Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Kyrgyzstan

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) 06:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Flag of Kyrgyzstan[edit]

(

)

Flag of Kyrgyzstan

... that the 40 rays on the flag of Kyrgyzstan (pictured) represent the number of tribes united by national folk hero Manas to fight against the Mongols? Source: [1][2]
- ALT1:~~... that the red field on flag of Kyrgyzstan (pictured) alludes to the purported pennant of Manas, the country's folk hero?~~ Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Oriental Film
Comment: Article was expanded starting March 20. The preceding edit removed copyright violation, which is permissible under rule A4. Would make a nice lead hook.

5x expanded by Bloom6132 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC).

I'm not sure the article was expanded five times. Cause, you see, on March 19 you removed a lot of text as a copyright violation [3]. But actually the passages had been in the article since 2009 [4], while the earliest version of Kyrgyzembarabia.kg (the website you thought the text had been copied and pasted from) in the Web Archive dates from 2011 [5]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection – it doesn't matter how long the copyright violations have been in the article. Copyvios are copyvios and must be removed. Rule A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception) (my emphasis). Also, how do you know that the website dates from 2011? Someone could've simply decided to start archiving that year … —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks the other way round to me: Kyrgyzembarabia.kg copied content from Wikipedia. Look at this edit by User:Zlerman: [6], the user didn't add new sentences, he just expanded on some already existing ideas. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection – do you have any proof to confirm that is exactly what happened? So far there's nothing to back up that 'theory' of reverse copying – it's simply a claim relying on circumstantial evidence that can be easily refuted by equally-plausible alternatives. In light of the lack of concrete evidence, and the fact that this meets all the DYK criteria, it'd be nice if you WP:AGF? —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

1. I think that this one diff [7] should be sufficient to prove that the contents of Kyrgyzembarabia.kg have been copied from Wikipedia, and not vice-versa.
2. Where exactly am I not AGFing? I'm just saying that in order for this to meet the DYK criteria you need to expand the article some more. I can't go against the rules.
3. I will now look into the article's edit history a bit further and figure out who added all the other passages in question. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection – One diff? Sufficient? Haha, that one diff is just circumstantial evidence. Who exactly is that editor? How do you know for sure that he isn't an editor of that website? My take on that diff: that user "expanded on some already existing ideas" featured on the website, hence a copyvio. Do you have any proof to refute that? Nope. And in case you haven't read, you can go against rules – ignore all rules is a WP policy. Although I can't see what rule you'd be going against. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I've looked far into the article's edit history and I am presenting my findings.
First of all, here's the version from 18 March 2017 that you (the nominator) thought was a copyvio:
— [8].
Now let's compare it with this edits:
1. The very first version by Olivier (11:16, 6 September 2003):
— [9]
2. Addition by Olivier (23:11, 12 October 2003):
— [10].
3. Expansion and copyedit by Kintetsubuffalo (06:06, 4 May 2007):
— [11]
4. Minor edit by Khoikhoi (05:05, 27 October 2006):
— [12]
5. Addition by Zaharous (20:46–20:52 19 February 2009):
— [13]. This edit actually added a copyvio sentence from the government website (the one the user added to the External links section, see its archived version from February 2009 here: [14]), but the sentence was rephrased in the very next edit by Zlerman on February 24 (see below).
6. Expansion and copyedit by Zlerman (03:41, 24 February 2009):
— [15]
Conclusion:
The article as of 18 March 2017 was a result of collaboration between many Wikipedia editors and couldn't possibly be a copyvio.
If I understand the DYK rules correctly (and I believe I do), I think the article should be expanded 5 times in comparison to its size as of March 18. I think you should expand the article a bit more. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Addition.
Two more edits (after 2011 when the text was presumably copied from Wikipedia to Kyrgyzembarabia.kg):
• [16] — by Menchi (04:53, 21 October 2014)
• [17] — by Aryan hindustan (10:55, 23 November 2015)
--Moscow Connection (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect, the article was 518 characters long after a WP policy – copyright violations – was adhered to given the overwhelming evidence pointing to such. Rule A4 of DYKSG – Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception) – allows for copyvios to be removed without them counting towards the 5× prose expansion needed. The article is now 1,788 characters long, meeting the 5× requirement. However, some armchair expert decides to make unsubstantiated conjectures about which page was written first. I think (and know) the article was expanded 5× in comparison to its size after copyvios were removed (with all other DYK criteria met). I think you should do your job and stop delaying this nom unnecessarily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What is the link to the Duplication Detector for? I can see for myself that the text at Kyrgyzembarabia.kg is an exact match to the Wikipedia article as it was somewhere between 2009 and 2011. (Before the earliest saved version of the Kyrgyzembarabia.kg website in the Web Archive: [18].) (And look at this Wikipedia edit from 2014, it added the words "also on the national emblem": [19].)
I believe that in my previous posts I've presented enough evidence that it were the people at Kyrgyzembarabia.kg who copied from Wikipedia, and not vice-versa.
Are you going to expand the article some more, or not? I'm sorry, but I'm just a reviewer and my mission here is to check whether a nomination complies to the DYK criteria. Now it looks to me that the article hasn't been expanded fivefold. You should expand it some more. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It has been expanded fivefold. Just because you (unjustifiably) don't want to recognize it as such does not mean that it hasn't happened. The "evidence" you've provided is completely circumstantial, as shown by the fact that you still haven't rebutted my equally-plausible alternative scenarios. I can see for myself that the Wikipedia article text is an exact match to the Kyrgyzembarabia.kg site. Archiving started in 2011, but the site existed long before. In short, you should stop delaying this nom unnecessarily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you say I was "playing games": [20]? Please be polite. If you work on this article some more, it can still be expanded fivefold. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
There's no "equally-plausible alternative scenario". It's impossible that the Wikipedia article was copied and pasted from Kyrgyzembarabia.kg cause you can see in the Wikipedia edit history how it developed between 2003 and 2011 and how different parts were added by different editors. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay then... Since I don't see any intention to continue the work on the ariticle... And since I have wasted a lot of time on this review already...
Now let's compare the version from March 18 and the current version:

