Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Disney and Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Disney and Florida's House Bill 1557

(
)

Created by PanagiotisZois (talk). Self-nominated at 11:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC).

  • Comment The lede needs to be rewritten. The prose needs to be copy-edited. Just my two cents, this is not a review. --evrik (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - The hook strictly needs rephrasing. Disney didn't help fund the bill, it donated to the bill's sponsors. That's not the same thing. Bills don't get funded as such, proposing bills is the politicians' job, they don't go out hat in hand asking for money for them to propose bills. In fact, if there were proof that they asked for or received money specifically for proposing a bill, that could well be impeachable or outright criminal. Maybe something like "during the reaction to Disney's response to Florida's ..."? Though "reaction to response" awkward - is there an even better suggestion? "Disney's support for"? Though the whole article is about the fact the support changed to opposition ... eh - good luck! I'd also not say "revealed", that's a loaded term implying this is true and the studio was hiding it, and not supported by the source which says "allege".

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: The copy-editing comments have a point, but it's not so bad as to make it ineligible for DYK. I'd personally recommend replacing the repeated phrase "released a statement" with "stated", "released a statement condemning" with "condemned", remove all the "according to X" in consecutive sentences, as it's obvious you're continuing to relate what X stated, etc. "Ownng" nd "involvment" bth nd vwls. The Quid pro Quo DYK review is necessary, as nominator has 8 previous DYK nominations. I see there is a move discussion as Antony22 suggests; I think it's worth moving to the correct name for the bill - though that won't be a blocker if it doesn't happen. The hook needs rephrasing as mentioned above. And yet, I think none of these things will be too hard to fix, and expect this to qualify for DYK soon. A nice article. GRuban (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I fixed both instances of grammatical errors and also ran the text through a proofreading program to ensure there might be something else I missed. I also changed some of the sentences a little bit for better flow. I will also try to perform my QPQ as quickly as possible. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
How about if the hook reads: "that in response to Disney funding the sponsors of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill, Pixar employees asserted that despite internal protest, Disney often removes LGBT references from the studio's films? PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Better. Still a bit awkward. What about removing a few of the words, something like "... in response to Disney's support for Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill, Pixar employees stated that Disney often removed LGBT references from the studio's films"? Awkward is a matter of taste, of course, so if you think your version is better in places or wholly, that will work. I see the move discussion is mostly against changing to the bill-numbers title, and may even have been convinced that the current name is better. Template:Ping me when you've decided and done the QPQ. --GRuban (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@GRuban: QPQ done with List of accolades received by Shiva Baby; interested in seeing that film now, lol. As for the hook, I do think your version is definitely an improvement. So, how about the hook being like this: "in response to Disney's support for Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill, Pixar employees stated that despite internal protest Disney often removed LGBT references from the studio's films?". I honestly would be okay if you thought removing the "despite internal protest" part. One thing I do wanna question however is this: should the word be removeD or removeS? Since this is something that apparently occurred as recently as 2021? PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
for ALT2: "...that in response to Disney's support for Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill, Pixar employees stated that despite internal protest Disney often removes LGBT references from the studio's films?"
I won't insist on removing the "despite internal protest" part, and will trust your judgment on removes vs removed, as even though the article does point towards an about face, the source does quote the letter using the present tense: "gay affection is cut ... we are being barred from creating it". --GRuban (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion to change the name of this article. When that is resolved, this can be reassessed. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: The discussion has closed and the page has been moved. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
As it has. @GRuban: do you still approve ALT2, considering the name change? If so, please add a tick below, and if not please state your concerns below. Z1720 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure. It is still the common name. --GRuban (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@GRuban and PanagiotisZois: I've been thinking about this for a couple days, and I don't think the hook should refer to the bill as the "Don't Say Gay bill". I am concerned that this is not the official name of the bill, but rather a slogan or designation given by opponents. This might give the hook a POV feel, inadvertently giving the perception that Wikipedia is taking the side of the bill's opponents or putting inaccurate information about the name of the bill on the main page. I would like to hear your and others' opinions on whether the hook should be changed to say "Florida's House Bill 1557". Thanks for indulging me. Z1720 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
If you remove that the bill is usually known as "Don't Say Gay", then it's not clear why the second part of the hook about removing LGBT references would be relevant. But maybe you can propose an alternative hook? --GRuban (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
ALT2a: ... that in response to Disney's support for Florida's House Bill 1557, also known as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, Pixar employees stated that Disney removes LGBT references from the studio's films?
@GRuban: The hook's size caused me to remove "despite internal protests" to get it under the 200 character limit. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Heh - as you can guess, I do not object to removing "despite internal protests" as above. I'd restore the "often", but otherwise would be OK with that. Let's see what Panagiotis says. --GRuban (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I have no issues with "despite internal protests" being removed to keep the character count below 200. As for the "often" part, it definitely has the hook edge closer to the 200 mark, but still fall below it, so it wouldn't be a problem. I'd argue to include it, especially since both this source and others, indicate that this has been happening with many of their recent films. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
for ALT2a, striking the others. --GRuban (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
ALT2a to T:DYK/P5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Disney_and_Florida%27s_%22Don%27t_Say_Gay%22_bill&oldid=1082930163"