Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Alcohol in Afghanistan

< 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 sst✈ 04:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
ALT9a promoted

DYK toolbox

Alcohol in Afghanistan edit

(
)
  • ALT1:... that in 2009 alcohol was banned at the NATO head quarters in Afghanistan after soldiers "party too hard"?
  • ALT2:... that tourists are allowed to bring 2 bottles of alcoholic drink when entering Afghanistan?
  • ALT3:... that the first Mughal learned about Alcohol in Afghanistan?
  • ALT4:... that Alcohol in Afghanistan' is forbidden, but the country has about 60.000 hectares of areas cultivating grapes and excellent climate and terroir suitable for quality wine?

Created by Human3015 (talk), BarrelProof (talk). Nominated by Human3015 (talk) at 02:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC).

  • tweaked both hooks. Article requires a copy edit/co-author and a strong source. Victuallers (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Victuallers: Thanks for your review. There are strong sources for each claim. For example "ALT1" alcohol was banned after troops "party hard" is supported by this telegraph news, Main hook says that US soldiers are not allowed to drink is supported by this source, same telegraph news says that there is "2 can rule" in Afghanistan, this source also says 2 bottles are allowed.--Human3015TALK  17:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry that wasn't a review - it was just a helpful comment. I think you need to find a co-author as your article needs polishing. The accuracy of your hooks is not a problem although the first hook reads a bit oddly and the second one implied that you could import raw alcohol - which is now fixed. Victuallers (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
BarrelProof has done some copy-editing. I have added his name as co-author.--Human3015TALK  00:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Well done BarrelProof and Human3015. Impressed to see that the co-editor idea worked. The article is much better. I've checked all the hooks and the main one lacks a ref but the other two are fine. The article is long enough and has enough refs. Its neutral and was new and I saw no close para phrasing. There is no image. Thanks for the extra efforts you two. Victuallers (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Victuallers: I did some corrections as well. Point is, this article is just about the recent present and regionally not much more than Kabul. I would like to have more about the past - e.g. the soviet time or the comparable free lifestyle under the KIng before putting it on the main page.Polentarion Talk 19:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
@Polentarion: Thanks for your interest in article. Actually for DYK purpose it is not necessary that article should give all info regarding subject. But any improvement in article should be welcomed. Good thing is that even if article gets promoted still it takes 3-4 days to appear it on main page, and it may take couple of days to promote this article, so we have 5-6 days to improve this article further. Without keeping this article on hold we have 5-6 days, so no need to worry about it. I hope you will expand article, your name can be added in authors list above. Thank you. --Human3015TALK  20:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The nomination has been pulled back from prep. Despite all the above, the promoted hook, ALT1, fails basic grammar ("party too hard" is in the wrong tense), and the quote used is taken from a headline, sensational by nature rather than neutral, and thus inappropriate here and in the article. The article, although it was edited above, has some problematic sections, notably the second paragraph of Overview, which I found nearly incomprehensible, and needs to be rewritten before the article can be promoted to the main ipage. Finally, the article has a bare URL reference, which is not allowed for DYK. I've struck ALT1, though a new ALT can be proposed along similar lines without that quote. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Reworded the section. topic is far from being covered. No need for credits. Polentarion Talk 09:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what's problem with that line. Prestigious news paper is using words like "party too hard" etc. Requirement is not that source should be neutral but rather it should be reliable. Anyway, main hook also has source in article that US soldiers are not allowed to drink alcohol. I will fix that ref. But still I think "party too hard" hook is "reliable" and interesting. I don't know what's issue of "neutrality" here, it seems that someone taking it as "defaming" image of NATO, but no one has such intention here, it is sourced and interesting. Nothing defaming in saying someone is "partying". Everyone do it, I have created many articles on alcoholic brands. --Human3015TALK  09:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT4: ... that in 2009 alcohol was banned on NATO base in Afghanistan after troops "party too hard"?
I have provided grammatically correct hook as per sources, and words "party too hard" are in quotes, it was also in quotation in earlier version also. I replaced word "soldiers" with "troops" as written in source. I think it is interesting hook. Telegraph is neutral newspaper, it is based in one of NATO country itself. It is not any Arab or Pakistani news paper to call it "non-neutral" or biased against NATO. But really it is not issue here, there is not problem of neutrality in hook. They were just "partying", its ok.--Human3015TALK  10:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Its not about "NATO" but about the different dealings with soldiers or expat alcohol consumption. I think the partying wording as bein not appropriate in this WP article, alas as well in the hook. Polentarion Talk 17:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC) INserted a third alt - Afghanistan having all the basic premises to compete on the worlds wine markets sounds more interesting for me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polentarion (talk • contribs)
  • I have now unstricken the original hook as it is now has source.--Human3015TALK  19:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT4 has at least two grammatical errors and the other issues with it remain just as true as with ALT1; it has been struck. You could try a hook about how the troops were hung over or otherwise incapable of rapid response—the same source goes into greater detail—but using the quote "party too hard" is not acceptable here, and should frankly be changed in the article because it is a headline rather than actual news text. Please accept this and move on, because I can guarantee you that the quote will not appear on the main page given the cited source. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Firstly it was not fair enough to pulling back promoted DYK from preparation area, if it was having any grammatical mistake then it should have been corrected in preparation area rather than pulling it back. If entire reviewed hook was having problem then there were alternative hooks to replace it. Actually my another DYK was in same preparation area and my 2 DYKs were going to appear on main page on same day, I was happy for that, but pulling one of them back is really discouraging. Anyway, we can leave this quote hook, there are some other hooks, original or main hook is also interesting and sourced. And main text of the news also uses words like "partying up". I don't think that there is problem in using it in article, it is not written in lead, it is written in body and that too in quotation marks. --Human3015TALK  11:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, I have changed wording in article. Hope it will resolve the content dispute. Still there are some hooks. I can't say about ALT3 added by another editor if it is interesting or not. But still I will post improvised hook.
  • ALT5: ... that in 2009 alcohol was banned at the NATO headquarters in Afghanistan after some troops were found to be drunk?

