Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Katrin Bennhold

< Template:Did you know nominations

Katrin Bennhold

** ALT0b ...that Katrin Bennhold of the The New York Times wants to empower young people by presenting news in short videos? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20251007061150/https://www.niemanlab.org/2025/09/hello-world-the-new-york-times-hopes-to-take-the-success-of-the-morning-global-with-a-new-newsletter/ "With both news fatigue and short-form video consumption on the rise, the Times is increasingly experimenting with news delivery beyond the article format." and “If we want to empower young people with information, we need to be where they are — and they are on platforms showing short videos."

* ALT4: ... that The New York Times journalist Katrin Bennhold wrote: "In Sweden, Men can have it all"? Source: https://search.worldcat.org/title/922710654?oclcNum=922710654

Created by Munfarid1 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 42 past nominations.

Munfarid1 (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2026 (UTC).

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Everything meets the checked off criteria. I will leave the choice of hook to the promoter. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment from passing promoter @Munfarid1 and SL93: These hooks don't read as neutral to me. ALT2's "to show readers the extent to which hatred and extremism have become much more common than many people realize" assumes Bennhold's statement as truth; ALT0 does the same with Bennhold's pronouncement on news fatigue. ALT1 strikes me as failing WP:DYKINT; it does not seem unusual or intriguing that a New York Times writer would be interviewed on a major broadcaster on U.S. policy. I'd suggest recasting the two remaining hooks in a neutral tone to facilitate selection by a promoter. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
    • @Dclemens1971 and SL93: Thanks for your comments, I was not aware of this subtle distinction. As recommended, I have just rephrased ALT0a and ALT2a. Munfarid1 (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
      • @Munfarid1: Thanks for the response. I don't think the revisions work, though. ALT0a sounds like marketing material for the NYT ("did you know an NYT employee thinks their products do this good thing?") and ALT2a seems to need more explanation, perhaps to explain briefly that it was controversial that Bennhold was interviewing him. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
        • @Dclemens1971 and SL93: Thanks for the quick response. I don't understand your objection to ALT0a, though, as it specifically talks about newsletters intended to curb news and reading fatigue. This is a fact mentioned in the source, referring to a current discussion about news and IMHO not marketing talk.- Anyway, as we are both trying to find a solution, you might find ALT0b more appropriate. - In ALT2b, I have tried to express the controversial nature of the question why she interviewed a right-wing extremist. - As further alternatives, I have added ALT3 and ALT4, with the latter straightforward, and a purposely intriguing wording. Hoping these options will lead to an appropriate option for promotion. Munfarid1 (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
          • The hooks about the Sellner interview I still don't understand and it doesn't seem like more explanation is helping. On the short news videos, "wants to empower young people" reads once again like marketing language. However, ALT3 goes too far the other way by highlighting a bit of criticism in a way that seems to emphasize it unduly and run afoul of WP:DYKBLP. Finally, on ALT4, I see a potentially interesting hook here (something along the lines of "... that 'journalist Katrin Bennhold believes that "in Sweden, men can have it all"?), but the hook is based on a column WP:HEADLINE, which is not considered a reliable source and which are generally not written by the columnist herself; her actual article does not put this phrase in her own voice. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
            • Thanks again for your comments. I have added ALT3a, avoiding the strong worded part of the criticism and ALT4a and ALT4b, where I have tried to stay true to the title of the book chapter and article respectively. The NYT article being the source for the title, this ALT4b refers to the article she wrote, not only the title. To reflect this hook and her research about gender issues in the article, I have added the following sentence to the section /Further activities/: "One of the articles she wrote for the NYT based on her research about gender issues in Europe was titled "In Sweden, Men can have it all" and was reprinted in an academic book for selected reading."- In another attempt of improvement, I have rephrased ALT0c. - Hopefully one of these will do, Munfarid1 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
              • Hi SL93, as I have given several options for a suitable hook, I would appreciate to learn, which one you prefer as the reviewer of this nomination. Thanks, Munfarid1 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
                • Returning to WP:DYKN while this issue is worked out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
                  • @Dclemens1971 and SL93: Hi, thanks for your continued reply about a suitable hook.Munfarid1 (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
                    • I'm sorry, I just don't see any of these revised proposals as working. ALT0a is still mildly promotional, and why do we care what a New York Times employee thinks about the benefits of her employer's product? ALT0c is likewise uninteresting -- why should we care about why or how Katrin Bennhold wants to attract young people's attention? And I don't think the hooks about the headline of her article are interesting. First off, the book chapter was originally published as a NYT article, so that's where the headline came from. Second, the NYT headline is not necessarily written by her, and is indeed unlikely to have been written by her, as copy desk editors tend to compose headlines. She's a writer, she writes lots of things. Munfarid1, I would recommend revisiting the article and sources for some completely new angles. I have reviewed many alternatives now and I am unlikely to approve another variant on the angles you have been working. P.S. It's customary to propose alternatives in the flow of discussion, not back at the top of the nom; it makes the discussion more difficult to follow. You also don't need to strike old alts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
                      • @Dclemens1971: Thanks again for taking the time to answer. I find it very difficult, however, to understand your guidance. You have given me some clues for better hooks, only to refuse them later with arguments such as "why should we care?" - I honestly don't see how this argument can be applied to DYK. IMHO, this argument could be used to invalidate any possible hook. (For example, the one published in DYK of June 29: "...that Steve Baumgartner had more than 1,200 beer cans lining the walls of a spare bedroom in his house?") - I have suggested hooks for four aspects of the article that you have not accepted, and the only alternative I see is ALT5 with 169 characters below.

