cleanups tags and it can't advance to the main page while it's in this disputed and unstable state.
 * Andrew D. (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I also came here because of its position on the list of older nominations. Like you, I've made ALT suggestions, so I can't DYKtick a hook and I contend you can't DYKno.  EdChem (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

'I strongly object to the closure. There's no edit tags on the article. There's been substantial work; you'll notice thzt dozenns of new sources, major reorganizations, and many other things have been done to the article before moving it over from French Wikipedia. The article is as good - probably substantially better - than the majority of the ones on here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the history and found that a total of 31 hooks have been proposed, including an unnumbered one and two ALT17s. That's fine, discussion and throwing around ideas is great. But this nomination has also been punctuated by long periods of silence. There have been four separate periods with no comment for 12 days or more. The longest was 22 days without comment on 9th to 30th September. The article itself also saw little change between the 7th July and 30 September, including a 6-week period where no edits were made. Bearing in mind the purpose of DYK is to highlight new and recently improved content, at some stage we have to consider whether this article satisfies that basic criterion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion has far too much misunderstand of the issue of undue negativity as prohibiting anything critical. Anyway, trying to focus criticism on the university, how about:


 * (ALT2b): ... that Paris Descartes University was criticised by the French Association for Scientific Information for its decision to award Élizabeth Teissier a doctorate for a thesis defending astrology?
 * It's unquestionably true, supported by citations, and very mildly worded considering the way the critique is expressed. EdChem (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2b looks good. Can we put a moratorium on new hook proposals, unless that one's rejected (for a good, valid reason)?
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