--Human3015TALK  13:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • ALT5 can be seen in same telegraph news just below headline. They have actually used "some troops were found to be too drunk" but I have removed too for neutrality. It is grammatically correct as it is written in Telegraph but if still there are some grammatical mistakes then one can tweak it little bit. Thank you. --Human3015TALK  14:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT6: ... that in 2009 alcohol was banned at the NATO headquarters in Afghanistan after troops failed to respond quickly due to being hungover?
Sorry, as fas as I am aware, NATO headquarters are to be found in Brussels. OK Mons and Norfolk. The headquarters you have in mind were used by ISAF. ISAF included much more than NATO. That said, the NATO hooks are not useable at all. Polentarion Talk 00:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
It is about NATO headquarters in Afghanistan, please read the source. But anyway we can replace headquarters with base.--Human3015TALK  07:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, I will provide another hooks,
  • ALT7: ... that in 2009 alcohol was banned at the ISAF headquarters in Afghanistan after some troops were found to be drunk?
  • ALT8: ... that in 2009 alcohol was banned at the ISAF headquarters in Afghanistan after troops failed to respond quickly due to being hungover?

--Human3015TALK  07:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Review needed of new hooks, and also the article prose should be rechecked. Please fix the grammar in hooks like ALT6 and ALT8 if you think they should otherwise be approved. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Review Good to go! New article, timely nominated. Meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral; cites sources with inline citations; is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK nomination was timely and article is easily long enough. Every paragraph is cited. Earwig's copy violation detector: Alcohol in Afghanistan report gives it a clean bill. ALT6 and ALT8 are hooky enough, are properly cited and supported by WP:RS and relate directly to the essence of the article. I did change the grammar on those hooks. They are interesting, decently neutral, and appropriately cited. QPQ done. I copy edited the article and references, which is now clean. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 7&6=thirteen, thanks for taking this on. I've just struck ALT5 and ALT6 because "NATO" does not appear in the article at all, so these are unsupported. My problem with ALT7 and ALT8 is solely that the article does not mention hangovers at all, it just says "allegedly drunk". The source header/subtitle says "too drunk or hungover" (though the source body dances around it a bit), but if the ALT8 hook says "hungover", the article must as well; similarly, if the article only says "allegedly drunk" then the ALT7 hook cannot use an unqualified "drunk". BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
What the source says is " but too many had been “partying it up” and could not be raised." It also says that alcohol was not the moving factor in General McChrystal's order. I interpreted that as they were unable to respond due to being hung over, but that they were not drunk at the time the call went out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, however you interpret the source, the article itself needs to reflect the source, and the hooks need to reflect the article, per DYK rules. At the moment, they don't, and until there's some kind of agreement the nomination is stuck. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
It is true that the 'magic words' are not there.
There is a certain irony in this. I've seen DYK nominations get in trouble because the hook was said tobe a "close paraphrase" of the source. You want something that exactly mirrors the source, and is not just a fair reading of the information in the source, then we can do that. I'll take it under advisement and get back to you. 19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No, I think you're misunderstanding me. This is not a call for copyvio or close paraphrase. The hook has to reflect the article, which makes no reference to hangovers being a problem. None. If the article doesn't refer to hangovers, the hook can't. That's basic DYK. Similarly, if the article only says alleged drinking, then the hook can't drop the alleged; hooks can't have a more controversial claim than the article supports. A hook fact cannot be deemed okay even if the source supports the hook if that hook fact isn't in the article proper. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "alleged" is not in source, I have removed it. I think main hook is also ok. --Human3015TALK  20:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment BlueMoonset, I am not contending that your comments were about copyvios.
With respect, you are correct that the source does not use the word "hangover," but it says that Thursday were big drinking nights, the troops were unable to respond on Friday due to what happened the night before, and that McCrystal banned drinking as a result. ALT7 and ALT8 do NOT say that anyone was drunk at the time of the failure to respond. I think a fair reading supports those hooks.
