Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Erie Walleye Trail fishing tournament cheating scandal

Lake Erie Walleye Trail fishing tournament cheating scandal

(

)

... that the two anglers caught cheating in a Cleveland fishing tournament two years ago today might have been able to win without putting weights in their fish, assuming the fish were caught that day?

Source: "Even without the weights, the men’s fish might have been heavy enough to earn them team of the year, prosecutors said." Fishermen who cheated at Lake Erie walleye tournament in Cleveland get jail time", The Plain Dealer; May 11, 2023.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Laurence Patrick Lee
Comment: Per the wording of the hook I would like this to run on the anniversary of the event: September 30, so we have plenty of time

Created by Daniel Case (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 281 past nominations.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC).

Moved from WT:DYK § Request for review of anniversary-themed hook

Hi. A couple of weeks ago I nominated Lake Erie Walleye Trail fishing tournament cheating scandal with the idea of getting it on the Main Page on September 30, the two-year anniversary of "We got weights in FISH!!" reverberating around the Internet.

Now would be an ideal time to review it and get it into SOHA before we starting putting queues together. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: is there a way to make the hook less hypothetical? The article says they might have been heavy enough to win without the weight but also that "it remains unclear if the men caught the fish the day of the tournament or on a prior day." This is such a goofy crime, that I feel there are probably quite a few ways to craft a compelling hook around it. The article otherwise checks out. It's cited, quotes are attributed, no close paraphrasing, meets NPOV, long enough, and expanded 5x. If you try out other hooks, feel free to ping me, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have added to the hook: "* ... that the two anglers caught cheating in a Cleveland fishing tournament two years ago today might have been able to win without putting weights in their fish, assuming the fish were caught that day?" This comes in at just under 200 characters. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Idk, that's pretty textually dense, maybe something like:

... that two anglers went to jail for hiding weights inside of fish that might have been heavy enough to win the tournament without added weight?

Also, I don't know how to get to NPOV within the space of a hook fact, but the bit where the dude loses a $120,000 prize boat after failing a polygraph test (which doesn't even work) about having sex with other women and farm animals is wild. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. Aside from the likely unlikelihood, as you note, that a hook based around that could fit into 200 characters, this claim is somewhat dubious enough to me as to not put it in a hook, since the only source for it in the article is a (admittedly reliably-sourced) interview with one of the anglers, not the one supposedly subjected to this test even, who was at the time merely suspected of cheating, and who has since admitted to doing so. Even the other guy ... if he has gone on the record corroborating it, I didn't find it. To say nothing of the tournament director. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Not happy with the hook from a negative BLP point of view. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also BLP related, I'm concerned that much of the Other criminal charges section may be contrary to WP:SUSPECT. RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I have condensed this section. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Alright ... how about something like:

"...that a man shouting "We got weights in FISH!" went viral online two years ago today?

Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That runs afoul of "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change". Maybe just go full-on quirky:

... that We got weights in FISH?

RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

But then what's the point of running it on the anniversary? And didn't we have a rule saying hooks had to be clearer than that? Or that is another one we trashed so we could keep things running smoothly?

OK, then, how about:

... that two years ago today, "We got weights in FISH!!"? Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case, we do often run things on an anniversary without calling it out unless it's somehow important to the reader understanding the hook. We'll run a hook about a composer and not mention that it's the 200th anniversary of his birth, for instance. Often it means more to the nominator and a very small group of readers who are already aware of the anniversary.

The event was on Sept 30, but did it really "go viral" that day? That seems unlikely. Maybe we simply don't need 'today' in there? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, but I also feel that allowing anniversary-themed hooks (as we do with FAs) encourages people to create those articles. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively we could change the person focused on in the hook:

... that the director of a Lake Erie-based walleye fishing tournament defended two anglers accused of cheating until he found weights in their winning fish two years ago today? Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What is your opinion of "...that a man shouting "We got weights in FISH!" went viral online on 30 September 2022??--Laun chba ller 20:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That too many readers are not smart enough to realize that's a two-year anniversary date, and that including the date would be absolutely superfluous on any other date. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The rule is a bit nitpicky, IMO. It might have happened two years ago 'today' all day in the US, but much of the time it's appearing, the local date is not Sept 30. Meh. People watching the BBC in the am in the US and hearing the anchor mention an incident had happened 'early this afternoon' are able to understand. But that's been the interpretation of the rule. Valereee (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, another one that I hope will be appreciated as BLP-compliant:

... that since two anglers were caught putting weights in fish two years ago today, directors of an Ohio fishing tournament have routinely cut winning fish open? Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not happy with that from a negative BLP point of view. How about

... that since the We got weights in FISH! incident, directors of an Ohio fishing tournament have routinely cut winning fish open?

That could be a good quirky. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think if "quirky" is what we want, and based on your sniffiness about mentioning "today" in the hook at all above, let's just stick with Roy's idea of the catchphrase alone. That will probably get the most hits (maybe even more than "Wake Me Up When September Ends", slated for the same day. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, one last try at satisfying all these demands:

ALT1: ... that a professional angler said weights found in fish two years ago today showed cheating in fishing tournaments is more common than people think? "Cheating in competitive fishing is more common than many people think, Mr. Robertson said.", "Fishing Contest Rocked by Cheating Charges After Weights Found in Winning Catches", The New York Times; October 2, 2022 Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)