2b is no good because the French Association for Scientific Information (or Association française pour l'information scientifique) only seems to appear in the article as an external link, not within the body of the article. This is an elementary hook failure – "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article" – and the fact that this should be presented at this stage demonstrates what a train wreck this is. There is currently an arbcom proposal which recommends that the community "review the selection process for the Did you know", giving attention to "poor content" and "poor reviews". To pass such poor stuff would invite sanction. Andrew D. (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I need to stop trusting Ed to have checked these things, unfortunately. So, back to the one I was working on. Let's tweak Alt 15 and tighten it up?
 * (Alt 15b) ... that a petition protesting Paris Descartes University's decision to award a doctorate in sociology to Élizabeth Teissier said that her thesis treated astrology as a university discipline?
 * Source is (the official ASES archive, run by a past president), specifically, the line "Aussi lorsqu’une candidate, durant la soutenance de sa thèse, revendique l’accès de l’astrologie au rang de discipline universitaire, elle adopte une démarche radicalement contraire à ces principes." Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have struck the DYKno of because the reason is not a basis for a no, the referencing has now been added (rendering it moot), and as an ALT-promoter, he is involved.  Adam, I'm a little disappointed that you did not recognise the references that were needed here, the AFIS involvement is already reference on the AFIS page.  Anyway, ALT2b is supported by citations in the article now (and I apologise for writing it was supported by citations when I meant the references are all mentioned on this page but I hadn't checked if they have been incorporated).  ALT15b is milder than is appropriate her, IMO, but if it can get consensus, let's get this ticked.  EdChem (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I recognise the source, and it wouldn't be hard to add it to the article, but after four months, we do need to check everything's in the article and in order and sourced before proposing... I really just want this to finally pass at this point, without it being accidentally used to promote astrology or something... Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I also want it promoted, and I've added to the article. Do you agree that ALT2b and ALT15b are both supported by the article?  If so, I am happy to strike everything else.  EdChem (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But even if there are no sourcing or negativity violations, neither 2b nor 15b are very good hooks. They are both wordy and cumbersome, more so than any of the others suggested. They are 190 and 187 characters respectively. StAnselm (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't find ALT15b interesting, but ALT2b still is (if a bit less so than some earlier iterations). The maximum size for DYK is 200 characters, so 190 is clearly within bounds. If not ideal and a bit more cumbersome than said earlier iterations, ALT2b's still okay. (It would be nice if the French Association for Scientific Information wasn't 44 characters, but it is; if it had a shorter name, ALT2b would also be shorter.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are able to tick, that would be awesome! If you want to shorten it, we could change "French Association for Scientific Information" to AFIS, its acronym in French (Association française pour l'information scientifique), and pipe it to the English or French versions of the name.  EdChem (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any reason why it's in the passive voice. Plus, the claim isn't even in the article. StAnselm (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have added an "undue weight" tag to the article - that will need to be resolved before it passes here. StAnselm (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * She was a model - but there's almost no coverage of her modelling career except on her site.
 * She was in film - but in small roles, many uncredited. I was the one who found citations for her being in movies. She was in such tiny roles that I had to jump around movie sites because none of them covered such small roles consistently. If I could have used one site, I would have, but the roles were so small that I had to search hard to find proof she was in the named movies.
 * She wrote books on astrology - they were probably read, but not reviewed or commented on.
 * She was on TV, but in small astrology snippets.
 * She is an astrologer. She hasn't gotten much in-depth coverage on this until
 * She caused a huge scandal by getting a doctorate with a defense of astrology.
 * We go byeweight of coverage. L'affaire Teissier is by far the most notable thing she was involved in. It's not undue weight to cover the thing with by far the predominance of coverage as the main subject. That's entirely due weight.
 * It is not uncommon for an article to come to DYK with some imperfections. But I seem to be getting an FA review in order to go onto DYK, which is not on. This review is being treated as a pillory, and you can't do that. This is a DYK review, not an opportunity to troll the article creatiors and stretch things out for four months with non-policy based, non-justified, "everything must be perfect in every way" objections. At this point, people are trying to fail hooks because they think they're boring. One of the hooks on the main page at time of writing is "... that cheese slaw is sometimes used as a topping for hot dogs." And yet they're going to fail this article because they think a hook about a major French scandal is boring. There is a very, very fucking obvious vendetta being waged against me here, with attempts to prolong the discussions until people give up and go away so that they can shut down the DYK.
 * This has major issues for DYK as a whole: If we can't handle putting a controversial person onto the mainpage, then hooks are going to get whitewashed. Had I accepted a hook that violated WP:FRINGE (ALT1), this would have been on the main page months ago, so it looks like DYK's systemic bias can be used as a way to dodge around Wikipedia policy - anything that's in compliance with the policies can be blocked endlessly, but those in violation could easily pass without comment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The thesis section has grown a lot since I last looked at this article, and does look undue now. Perhaps the best solution now would be to move the thesis section to a new article dedicated to the topic (since it seems notable enough) and just leave a summary at the BLP page. Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you know... that the Élizabeth Teissier DYK was the longest in history, and alone constituted 10% of the concatenated nominations page?  E Eng  04:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg True. StAnselm (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, ALT2b was criticised for passive voice, so I offer:
 * (ALT2c): ... that the French Association for Scientific Information criticised Paris Descartes University for its decision to award Élizabeth Teissier a doctorate for her thesis defending astrology?

That AFIS facilitated the critique group is supported by a statement from them and also an article from Le Monde: En face, on assiste à la formation d'un front commun inédit: les rationalistes de l'Association française pour l'information scientifique (AFIS), pas toujours tendres envers les sciences humaines —notamment la psychanalyse— se sont rapprochés de sociologues pour faire une lecture critique de la thèse. (Also reproduced here). Teissier threatened to sue AFIS for publishing / hosting the critique: Elle y voit une intolérable atteinte à la liberté d'expression, mais n'exclut pas d'attaquer en justice l'Association française pour l'information scientifique (AFIS) sur le site de laquelle est publiée et critiquée sa thèse. also from Le Monde.

