Editing Eurovision Wiki:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard (section)

== New article at DYK ==

{{AIC status|cleanup_status=requested|tracking_subpage=}} <!--  Valid statuses: requested, ongoing, unnecessary, completed. Update if needed!  -->

If anybody would like to visit [[:Template:Did you know nominations/National bank veto]] regarding [[national bank veto]], I am [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/National_bank_veto&diff=prev&oldid=1338452749 concerned] about a new article with content that I can't square with a plausible authorial process. (Cites different websites' versions of same historical text without rhyme or reason. Cherry-picks a fine point to cite an argumentatively unimportant proposition.) Since I'm (we're?) still figuring this out, I wasn't sure if I should just drop {{tl|AI-generated}} on it, or seek input first. [[User:TheFeds|<span style="font-family:Constantia; color=#0077bb; font-size:medium; line-height:0.0;">'''''TheFeds'''''</span>]] 06:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah this is pretty clearly AI -- thanks for flagging it. Did a quick standard spot check of AI-ese, standard issues turned up:
:* {{tq|Jackson's message was widely circulated in Democratic newspapers, which emphasized his arguments about monopoly, privilege, and the influence of foreign stockholders.}} Cited to SparkNotes, first of all, which only says that "[Senator] Benton convened a House investigation that restated many of Jackson's complaints and publicized them in newspapers across the country." Doesn't say what complaints those were, what newspapers those were, or how widely they were circulated ("across the country" could mean anything; our [[Bank War]] article seems to suggest the pro-charter side had more newspaper presence but I don't have in-depth knowledge here). Also, it's SparkNotes.
:* {{tq|The diversity of interpretations reflects the Bank Veto's enduring significance as one of the most consequential presidential actions of the early republic.}} Does [https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563169 the citation] (available on wikipedia library) say that? No, obviously. The closest it comes is saying that "some critics blame [the veto] for creating decades of chaos" right before arguing "there are strong reasons to suspect otherwise." I guess that counts as "diversity of interpretations" but everything else is AI slop. (Also, this comes from a libertarian think tank journal, so not really the most unbiased source.) 
:* {{tq|President Jackson opposed the bank... contributing to the broader conflict over the Bank that occurred during his presidency.}} Not really a [[WP:V]] issue just a hilarious manifestation of AI's obsession with pointing out how everything "contributes to the broader" blah blah blah. No shit, the president's opposition the bank contributed to the conflict over the bank ''during his presidency''? Huge if true!
:[[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 16:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:: Ref 68, ostensibly meant to source an assertion about "later discussions about federal involvement in banking", is a four-page report on the composition and procedures of the UN Security Council. 🤡 [[User:Einsof|Einsof]] ([[User talk:Einsof|talk]]) 20:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
:messaged [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 21:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)