Template:Did you know nominations/Zenobia (bird)
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Zenobia (bird)
[edit]... that Zenobia is one of the few Northern Ibis birds that know the migratory route to Ethiopia, a critical fact for species survival, and that she may have been killed by the terrorist group ISIS?
Created by Dharahara (talk). Self-nominated at 17:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC).
Firstly, the article is obviously too short. There are no inline references. The lead paragraph says (which in turn says a lot): "She is notable because of multiple reliable sources that cite her, thus meeting Wikipedia criteria for inclusion." I am afraid the article is closer to AfD than to DYK. Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that ISIS may have killed an ibis? EEng (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm still seeing a "readable prose size" of 1035 bytes, too short. Calling Assad's government "the legitimate government" may be too much of an editorial statement; how about "the recognized government"? And the source (footnote 3) for the hook claim says nothing about the possibility of ISIS killing this bird; all it says is that the bird has been left without guards because of ISIS. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
ALT2 ... about the ISIS threat to an ibis?
I'll take a crack at bringing the article up to snuff. This is too good to lose. EEng (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I've cleaned up a lot -- can someone please handle the bare URLs? -- and expanded enough to meet 1500. EEng (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Page length now ok, but the claim that ISIS poses a threat to this bird is still backed by a source that doesn't say any such thing. All it says is that the bird lives in a region captured by ISIS and that the bird's guards fled for fear of ISIS. The same is true for the BBC source that it cribs from. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm. If all we had is the flight (so to speak) of the guards, for the reason stated, I'd say that saying ISIS is a threat to the ibis is a bit too SYNTHetic. But given that the BBC item [1] is titled "IS threat to Syria's northern bald ibis near Palmyra", don't we have what we need? EEng (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- It feels like fearmongering and propaganda to me. There are plenty of actual atrocities to lay at the feet of ISIS without making up new ones that for all we know they are completely ignorant of. Yes, the bird is endangered by living in a war zone, but why should ISIS pose more or less of a threat to it than the other combatants there? Is there some commandment to kill ibises in their interpretation of their holy writings? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't surprise me, though when you think about it it's no weirder than cutting off foreskins and drinking some guy's blood every Sunday. But no one's saying it's on par with real atrocities, but it's also a reminder of just how many kinds of permanent damage these fucks are inflicting on the world -- human suffering and irreparable cultural loss and loss of genetic diversity... But I ask again: don't you think the BBC headline gets us off the SYNTH hook? And what if we said that "ISIS action" (instead of ISIS itself) poses a threat? EEng (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we need another review to help resolve this. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I hope you don't feel I was nagging you. I do think it would be a good idea to get a 3O because while I think your concern has merit I have trouble deciding whether I personally think it's a dealbreaker. Let's talk again after someone else has given their opinion. EEng (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, no problem with nagging, I merely had the feeling that we were reaching an impasse that could best be broken by another opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I hope you don't feel I was nagging you. I do think it would be a good idea to get a 3O because while I think your concern has merit I have trouble deciding whether I personally think it's a dealbreaker. Let's talk again after someone else has given their opinion. EEng (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wouldn't surprise me, though when you think about it it's no weirder than cutting off foreskins and drinking some guy's blood every Sunday. But no one's saying it's on par with real atrocities, but it's also a reminder of just how many kinds of permanent damage these fucks are inflicting on the world -- human suffering and irreparable cultural loss and loss of genetic diversity... But I ask again: don't you think the BBC headline gets us off the SYNTH hook? And what if we said that "ISIS action" (instead of ISIS itself) poses a threat? EEng (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- It feels like fearmongering and propaganda to me. There are plenty of actual atrocities to lay at the feet of ISIS without making up new ones that for all we know they are completely ignorant of. Yes, the bird is endangered by living in a war zone, but why should ISIS pose more or less of a threat to it than the other combatants there? Is there some commandment to kill ibises in their interpretation of their holy writings? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm. If all we had is the flight (so to speak) of the guards, for the reason stated, I'd say that saying ISIS is a threat to the ibis is a bit too SYNTHetic. But given that the BBC item [1] is titled "IS threat to Syria's northern bald ibis near Palmyra", don't we have what we need? EEng (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Page length now ok, but the claim that ISIS poses a threat to this bird is still backed by a source that doesn't say any such thing. All it says is that the bird lives in a region captured by ISIS and that the bird's guards fled for fear of ISIS. The same is true for the BBC source that it cribs from. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Presumably I was summoned here because of my lame attempt at a humorous edit summary. But you should know that Mandarax is like a box of chocolates ... you never know what you're gonna get. While I'll give my long-winded opinion, I don't want to be the decider. In general, I like the idea of short, snappy hooks with some wordplay, especially when there's nothing more interesting to be gleaned from the article. For example, EEng, where I stole your idea, turning your hook into a shorter, snappier version. But in this case I find the story of this bird, who may be the only chance for survival of the species in the wild, to be very interesting. I don't think I would click on a hook just about the ISIS/ibis thing. But that's just me. (Also, if ALT2 were used, some people might be concerned about the lack of a "that", and it might even get changed to add one.)
As for the SYNTH issue.... I haven't checked the sources, but I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER (yes, "never" is repeated in bold underlined uppercase italics, so you know I mean business) use a headline as a source. Headlines are generally written by someone other than the article's author; they're constructed to grab people's attention, and unless they accurately summarize what's also in the article, I would not trust them. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thx. Yeah, I know that about headlines. I see this SYNTH question as right on the knife edge so I'm desperate to find something to knock it one way or the other. Naturally I'd love to save this hook. EEng (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Tried decaf, Mandarax?
- Yeah, Synth is an issue here. As is notability.... even the BBC article barely handles the bird herself. Heck, length is still a problem. Removing direct quotes knocks the article under 1500 characters. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Synth remains an issue, the article is too short excluding the BBC quote, and even something as simple as bare URLs for all the refs has not been addressed. EEng, the last edit to this article was at the end of May, so it seems to me the clock has run out; if you still want to save this, it will require significant additional work, and you'll need to intervene before the nomination is formally rejected. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Seems hopeless at this point. EEng (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Mandarax, this looks almost passable to me, but not with this hook--there is no evidence that ISIS is specifically targeting this bird, and when a grenade explodes and upsets a bird, the bird probably doesn't care whose grenade it was. So war, sure, ISIS, no. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I had intended to propose another hook, but did't get around to it. Thanks for reminding me.I took care of all of the bare URLs, and EEng and I both added some content, so length is no longer an issue.
- ALT3: ... that the whereabouts of the last northern bald ibis who knows their migratory route are unknown, and without her, the species may face extinction in the wild in Syria?
- MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Shame we can't work in the Ibis/ISIS angle. Opportunities like that don't come along often. BTW, I've written to the Harvard Lampoon to alert them to the danger to their mascot. EEng (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