Hopefully this is tick-able once the neutrality tag is resolved. I don't want to offer more ALTs, but AFIS could be changed to indicate a group of scientists. EdChem (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Reviewer needed for ALT2c once the neutrality tag is resolved. Many thanks. (Icon used to cancel out StAnselm's unfortunate use of the official DYK tick, which causes this to show up as approved in the "List of DYK Hooks by Date" table.) BlueMoonset (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops! Sorry. StAnselm (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg The latest section on the article's talk page indicates that the faults highlighted above remain an issue and so there's still lots more to do. EdChem has now split off much of the content into a separate page which he plans to submit separately to DYK.  A fresh start of that sort may well be sensible and, in any case, this version remains too problematic to promote. Andrew D. (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , "faults highlighted above remain" might more accurately be put as "substantial change has been made to balance content, and EdChem has sought input on what to remove to address the UNDUE issue, and had no response." I have only two questions for you:
 * 1) Do you have any issue with ALT2c, except that the article has an UNDUE tag?  If so, what are they?
 * 2) Do you have any suggestions on what is not needed in the article to address the UNDUE tag?
 * The resolution of this nomination turns only on these two questions. Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think it's clear Andrew's attempts to close the DYK, as an involved editor who had a hook rejected and has done nothing but attempt to shut the DYK since, is simple trolling. He's taking issues caused by the requests on this page, such as the expansion of a section to a length sufficient to spin off an article, as evidence there's something wrong with the article. He's made up lies about the article, such as his claims about it supposedly being a mere Google Translate from the French (it was translated carefully, heavily revised and reordered, had a review from a native French speaker, and added dozens of new sources). He has consistently refused outright to back accusations about the article, making claims about her notability for various career aspects (such as modelling or film) that, when requested to show evidence she was particularly notable for those, he went unresponsive about. He's constantly attempted to exaggerate things maliciously to get this shut - not covering her modelling and film career in detail becomes a BLP violation; not being FA-quality means it can't pass DYK, that he finds a hook boring means that the whole nomination should be closed. Can he please be banned from this DYK?  Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My criticisms of the article and hook have been valid and I am still not satisfied.  Procedurally, this nomination has already been given too much time and it's now getting nasty.  Compare this with a previous nomination of my own – Flip teaching.  This is a very notable topic which gets about 500 hits a day.  I was quite pleased to have started an article about it but it had some difficulty during the nomination which was refused for a delay of two weeks.  I accepted this refusal with good grace as I could see that there might be some difficulty getting the topic clean and keeping it that way.  The Teissier nomination has had far more than two weeks and still isn't out of the woods.  It's past time to say "enough". Andrew D. (talk) 07:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please indicate what (if anything) you find unacceptable about the current hook proposal, 2c, and what you see needs to be done to justify removing the UNDUE tag. Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging Andrew D. to respond to EdChem's request. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: the undue weight tag has now been removed. The article has been pruned and Teissier affair has been created as a content fork. Any hooks should be checked to see the hook is still referenced in this article. StAnselm (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Confirming that the article is no longer tagged. Also it is still big enough after pruning, and is still completely cited. Hook ALT2c uses a different term to that in the article for Association française pour l'information scientifique, so I suggest amending it. Also the self title seems to use capital letters, and so should we, but that is a different article's issue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Alt 2d (preferred) ... that the Association Française pour l'Information Scientifique criticised Paris Descartes University for its decision to award Élizabeth Teissier a doctorate for a sociology thesis promoting astrology?
 * Alt 2e (not preferred) ... that the Association Française pour l'Information Scientifique criticised Paris Descartes University for its decision to award Élizabeth Teissier a doctorate for a sociology thesis defending astrology?