To include this in the article text, I just have added the following sentence: "Based on a historical study about the family's companies in the 1930s and 1940s, she described that the German Reimann family, today owners of JAB Holdings and companies including Krispy Kreme doughnuts and Calvin Klein perfume, had collaborated with the Nazi regime, using prisoners of war as forced laborers." Munfarid1 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

    • Munfarid1, I am not trying to confuse you. I am offering my candid views on the hooks as they are written. I also have not rejected any hooks; SL93's approvals stood and were available to any promoter until AirshipJungleman29 pulled the approval. I was simply being candid that as a promoter I had not found these hooks suitable for promotion, and I was encouraging the development of alternatives that might get a hook promoted sooner and not simply linger until the nomination times out. For example, I thought the idea that Bennhold thought "in Sweden, men can have it all" would be the start of an interesting hook, but your hooks relied on the headline, which is not a reliable source, and as I looked into it further I don't think it's fair to make that statement based on the actual article text. You know this subject matter better than I do; I am simply trying to apply the guidelines against the hooks proposed and subject matter as it is relevant. And "why should we care" is a very relevant question since it is a shorthand for WP:DYKINT's requirement that hooks be reasonably likely to be intriguing to people with no special knowledge in the subject. That's subjective and yet every reviewer, promoter and queue mover is required to evaluate the interestingness of every hook that moves through the system. I do not find it intriguing to uninvolved people that a New York Times writer has positive opinions about what her company's product does, or that something she wrote had a catchy headline. As for ALT5, I am concerned that it does not meet WP:DYKMAJOR. Yes, Bennhold wrote about this incident, but her article makes clear that she did not break the news -- a German tabloid did. Simply writing about something is not uncommon; this was a major news story and Bennhold was not a significant part of the news story (unless you can find a secondary source that says she did play a major role in the story). Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
      • Dclemens1971, you guessed right that I am more than confused. For example, WP:DYKMAJOR says: "The boldlinked article should generally be the main or at least a major factor in the hook; avoid hooks that are primarily about an incident to which the subject is only tangentially related." - As Bennhold is the journalist who reported these facts to a worldwide English-speaking readership, she is not tangentially related, but the journalist who takes the credit for this and met the standards of the NYT editors for it. It is not uncommon for a journalist to find a story written in another language and then to use this for their own reports. - Is there really a clear WP guideline that would disqualify this? - Anyway, as you know this article by now as well as I do and our reviewer instructions say: "new alternate hooks can be proposed by anyone (nominator, reviewer, other third party) in an effort to produce at least one viable hook." - Can you think of a hook that will meet the requirements and help us to go ahead with this? Munfarid1 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
        • Munfarid1 The New York Times article written by Bennhold cannot be the source that shows Bennhold's role in the story. If she played a major role in uncovering that story, then we need a secondary source to make that claim, not impute it to Bennhold's own reporting. However, with many proposed hooks in the article and your view that they should work, I will leave this to another reviewer to assess. I'm also happy to have SL93 reapply the tick for whatever hooks they earlier approved should an uninvolved promoter wish to advance one of those. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
          • Allright, so I am requesting a second review by an uninvolved reviewer. Further, here is a new hook based on a secondary source about her in the German weekly Die Zeit, whose wording corresponds to the article:

Munfarid1 (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Katrin_Bennhold&oldid=1361864196"