Template:Did you know nominations/2020-22 book banning in the United States
- 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) 11:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
2020-22 book banning in the United States
- ... that in late 2021, a spokesperson for the ALA told ABC News that she had "never seen such a widespread effort to remove books on racial and gender diversity"? Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/authors-color-speak-efforts-ban-books-race/story?id=81491208
Created by Rhododendrites (talk). Self-nominated at 03:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC).
- Open to other hooks. The subject doesn't lend itself to short-and-snappy, I don't think. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am reviewing Bruxton (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Interesting subject. The article is new enough and long enough. It has a few long quotes which are properly attributed - but they trip the copyvio trigger. The article is neutral and has correct inline citations. The QPQ is completed. My concern is that the article may be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because I do not find any source which discusses a "2020–22 book banning in the United States". From our article: "The involvement of national advocacy groups also sets the 2020–22 trend apart from book challenges of the past" (The inline citation does not put the years 2020–22 together) Source. I will let a more experienced editor review the article. I did enjoy the article. Bruxton (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I'm surprised to see the OR concern. The article is based first and foremost on coverage of the phenomenon as a whole rather than specific examples. It's one of those subjects that doesn't have a clear name, so the title is more descriptive, but there's no shortage of sources talking about this trend in US (and other) media. I can gather a bunch of links here when I get home later, but there are a bunch in the article and it's easily googlable. Maybe I don't understand the issue. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- A subset of the sources which deal with this specific book banning trend: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: From my reading of the RS, no historian or researcher put the years 2020-2022 together as a book banning era. The article takes facts from 2020, 2021 and 2022: to put the article together we either did original research or we synthesized the facts into a historical era. It may very well be a new era in U.S. book banning, but I do not know if we can be the first to write about it. I am going to allow another editor to review, but I left this here to clarify my reasoning. Bruxton (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Bruxton:
if we can be the first to write about it
- ? Did you look at the links above? Coverage of it is everywhere. Like I said, it's not a subject that has a clear name, so the title needs to be descriptive. Is your primary point about the year span in the title? If that's the issue, I don't necessarily disagree. There are a lot of sources identifying a trend in book banning taking place, identifying specific themes and characteristics of that effort, etc., and most of it is from mid-2021 through early 2022. I was initially was going to title the article as such, but there are enough sources talking about how it began as a reaction to social movements in 2020, so I erred on that side. There's certainly a valid discussion on what it should be called, but it sounds like you're saying the article itself or its subject is OR/SYNTH, not just the title, and that's what I just don't see. All that said, I'll respect that you'd rather someone else complete the review, so no response necessary. It's just, you know, a concerning claim that has implications beyond DYK, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC) - Bruxton, I think this is a WP:NDESC situation. It's permissible to have an article title that accurately describes the content, even if reliable sources don't use that particular phrasing. RS are noting a trend but not naming it. Readers will understand the scope of the descriptive title, and see that the bannings defined by the scope are discussed as a group by RS. Firefangledfeathers 03:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers and Rhododendrites: Thank you for the guideline link Firefangledfeathers. Bruxton (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Bruxton:
- @Rhododendrites: From my reading of the RS, no historian or researcher put the years 2020-2022 together as a book banning era. The article takes facts from 2020, 2021 and 2022: to put the article together we either did original research or we synthesized the facts into a historical era. It may very well be a new era in U.S. book banning, but I do not know if we can be the first to write about it. I am going to allow another editor to review, but I left this here to clarify my reasoning. Bruxton (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
