Template:Did you know nominations/Laurent Louis


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Laurent Louis

 * ... that Belgian anti-Zionist politician Laurent Louis suggested the May 24, 2014 shooting at the Jewish Museum of Belgium could have been a false flag operation to dissuade his supporters from turning out for the federal election of the following day?
 * ALT1: ... that Belgian anti-Zionist politician Laurent Louis suggested the shooting at the Jewish Museum of Belgium could have been a false flag operation to dissuade his supporters from voting the next day?
 * ALT2: ... that Belgian anti-Zionist politician Laurent Louis was censured for antisemitism and Holocaust denial after making the quenelle gesture in parliament?
 * ALT3: ... that Belgian politician Laurent Louis has been tried for slander concerning allegations of pedophilia against many public figures, including his country's Prime Minister?
 * Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Jackie Tavener

2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by Moxfyre (talk). Self nominated at 05:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Note: this was not a 2x unsourced BLP expansion, since the previous version of the article was referenced. However, it is still eligible as a 5x expansion, since it was expanded from 672 characters to 3,676 (excluding block quotes). 97198 (talk) 08:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Expansion new enough (for 25 May) and long enough. No problems with disambig links or with external links. Although 3 ext. links are flagged as redirects, they work OK. Hook checks out with online citation #25. Issues: (1) There are more than 5 DYK credits on Moxfyre's talkpage, so a QPQ is required. (2) The original hook has 248 characters (excluding ellipsis), well outside the 200-character limit. (3) Citation #25 has an excessively-long quotation from an online source which is in-copyright. This quotation does not need to appear on the article page and I think this is unnecessary and ought to be removed. Note: This review is unfinished and I shall complete it shortly.  Checks for copyvio and neutrality have not been done yet. Thank you for your patience. --Storye book (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your helpful comments, Storye book! I did not know about the QPQ requirement and will work on that, thanks. I also reduced the hook to 197 characters, and will try to shorten the quotation in the article appropriately. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 21:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I intend to complete the review tomorrow, and I'll check the QPQ when it's ready. --Storye book (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I've added a QPQ review. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 22:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the QPQ; I've struck out issue (1). I guess I'd better say that your QPQ review did not include checks for copyvio or close paraphrasing, though. Meanwhile I hope to finish my initial review of this Laurent Louis nom today, and I'll update it as you deal with any remaining issues. --Storye book (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Continuation of initial review. Issues 1, 2 and 3 now resolved: QPQ is done; ALT1 is 197 characters; the long quote in citation #25 (now #26) has been considerably shortened. The remainder of the first part of my review (above) still pertains. I have checked external citation links as sources for copyvio or close paraphrasing; none found (and yes I can understand French just enough to do this). The article is written in an objective style, allowing the quoted reports of others to describe this difficult character. The actions of this type of character are designed to evoke strong feelings in everybody - so any article about him will always get most readers wishing he had been condemned more by the article, and will (unfortunately) get a certain small minority thinking he should be praised more. It is frankly impossible to treat such an article neutrally, because the two groups of readers will pick up on what you don't say, i.e. they will see lack of neutrality in omission. So bearing that in mind, in my opinion you have done the best job possible in the circumstances in this article. This paragraph, with the paragraph below, completes my initial review. --Storye book (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Issue with ALT1: That leaves us with the content of the hook. As I understand it, hooks which quote bad people saying inflammatory things get rejected from the DYK queue. This is because although many of our audience are sophisticated enough to see the hook as an exposure of the preposterousness of the bad person's words, many more are (albeit naively) seeing that bad person being presented as one of the voices of Wikipedia, i.e. they wrongly think that the bad person is speaking for us. So if we put ALT1 on the front page, we may well get a lot of upset people saying that we are trivialising the tragedy of the Jewish Museum shooting - an incident that is recent and still raw. Please forgive me for explaining at length something which you probably already understand - but others are reading this too and we have to get it right. So please could we have a safer ALT2? In the article paragraph that starts, "In January 2014, during discussion", there are two instances of Louis getting into trouble for his actions - a safer hook? --Storye book (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Much of what is notable about the subject concerns outrageous and provocative statements, so this is a fine line to walk, but fortunately he provides plenty of source material. Per your suggestion, how about ALT2 which includes a link to the quenelle gesture in the hook (this is a social and political phenomenon which I'd argue deserves more attention from the English-speaking world)? Or ALT3 to pick an entirely separate field of controversy? I'd prefer ALT2 since ALT3 seems to have been universally dismissed as farcical and unrelated to larger issues. Thanks again for your thoughtful reviews, Storye book. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ &#124; contrib) 17:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Thank you very much, Moxfyre, for your patient co-operation - much appreciated. All issues are now resolved; well done. I agree that ALT2 is perfect for this article. I've given an AGF grey tick because although citation #19 for ALT2 is online and I can (pretty much) understand it, it is in French. Good to go for ALT2. --Storye book (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)