- 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) 07:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Moms for Liberty
- ... that conservative organization Moms for Liberty does not want elementary school children in Williamson County, Tennessee to read a book featuring mating seahorses "with positions"? Source: https://www.thedailybeast.com/far-right-group-wants-to-ban-kids-from-reading-books-on-male-seahorses-galileo-and-martin-luther-king-jr
- ALT1: ... that conservative organization Moms for Liberty wants the lesson plan for a book about Galileo Galilei in Williamson County, Tennessee to include some praise of the Catholic Church? Source: https://www.thedailybeast.com/far-right-group-wants-to-ban-kids-from-reading-books-on-male-seahorses-galileo-and-martin-luther-king-jr
- ALT2: ... that conservative organization Moms for Liberty wants a book about Galileo Galilei to be taught in a way that is more positive towards the Catholic Church, for balance? Source: https://www.thedailybeast.com/far-right-group-wants-to-ban-kids-from-reading-books-on-male-seahorses-galileo-and-martin-luther-king-jr
- Comment: Personally I think the Galileo thing is the most interesting, but the seahorses seem to be more popular; mentioned e.g. in https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sea-horses-book-tennessee-banned_n_614eaba0e4b01dff4b6dc0e5. Perhaps the point of them is also clearer to less science-oriented readers than Galileo vs the Catholic church. I hope, at least, that the "with positions" (a real quote) does make the seahorse point clear.
5x expanded by Bishonen (talk) and X-Editor (talk). Nominated by Bishonen (talk) at 11:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
—valereee (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a little concerned about the descriptions of the group being based on those by left-leaning groups like MMfA. We may need to tone down some of this language. —valereee (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
—valereee (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- CommentI don't see much of a neutrality problem. We can attribute the "far-right" labels, and a quick glance suggests we don't need all the MMfA uses if that's really a problem. I note that Valeree changed a sourced statement about the police crackdown during the Selma demonstrations to suggest that the police only criticized. As a participant I can attest that the use of police horses, truncheons and teargas was much more than criticism. Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest as I was recently asked to write a short piece about my experiences and they are all now all to fresh in my mind. Doug Weller talk 13:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- The article, as it stands now, does not violate neutrality policies. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- According to RSP, The Daily Beast is a bit of an online tabloid, and HuffPost is a bit eh when it comes to factually describing American politics. Are we sure that we want to cite the hook to either of these sources alone? I understand the point of the hook is to get someone to click, but if the sources themselves are clickbait then I am not exactly sure that we want to put statements sourced solely to them on the front page of Wikipedia. I’d also hesitate to attach labels of “far-right” from partisan groups where reliability is questionable, even with attribution, since that can very easily run into a WP:WEIGHT issue. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Another smaller thing—the article currently describes Megyn Kelly as conservative. Her own Wikipedia page doesn’t use this characterization (it says she has said she as an independent who votes for candidates in both major parties, but there is no wikivoice characterization of her political stances). The Washington Post source cited in the relevant sentence doesn’t mention Kelly, while the MMFA source doesn’t actually call her conservative. This feels a bit odd BLP-wise. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- The Hill calls her conservative,[1] perhaps that should be in her article. I wouldn't call the Huffington Post or the Daily Beast clickbait, the statement " HuffPost uses clickbait headlines to attract attention to its articles, thus the body text of any HuffPost article is considered more reliable than its headline' is ridiculous because we should always ignore the headline and use only the article as the source. Most news organisations have headline writers whose job is to attract the reader - I did that for the Miami Herald at times. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Another smaller thing—the article currently describes Megyn Kelly as conservative. Her own Wikipedia page doesn’t use this characterization (it says she has said she as an independent who votes for candidates in both major parties, but there is no wikivoice characterization of her political stances). The Washington Post source cited in the relevant sentence doesn’t mention Kelly, while the MMFA source doesn’t actually call her conservative. This feels a bit odd BLP-wise. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Brilliant of you to find the letter from MfL to the Tennessee Dept of Education, Valereee![2] You may have noticed that the quotes in the Daily Beast's article, and in Moms for Liberty, don't appear in that letter. That's because the quotes are apparently taken from an 11-page spreadsheet attached to the letter. The Daily Beast's Kelly Weill writes:
the scope of the proposed book ban is even broader and loonier than MFL’s June letter suggests. Accompanying that letter is an 11-page spreadsheet with complaints about books on the district’s curriculum, ranging from popular books on civil rights heroes to books about poisonous animals
. She then proceeds to discuss and quote from the spreadsheet. Which I can't lay my hands on... there's a .pdf link to it at the end of the letter, which I tried to follow, but either I made a mistake in laboriously copying it by hand, or it's not available to just anybody. Could be the GDPR or the district's privacy policy or whatever. I don't suppose anybody can find it? (If it's supposed to be found. If it's hidden for privacy, I don't want it.) I was unsure whether to put this query here or on Talk:Moms for Liberty, but I'm hoping there may be clever techs here that can get hold of the .pdf. If I'm taking up too much space here for such a detail, please just revert me and I'll put it on article talk. Anyway, here is my own attempt to type the .pdf link: https://ww.greatminds.org/hufs/Review%20Files/Florida%20Review%20Files/2020%20Wit%20and%20Wisdom/WW_FLORIDA_Grade2_Module3.pdf. It won't work. Bishonen | tålk 18:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC).
- Bishonen, yes, I tried to find it, too. I'm guessing it's a google doc or something that a whole bunch of people contributed to and that the group didn't even intend to include in the letter of complaint, as it's not mentioned as an attachment. Ooops. —valereee (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- The pdf is a standard Great Minds module that the group complained about. I doubt we’ll find the spreadsheet but we don’t need it. The template at the top is broken, by the way. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bishonen, yes, I tried to find it, too. I'm guessing it's a google doc or something that a whole bunch of people contributed to and that the group didn't even intend to include in the letter of complaint, as it's not mentioned as an attachment. Ooops. —valereee (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Good to go now. —valereee (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)