- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tomahawk chop
edit
A foam tomahawk used for the tomahawk chop
... that the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured), was adopted by the Atlanta Braves following the signing of former FSU Seminoles cornerback Deion Sanders?Source: New York Times- ALT1:...
that the Atlanta Braves' adoption of the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured), once led to them being called "Negroes", "Klansmen" and "Nazis" by Native American groups?Sun Sentinel
- ALT1:...
- Reviewed: Wallachian princely election, 1842 (two articles)
- Comment: For 31 March (Braves' first game at SunTrust Park)
Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 16:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
Both new enough. Both long enough. Double QPQ done. NPOV. The article can't decide if it is Tomahawk Chop or tomahawk chop. The latter strikes me as better. I'm also sceptical about the concept of it being "invented". Perhaps devised or created would make more sense. Earwig and spot checking found no significant close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism in either article. ALT1 does not tally with the source, " Call them the Atlanta Negroes, Atlanta Klansmen or Atlanta Nazis, said Clyde Bellecourt, the protest organizer and national director of the American Indian Movement." I will add an ALT2. Otherwise, both articles are well-cited, and ALT0 tallies with the sources. Edwardx (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- ALT2:
... that the Atlanta Braves' adoption of the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured), led to them being called "Negroes", "Klansmen" and "Nazis" by Clyde Bellecourt, national director of the American Indian Movement?
- @Edwardx: I am fine with that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, but you need to adjust the article itself so that it properly reflects ALT2. I will strike ALT1 just to avoid an incorrect promotion later on in the process. Edwardx (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Edwardx: Done. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
-
- Striking ALT2, which at 214 characters even excluding "foam tomahawks (pictured)" from the count, is far too long for DYK. Having read the original quote, it's also misleading to take the words out of the context of a team name, i.e., "Atlanta Klansmen", and thus probably a BLP violation with regard to Bellecourt as well; I've modified that sentence in the article. I suggest you stick with the original hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- ALT2:
Both articles have been tagged with Merge templates—the proposal is to merge them into a single article, per Talk:Tomahawk chop#Merge—and cannot be promoted to the main page until the merge proposal is settled, so I have pulled this nomination from prep. Also, the original hook was questioned at WT:DYK#Tomahawks etc - prep 3, so I've struck it. Hooks proposed during the DYK talk-page discussion include two by The Rambling Man (which I'm numbering ALT3 and ALT4), and one by The C of E (ALT5):
- ALT3: ... that Native Americans asked the Kansas City Chiefs to stop performing the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured)?
- ALT4: ... that the tomahawk chop, sometimes complemented with foam tomahawks (pictured), was banned in 2009 by Massachusetts schools who said that it was "offensive and discriminatory"?
- ALT5: ... that fans of the Atlanta Braves were asked to stop doing the tomahawk chop with foam tomahawks (pictured) as it was viewed as a mockery of Native Americans?
- I think the "complemented with" is an awkward wording (it dates from the original hook), which I hope can be modified if either are used. Note that while it seems unlikely that the merger discussion will be completed in time for this to run on March 31, if the hook still does involve the Atlanta Braves, their home opener is on April 14. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Edwardx: Could you please give the above suggestions a review and restore the tick? Furthermore, there is no merge discussion, there is a suggestion but not a formal move discussion where there is nothing in the DYK rules saying it can't rule while there is a suggested move discussion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- For the avoidance of doubt, the merge discussion was initiated yesterday. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Edwardx:, @BlueMoonset: The merge discussion has closed after 7 days, could you please restore the tick so we can use this on 11 April? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- The C of E, I certainly wouldn't care to do so, given that the closure appears to be by one of the involved parties (yourself). If The Rambling Man is okay with the closure, though, I think this could proceed, but the most recent ALT hooks would need to be reviewed, since they've haven't yet been. (Per an earlier comment, I'd recommend replacing "doing" in ALT5 with "performing".) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Edwardx:, @BlueMoonset: The merge discussion has closed after 7 days, could you please restore the tick so we can use this on 11 April? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
- For the avoidance of doubt, the merge discussion was initiated yesterday. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Edwardx: Could you please give the above suggestions a review and restore the tick? Furthermore, there is no merge discussion, there is a suggestion but not a formal move discussion where there is nothing in the DYK rules saying it can't rule while there is a suggested move discussion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's absurd to close a merge discussion with just two votes, one of whom is the article writer, the same user who is chasing WikiCup points. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, you only put it in for a suggested move not a requested move so you're not going to get the comments that you are looking for aside of those who come across the page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Reinstating the appropriate icon for an ongoing merge discussion, since it has been reopened. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Edwardx: Since I could see this would be stuck in limbo forever, I have decided to reluctantly bite the bullet and merge the two together against my preference. Therefore could I ask if you could make the review as you kindly did before? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Reviewer needed now that the two articles have been merged. All hooks have had the "foam tomahawk" links removed, and this template has been adjusted to reflect that the separate article no longer exists. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
New review
- The article is new (at time of nomination):
- The article is long enough:
- The hooks are interesting:
- The hooks are referenced:
- The hooks are below 200 characters:
- Earwig tool detects no copyright violation (6.5%, unlikely):
- The article follows most other important policies:
- QPQ:
- Other issues such as the merge was just resolved. I personally prefer ALT5. @The C of E:, one last issue is that one paragraph is not properly cited since it was an introductory paragraph to the merged article. Please cite it and then we can move forward. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- @KAVEBEAR: Done now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- The article is new (at time of nomination):
