- 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 SL93 (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Les Hijabeuses
- ... that although FIFA allows women to play in hijab, the French Football Federation does not? Source: "The French football federation (FFF), football’s governing body in France, bans women from wearing the hijab in official club matches, as well as during international games. It is a rule that is out of step with football’s international governing body, Fifa, which lifted its hijab ban in 2014."
- Reviewed: N/A
- Comment: This is my third DYK--open to suggestions on other/better hooks.
Moved to mainspace by Alyo (talk). Self-nominated at 14:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC).
- Comment: The hook as stated has a WP:EGG issue; I thought I would be directed to an article like Hijabi women in association football. @Alyo: is the organization credited with blocking the measure in the Sénat, or is it just that they lobbied against it and the measure failed for other reasons? If the former, that'd make a pretty good hook... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron Yeah, I was worried about that. To answer your question, while I'm sure the advocacy of LH helped bring attention to the issue, I don't think they're given credit for the proposed law failing (at the very least I don't have a source saying so). So I went for the boring safe hook that I just knew to be true. The other angles that I was thinking about were more like these:
- ALT1: ... that some women have left professional soccer because of the French Football Federation's ban on playing in hijab?
- ALT2: ... that a group of Muslim soccer players are challenging the French Football Federation's ban on playing in hijab in front of the Conseil d'État?
- Either seem better to you? Alyo (chat·edits) 20:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Haven't verified either, but ALT2 looks pretty good in terms of scope and interestingness. Nicely done :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! For the record: "Les Hijabeuses is a French collective fighting against the FFF ban to promote a more inclusive society in France ... Now the next step is to get the FFF to change its ruling. Marion Ogier, a lawyer working with Les Hijabeuses, says: “The French parliament decided against prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols during sports competitions but the decision did not lead to the FFF to review its rules. The Council of State (the highest court in France for administrative matters) is currently examining an appeal against the federation.” Ogier points out that the government is not responsible for the current ban – the FFF is. Les Hijabeuses expect a decision on the matter by the end of the year." Alyo (chat·edits) 20:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Haven't verified either, but ALT2 looks pretty good in terms of scope and interestingness. Nicely done :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, passes earwig, no image, no QPQ needed. I am approving Alt0, and not passing judgement on any other hook. --evrik (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
evrik, it comes off as pretty passive-aggressive (i have no idea what your intentions are, but that's how it feels) to approve a hook[a] I object to your approving this hook without so much as engaging with the issue I raised with it. I'm quite happy to back off if you have a good reason (or really, any reason – and I'd have to imagine that you do), but my view is that the original hook has a WP:EGG issue simply because nothing in the hook relates to the organization at hand, only the cause they advocate for. To summarily not engage with that question implies that the reviewer has a special conferred power to ignore the objections of other users, and I really don't appreciate it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)- Passive aggressive? Seriously? No one had bothered to review the article. I happened to like the original hook. However, I didn't want to get into a big todo about it. I mean, no one had done anything on this since May 26, so I figured, I'll approve the hook I like and if the reviewer wants to look at the others, so be it. You might believe that the original hook has a WP:EGG issue, but I didn't... and if it did ... it's not a really big egg. Also, just because you propose alternate hooks, doesn't mean I have to seek you out to get your permission to perform a review. The proposed alternates were "boring." Let's file this under, No good deed goes unpunished. --evrik (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- --evrik (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- My issue isn't that you didn't "seek out my permission", or even that you chose "not to pass judgement" on ALTs I guessed you thought were boring (although that's its own can of worms) – it's that by offering a tick (twice now), you've decided that your desire to avoid a "todo" can be avoided by simply pretending I don't exist. I don't need you to agree with me, and it might very well be that you end up ticking this hook – but you can't simply ignore supervote a hook onto the main page without an explanation as to why your judgement should be valued above someone else's.
- If you'd said "hey leek, I don't think this is an EGG issue, and here's why", I'd probably have said "well, I disagree, but I'm not gonna escalate/stand in your way if no one else objects". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, I think you are presuming too much. You are also making up new rules. This isn't a supervote. I didn't reject any hook, but referred the one I liked. I left it open for the promoter to decide.@Alyo: I'm sorry you had to go through this. --evrik (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I did say that the issue wasn't about the hooks you didn't tick, but the one you did, so at least we agree on that. Promoters also cannot decide the hook if you only approve one – promoters can't take hooks unapproved by reviewers into the preps. If that was your intent, it wasn't at all clear from "I approve alt0 only". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, I think you are presuming too much. You are also making up new rules. This isn't a supervote. I didn't reject any hook, but referred the one I liked. I left it open for the promoter to decide.@Alyo: I'm sorry you had to go through this. --evrik (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fairly new to DYK, so I don't feel like I know enough to make statements about how DYK does or doesn't normally work. That said, I did think that leeky's comment had merit, so for what my opinion is worth as the nom I'm happy to wait for another reviewer to at least give us
a tiebreaker voteconsensus one way or the other? Alyo (chat·edits) 22:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Why don't you go ahead and review this? --evrik (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think I should – I consider myself a bit too involved to tick either of the hooks I approve of, or to not-approve the original. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ I deleted this before they responded, but they restored it via edit conflict.
Happy with either ALT0 or ALT1. I personally prefer ALT1 because I think it's more catchy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)