Template:Did you know nominations/Krun


 * 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 Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 16:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Krun

 * ... that the Krun region of Pluto is named for Krun, the lord of the underworld in the Mandaean religion of southern Iraq, who takes the form of a giant louse?


 * Reviewed: Staten Island Tunnel

Created by Chuck Haberl (talk). Nominated by Antony-22 (talk) at 07:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC).


 * The article is new enough (changed from a redirect to the German town on 18 July), and long enough (2165 characters "readable prose), but it has some significant copyright issues. Most of the "In astronomy" section is lifted word for word from the "Vote Krun" Facebook page (March 28 post). It appears that the same author wrote both that text and this article, but there is no open licensing indicated on the Facebook page, so this section will have to be substantially reworded. I've added the url for an archived version of Drower's book (which also allowed me to add page numbers). It would be good to have page numbers for the German book source.
 * The hook is short enough, interesting and neutral, and all of it has now been cited to a source. (Disclosure: I found a copy of the Drower source online, and added page numbers — and the url — to the article.) No image was submitted with the hook, and a QPQ has already been done.
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Until the copyright issue is dealt with, this cannot run. MeegsC (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A licensing notice on the source page is the easiest but not the only was to verify licensing status in this kind of case. We just need to verify the identity of the article author and owner of the Facebook page owner, so that it's clear that he has the competence to donate the text to Wikipedia.  In this case, he's already made his real-life identity clear on both his user page and on the Facebook page.  If that's insufficient, we can contact him by email and put it in OTRS like they do for images.  Your call.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to do that. Just let me know what I need to do. Chuck Haberl (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've modified the text on the Facebook page with the Creative Commons BY-NC license. Chuck Haberl (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great; thanks . But I"m not finding the CC license notice on your FB page anywhere. Where did you add it? MeegsC (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It has to be specifically a CC BY-SA 3.0 license that allows commercial reuse... Sorry to make a big deal out of it but it's a technicality of how our licensing works.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I've pasted the BY-SA 3.0 license directly into a post on the wall (the license itself is too long for the "about" box). I think that should do it?Chuck Haberl (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * can you please check here to see if what Chuck added is okay? I don't know enough about the licensing to be sure. Is there a better way to do this? MeegsC (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC
 * That works, although for future reference it would also have been okay to just post a link the licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/) rather than copy-paste the entire license itself! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This one is now good to go! MeegsC (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg A separate but fairly important issue here is that the information is being sourced from a Facebook post. Assuming the Facebook post itself was sourced from somewhere, those sources should be used in the article to verify the informationinformation provided. That is done somewhat already, but there's currently no reliable in-line citation to source the second paragraph of the "In astronomy" section. If we ignore the citation that is not reliable, that paragraph does not meet WP:DYKSG. Could that paragraph be sourced from somewhere else? ~ RobTalk 08:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe this falls under WP:SELFPUB, since that paragraph is mainly summarizing the campaign's own description of itself. I added a couple of third-party sources to the sentence about the campaign's existence.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 11:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Statements such as "Despite this unique distinction, the Mandaeans had previously been unrepresented in astronomical place-names" and "since the time of Percival Lowell and Clyde Tombaugh, heavenly cosmography had expanded beyond names from Greco-Roman antiquity to the celebrated figures of many cultures and traditions, but the Mandaeans had thus far evaded the notice of the International Astronomical Union" are presented as fact in the article and go beyond the self-published source discussing itself. ~ RobTalk 11:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a legitimate concern and one that bothers me. I'm not sure how to address it. Obviously, it makes sense that a (let's face it) relatively obscure and secretive community from the marshes of Southern Iraq would evade the notice of the IAU. The IAU's official website itself notes that "In order to internationalize the names, we now also allow names of giants and monsters in other mythologies" as a best practice (I've included a cite to that effect on the Krun website). Complicating the situation is the fact that there aren't very many scholarly authorities on the Mandaeans around, but I'd like to humbly submit myself as something of an authority on the community (I realize just how awful that sounds, but I'm grasping at straws here, and I have published numerous peer-reviewed articles and a book on the subject). Perhaps we could edit the page to include some sort of a caveat like "Rutgers professor Charles Haberl writes that..." in order to cover our bases here. Chuck Haberl (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see two ways to go about this. First, have you ever written about this in a non-self-published source (i.e. a peer-reviewed article)? If so, nothing prevents us from including that in the article, although I'd recommend that you let another editor insert it to avoid WP:COI concerns. Second, we could reword the article to state that the campaign was the result of a perceived lack of recognition for Mandaeans by the IAU, among other qualifiers. That would shift things back into WP:SELFPUB territory, where we're merely reporting what the organization thinks. My only issue with what's written in the article right now is that it doesn't clearly distinguish between claim and sourced fact. I would avoid going the route of attributing the facts to yourself, as that would retain the issue of a self-published source discussing something other than itself. I also want to make it very clear that I do not doubt that you know what you're talking about. The step of requiring independent publication in a reputable source is still important to make sure someone has double checked the claims being made, since even experts can sometimes be mistaken. We don't want another Reinhart and Rogoff situation, after all. ~ RobTalk 17:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the second option makes more sense. I've written about Mandaean astrology but not anything that's remotely relevant to contemporary astronomy. Should I reword the article myself or would it be better for a third party to step in? Chuck Haberl (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So long as everything you say is uncontroversial and supported by the source, feel free to take a whack at it yourself. A reviewer (either myself or someone else) will check it over again before the hook makes it to the main page, so there will be a second set of eyes on it at some point. By the way, you've been referred to WP:COI by now, right? I think you've done an excellent job of disclosing your affiliation and remaining uncontroversial in your edits, but it's still a good idea to take a glance at the best practices on that page if you haven't already. ~ RobTalk 17:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a third-party source to these statements and did a little rewording; that should deal with these concerns. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 15:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg The sourcing is fine now; restoring tick. Thanks for your contributions, both of you. ~ RobTalk 02:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)