As to the original hook, the sources state that alcohol was banned for U.S. Troops, and that some of the troops have found a way to evade it. The problem with that is that these articles are are all somewhat dated, and do not address current U.S. military policy and practice in Afghanistan. That hook is set in the present tense, and we need an up-to-date source for that proposition. ALT2 and ALT3 look to be supported by reliable sources. There is no reason to believe that the law has changed in Afghanistant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • This is very old nomination, as a nominator I am not insisting for any specific hook, any simple hook which seems relevant can be approved. I found some sources. This book uses all kinds of words like "hungover" etc. But as far as ban of alcohol for US troops is concerned, latest October 2015 issues of Soldiers of Fortune magazine also talks about ban of alcohol for US troops. Or simply ALT2 or ALT3 can be approved to close this nomination. Otherwise article don't really have any major issues. --Human3015TALK  15:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
IMO, all of those are good hooks. Please put the SOF cite in the article. Lets strike off the hooks that are no longer being considered. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with the basic OK. I did some minor changes to put the current developements after the end of ISAF into perspective. I assume the (theoretical) suitability of the Afghanistan Terroir and its histoical importance for grapes and quality wine is of larger importance. Polentarion Talk 19:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have just struck ALT8, because the incident as related in the article refers only to being drunk, not to being hung over or being impaired due to the aftermath of being drunk. As I have noted before, if a fact isn't included in the article, it cannot be used in the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thats OK. As said, I believe AlT 3 and 4 to be better. Troups will come and go, but if Afghanistan wants to get out of its misery, some home grown wine would be helpful - as in the historical past. Polentarion Talk 12:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Review ALT2, ALT3 and ALT4 are cited in line and good to go. I recommend ALT4. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT9:... that Alcohol in Afghanistan' is officially forbidden, but the countries' vineyards cover a larger area than in Austria?

Last and final ;) Polentarion Talk 13:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Review ALT9 checks out. Multiple WP:RS. I recommend ALT9.
New enough and long enough, inline citations and references checks, factual and interesting hook, close paraphrasing and neutrality is checked as well and approved, Good work, well done! This one is good to go. It is a genuinely good, long (almost 6,000 countable characters/13,800 total), and balanced article that deserves laurels, not cudgels. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT9 is grammatically flawed as Afghanistan is a single country. Also, does it mean the area of vineyards in Afghanistan is larger than the area of vineyards in Austria, or that the area of vineyards in Afghanistan is larger than Austria? Suggesting ALTs (using facts from above options)...
  • ALT9a: ... that Afghanistan's vineyards cover an area larger than do Austria's despite alcohol being officially forbidden?
  • ALT9b: ... that Alcohol in Afghanistan is officially forbidden, yet the country's vineyards cover an area larger than do Austria's?
  • ALT9c: ... that Alcohol in Afghanistan is officially forbidden, yet the country's vineyards cover an area larger than Austria?
  • ALT9d: ... that alcohol is officially forbidden in Afghanistan, yet the country's vineyards cover about 60,000 hectares?
EdChem (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Review ALT9a, ALT9b, and ALT9d are variants of the content of the article, and are reliably sourced. I am not interested in quibbling over grammar (fly specking), and would endorse any of these. I would suggest that the nominator express a preference. Strike ALT9C is it reads as a comparison of the vineyards of Afghanistan to the country of Austria. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
New hooks are also interesting. Nearly 5-6 editors are involved in this DYK process. I thank everyone for being cooperative. --Human3015TALK  16:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT2 is my favourite. I find the vineyard claim slightly misleading, as the grapes aren't used to make alcohol. Jolly Ω Janner 03:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Finally we made it, thanks to all. ONe Comment to @Jolly Janner:. My Hometown is in a wine region. In Afghanistan they seem to care more about prohibiting alcohol than poppy and hashisch, but even if the most grapes go into raisin, they will get homespun Must or Federweisser from untreated grape juice within days: Its a fact of life - and nature just by keeping it in a jug, and I am sure thats one of the illegal sources.  ;) Polentarion Talk 22:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Alcohol_in_Afghanistan&oldid=878361106"