A fact from Avadhanum Paupiah appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 February 2009, and was viewed approximately 806 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Avadhanum Paupiah, Indian dubash of the British East India Company was convicted in 1792 of forging evidence against David Haliburton on behalf of the Holland brothers?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
The source that I've used only mentions that Paupiah "helped in creating false evidence against Haliburton". It doesn't mention anything about what the "false evidence" was, nor have I been able to find anything on the web which seem to suggest what it might have been. As for the usage of the phrase "deep trouble", I've replaced it with an appropriate alternative.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 05:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
The new wording is now unclear about whether Paupiah brought an end to Haliburton's service, or to his own (which I assume is the correct interpretation). rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 13:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Haliburton is the subject in the line and the new wording is perfectly clear about who brought an end to whose career. I also request you to examine the other book and the column in The Hindu which have also been used as source for the article. By the way, is this even remotely connected to the DYK hook that I've nominated. The hook only deals with Paupiah's conviction and the reason for his conviction. It doesn't deal with who caused whose end.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 13:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's relevant for DYK because we need to be able to write a clear and concise hook, using clear and concise facts. The reason I asked for more details is because I didn't want to write a vague hook about forging evidence without being able to say what kind of evidence it was. I will keep trying to look for something to write a decent hook about. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 13:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
