Template:Did you know nominations/Li Haoshi controversy of 2023

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 Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Li Haoshi controversy of 2023

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that "capable of winning battles, and have good styles" is part of People's Liberation Army (Chinese military) slogan, which became known for Li Haoshi controversy of 2023? Source: edition.cnn.com/2023/05/17/asia/chinese-firm-fined-army-joke-intl-hnk/index.html
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Sandhya Dhar
  • Comment: IMHO This new article can be good candidate for DYK, topic which deals with interesting conundrum capable of drawing attention to issues related humour and free speech. In this article it's about China the issues can be equally true across times and spaces.

IMHO alternate DYKs would be possible. And hope DYK nomination will attract article-improvement-help of some good Wikipedia authors and that would help ultimate improvement of the article.

Created by Chu Tse-tien (talk). Nominated by Bookku (talk) at 08:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Li Haoshi controversy of 2023; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - n

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good well-written article. I did light copy editing. (1) can you remove the over citation in the lead, and also you do not seem to use these sources anywhere in the article. so either completely remove them or put them where they are apporiate (not the lead the section), see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. (2) the hook is convoluted and hard to understand, can you recommend simpler hooks please. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma: Thanks for your valuable inputs

Before submitting for DYK I had checked article on Erwig tool and I did not see any issues in the tool report. You seem to have left parameter plagiarismfree = blank. Is it that you want some one else to take care of that aspect or left unknowingly blank or are we missing any aspect? If last one is the case then let we know so some action can be taken.

I would prefer alternate hook suggestions coming from other editors. May be after couple of days I will try to suggest few from my side too. Bookku (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma:

(1)

remove the over citation in the lead

Done. Now the citations in the introductory section have been reduced to three.

do not seem to use these sources anywhere in the article

These are a couple of well-written reports that cover the whole incident, with most of the details mentioned below included. It would be better to put them in the lead rather than in the following sections repeatedly.

(2) about the hook

I’d suggest something like

> … what recent controversy was triggered by commending dogs with a military slogan of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and led to the person in question and their company being heavily penalised by the Chinese authorities?

Boreas Sawada 07:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chu Tse-tien: In general, if they are reports that are not needed in the article but they are good for further read, then you can move them after the reference section in a section called Further reading, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section citation is not necessary unless for controversial points as the lead summaries what is in the article. Anyhow, you can leave the three sources if you wish to do so

Your new hook is too long. The hook does not need to summarise the article put says something interesting from the article, for example:

• ALT2: "… that Some people thought Li Haoshi was insinuating that the Chinese People's Liberation Army were dogs?"
• ALT3: "… that joking about the Chinese military can cost you $2 million?" .. Source bbc, although the article says 1.3 but with no unit, can you fix that please

I think these are some simple and interesting hooks to get people to read your article. Give it a go too please or you can choose from mine FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma:

I see. Thank you for letting me know.

although the article says 1.3

Corrected.

Your hooks are excellent.

Boreas Sawada 07:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Approved ALT2 is ready to go then

With due respect, I am afraid, I foresee some difficulty in adoption of alt2 at next level of DYK; at least needs to be clearly supported by citation. Bookku (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

sorry for that, I am not a speaker of the language been cited and assumed good faith. I am glad you picked that up. AT3 is BBC sourced but need to be included in the article first, can you do that @Chu Tse-tien:?, @Bookku: if you think ALT3 is not suitable, I can propose more but sadly only based on English sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

AT3 is BBC sourced but need to be included in the article first

I’m confused, isn’t the first citation exactly this BBC source? Or do you mean to change the currency from yuan to dollar? But the BBC source did mention how much yuan they were fined and confiscated in paragraph 10 as follows:

They then confiscated 1.32m yuan of what was deemed to be illegal income, and fined the company another 13.35m yuan, according to Xinhua.

As for the source for AT2, I am confused, too, for saying it wasn’t cited; some sources even used ‘comparing army to dogs’ or ‘likened Chinese soldiers to feral dogs’ in their titles, like these two that follows.

And that wasn’t what Li was doing, as per discussion here on the talk page, he was at most comparing his dogs to the army, not the other way around. Therefore it is indeed ‘some people thought’ he was.

References

Boreas Sawada 21:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@ User:Chu_Tse-tien I mean DYK specific citation need to be mentioned on this DYK page itself so next level user / admin need not go around searching for the same. Secondly though Wikipedia is not censored, still since DYK goes on main page senior editors are usually extra cautious before accepting any negative connotations in DYK.

I feel Alt 3 is better one and RS citations too easily available. Bookku (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bookku: I see. Thanks for the clarification! So the source for AT3 is listed as follows:

References

Boreas Sawada 08:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I added the text with references to the article for ALT3. ALT3 is ready to go then. Given the sensitivity of the topic (which I did not consider), @Bookku: feel free to have a second look. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I had a look at changes in the article and discussion above. ALT3 seems good to go for DYK now. Thanks to both User:FuzzyMagma and User:Chu_Tse-tien. Bookku (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)