Template:Did you know nominations/Puerto Princesa mayoral recall election, 2015


 * 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 Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 10:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Princesa mayoral recall election, 2015

 * ... that several of the 45 candidates in the 2015 Puerto Princesa mayoral recall election were duped into running?


 * QPQ: Did you know nominations/Michael Potts

Created by Howard the Duck (talk). Self-nominated at 17:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol delete vote.svg The Recall elections in the Philippines section has no inline citations. Content of the hook is not backed by an inline citation to a reliable source in the article. Per WP:WIADYK, "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact.". These matters need to be corrected in order to proceed. North America1000 11:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The content "Recall elections in the Philippines" section is repeated in the succeeding sections below. For example, the first sentence is in Reference #6, sentence #2 by reference #8 & 9, and the final sentence by reference #18. I could get rid of this section outright and have the reader realize what's legal without a primer.
 * The hook is cited by Reference #15. I could make two consecutive sentences be cited by the same reference if that is what it takes It'll look pretty stupid and redundant, though. – H T  D  12:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I had rewritten the first section with what is found at the Commission on Elections official website, but that is badly outdated (Preparatory Recall Assemblies are no longer used). The hook still is cited in the article at the end of the sentence. – H T  D  03:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that sourcing issues are said to have been addressed, both for article and hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Per the wording of the source verifying content of the hook, it states:
 * "Thirteen of the 46 mayoral candidates for the May 8 recall election in this city filed on Tuesday their withdrawal before the city’s Commission on Election (Comelec) office, saying they did not know they were running for mayor. All of them claimed they were deceived by some individuals from a supposed pro-poor organization to sign documents giving them benefits."
 * In my opinion, the word "duped" as used in the hook implies that those that withdrew from the race knew about the matter, and also may imply that they were conned into running, but aware of the proposition. Since the source states that the subjects were unaware of the matter, I propose ALT1 below:


 * ALT1: ... that several of the 45 candidates in the 2015 Puerto Princesa mayoral recall election withdrew after unknowingly being signed-up as candidates?
 * I support ALT1 but I would prefer something as slangy as "duped" but with the correct meaning. – H T  D  01:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, from what I know, "dupe" is the act of deception. Duping someone means they deceived him/her of doing something. I'm not sure if this is WP:ENGVAR, but this confirms my definition. Either way I wouldn't insist so I'll just go with ALT1 unless someone else agrees with me. – H T  D  01:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * per the first part of your reply above, how about ALT2 below? North America1000 01:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ALT2: ... that several of the 45 candidates in the 2015 Puerto Princesa mayoral recall election withdrew after unknowingly being duped into signing-up as candidates?
 * Isn't "unknowingly duped" redundant? – H T  D  01:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See below. North America1000 01:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT3: ... that several of the 45 candidates in the 2015 Puerto Princesa mayoral recall election withdrew after being duped into signing-up as candidates? North America1000 01:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer this, but I dunno what's the difference between this and the original. – H T  D  01:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "duped into running" implies that the subjects were aware of and pursuing running in the election. None of the candidates really ran for the election, and simply withdrew after learning that they were signed up. The word "running" implies that this was an active endeavor on the part of the subjects involved. Conversely, "withdrew after being duped into signing-up as candidates" is more exact about the actual situation, that those that were duped were not aware that they were even signed up. North America1000 01:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't the actual act of registering as a candidate an act of "running"? Sure they didn't campaign, but that's "campaigning", not "running". – H T  D  12:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Check out the definition of "running" from Oxford Dictionaries here: (#2) "The action of managing or operating something: 'the day-to-day running of the office'" The subjects were not in engaged in the action of running for the election, there were merely unknowingly signed-up for it. North America1000 20:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll acquiesce just to get it over with. – H T  D  21:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go with ALT3 above. Sorry for any hassles, and while this is not a BLP article, per WP:BLPSTYLE, it's important to portray living persons as accurately as possible: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." I feel that portraying the subjects as having been actively running to be an overstatement compared to what the sources state. North America1000 22:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)