 * How about these? I think 2d is better, but given the amount of trouble this article has had, if people are going to get hung up on things, I'd rather provide what I consider far poorer phrasing than risk people doing a word by word analysis, trying to find some reason to extend this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg hook 2d is 2 characters too long (202) whereas alt2e is just under at 199. If you change "that promoted" to "promoting" it would get you under the 200 limit. The hooks 2d and 2e are both in the article, cited and supported by the reference. Good to go with alt2e or the reworded alt2d. If anyone really wants a variation on alt2d, then shrink it down and ask me to tick that. It will be good the wrap this one up! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I made the recommended tweak; could you tick it and 2e, and let the other closer decide? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Both 2d and 2e are over 200 characters by my count. More generally, the article quality is still quite inadequate for a sensitive BLP.  For example, the article says "she acted in a dozen films, including mainly soft erotic films".  This seems quite derogatory but its source is IMDB which is not a reliable source and, in any case, does not support the claim.  This article was pulled over three months ago for being unduly negative and it's still failing.  My view remains that the nomination should be closed.  Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You have been asked repeatedlæy, Over and over to state what, exactly you thought was wrong, and you have refused every time, saving it up until such time as progress starts to be made, when you revealed one thing you dislike, and then try to use that to sink the article. You are not interested in working to move forwards, you are only interested in trying to sink this nomination. I'm this close to reporting you on ANI. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I also ran the copyvio detector again. It only found a quote, so no copy-violations found. Andrew Davidson does not look to be working to get this fixed. Article quality is not a requirement for DYK. An individual problem statement can also be removed from the article without affecting this DYK. To shorten the hook more you can say AFIS with a link to the org. You could also get rid of the word "sociology". I am counting the text between the that and the ? to get the count. Also correcting a misleading statment above, Élizabeth Teissier was actually born in Algeria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was pinged recently by BlueMoonSet, who wanted me to comment. I hesitated because the comments here are now so uncivil.  But, observing some activity, I took a look and found both the hooks and the article still wanting.  Article quality is certainly an issue for DYK as the rules state, "Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources, violate WP:BLP..."   When calculating the hook length, the word "that" should be included as you start counting after the ellipsis (...)  Andrew D. (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Andrew Davidson is correct about hook length, they are too long, but it is easily fixed. Striking them and re-proposing:
 * Alt 2d (preferred) ... that the Association Française pour l'Information Scientifique criticised Paris Descartes University's decision to award Élizabeth Teissier a doctorate for a sociology thesis promoting astrology?
 * Alt 2e (not preferred) ... that the Association Française pour l'Information Scientifique criticised Paris Descartes University's decision to award Élizabeth Teissier a doctorate for a sociology thesis defending astrology?
 * I do not favour removing "sociology" because it could be taken to imply the doctorate is in science. Re the article, StAnselm's cuts are too severe IMO, but I am not going to hold up this nomination for another nanosecond that can be avoided.  Re Andrew's point about soft-core erotic work, google finds plenty of references to it.   would you please tick the new 2d and 2e, I've shortened them by changing "... university  decision ..." to "... university decision", change highlighted in .  Both are now 195 characters.  Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Definitely not 2d - among other things, it's not even in the article. The article only uses "defend", not "promote". StAnselm (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg The shortened alt2d and alt2e hooks are now 198 and 199 characters, including the "that " and "?". So they both satisfy the length requirement. "Defend" is a common word used in relation to theses. But the reference actually does use a stronger wording, in French, "un plaidoyer", that is more like "promotion" than "defence". The article words are "pro-astrological advocacy" which is close enough to "promote" for this hook to be counted as in the article. An alternate word to use would be "advocating" but this is longer and thus less acceptable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg No. The "pro-astrological advocacy" is in a quote, and is quite clearly an opinion. This is not suitable for a BLP hook. And it really doesn't matter what is in the reference - per the DYK rules it needs to be in the article itself. StAnselm (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 's tick for ALT2e is not affected by 's latest disruption. The "opinion" of pro-astrological advocacy comes from the AFIS group who are making the criticism in any case, so a re-wording to make it a quotation is an option.  For it to fit, though, we'd need to put AFIS in English but piped to the French title, such as:


 * Alt 2f ... that the French Association for Scientific Information criticised Paris Descartes University's decision to award Élizabeth Teissier a doctorate for a sociology thesis of "pro-astrological advocacy"?
 * Thoughts, Graeme? It's 198 characters including the "that" and the question mark.  EdChem (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I count 199 characters, so alt2f is OK for length, and it is still confirmed in the article too. (I don't think people are trying to be trolls or disruptive here, theare are AGF. However they have missed the point of DYK, and now there are so many opinions on a controversial person that they have rejected perfectly good hooks earlier on). I am still claiming  alt2d and alt2e are fine too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)