Before:
— The flag of Kyrgyzstan was adopted on 3 March 1992 by the Supreme Council of Kyrgyzstan
After:
— Adopted in 1992

Before:
— It consists of a red field with a yellow sun in the center having 40 uniformly spaced rays. [...] In the center of the sun is a red ring crossed by two sets of three lines, a stylized representation of the tündük (Kyrgyz: түндүк [tyndyk]), or crown of the traditional Kyrgyz yurt
After:
— The flag of Kyrgyzstan consists of a red field charged with a yellow sun that contains a depiction of a yurt (traditional tent).

Before:
— The red background of the flag symbolizes bravery and valor
After:
— The red field stands for "bravery and valor"

Before:
— the sun represents peace and wealth
After:
— The sun epitomizes peace and prosperity

Before:
— the sun's 40 rays represent the 40 Kyrgyz tribes unified against the Mongols by the epic hero Manas
After:
— while its 40 rays stand for the number of tribes united by Manas to fight against the Mongols

Before:
— The red and yellow colors retain the heritage of the Soviet flag.
After:
— Although the colour of the flag is identical to the former Soviet flag, ...

Both versions have mostly the same information. I can see that the nominator (obviously) put a lot of work into it, but I don't see how the article in its current state qualifies as a five-fold expansion. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I've asked for help with the review at the DYK project talk page. If someone else decides to give this a go, I won't mind. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection and Bloom6132: - second, independent opinion here. I would agree with Moscow Connection that the "violation" was copied from Wikipedia, not vice-versa, I've seen that a couple of times and this looks like it. I don't doubt that Bloom was in good faith when he saw the violation indicator and was not intentionally trying to game the system here. It is a shame though that the tone has tuned less than friendly on Bloom's part. MPJ-DK 21:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- So assuming the removal was legit the article had 511 k of "readable prose" before the expansion started. A 5x expansion would mean 2555 k of "readable prose" after. But it is currently only at around 1700 k, so while the discussion over copyright issues is valid the fact is that it still does not fulfill the criteria either way. MPJ-DK 21:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK – Alright, I've increased the prose to 2,733 characters now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK – are you going to change the question mark icon now that I've beefed it up to the 5× you mentioned above? —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Bloom6132 so here is the thing, I am not sure you read my earlier comment on "tone"? Yeah being impatient when I did not respond in a couple of hours because i was sleeping does not help give a favorable impression. Side note, I would not approve without doing the full review since I just lookedvat one criteria. MPJ-DK 18:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've been looking carefully through this article and review and have come to these conclusions. Moscow Connection did a very thorough job in trying to trace the connection between the website and the Wikipedia page. I'm not sure that we can trace the copyvio to 2009; it seems that the very first edit in 2003 was using pretty much the same words as the website. But without solid evidence either way, I appreciate MPJ-DK's solution to ask for a 5x expansion of the text since the copyvio text was blanked, and Bloom6132 has done so. As of today the page stands at 2681 char, up more than 10x from the day the copyvio text was removed.
Here is a full review: New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. The page creator has done a good job with the paraphrasing; the examples cited by Moscow Connection above fall into the category of WP:LIMITED, but are not direct quotes. I think the first hook is the best; hook ref verified and cited inline. QPQ done. All images in article, including this one, are public domain. ALT0 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: It couldn't possibly be a copyvio. Check here: https://www.cctld.kg/whois.html, the website Kyrgyzembarabia.kg was registered in October 2010.
As I said, I'm completely okay with giving this a go. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. OK, I appreciate you and MPJ-DK giving this nomination some leeway. Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK – I did indeed read your aforementioned comment on "tone". Please don't accuse me of being impatient, because that wasn't my intent. I saw that you had several edits after I first pinged you, and was only wondering whether you wanted someone else to take on the review. In which case I would've added a red arrow icon asking for a new review. That's all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Bloom6132 I shall practice the Good Faith more in the future, no worries. MPJ-DK 03:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)