Template:Did you know nominations/Edwin Stevens (missionary)

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 MPJ-DK 12:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Edwin Stevens (missionary)

(

)

~~... that, in defiance of the law, the American missionary Edwin Stevens repeatedly toured the coasts of the Qing Empire?~~

ALT1: ~~... that the American missionary Edwin Stevens is thought to have distributed the tract that set off the Qing Empire's Taiping Rebellion?~~
Reviewed: ~~Will do.~~ "Up in the Air"
Comment: Note to reviewers: You don't need to go through all the hooks, just the one that grabs your interest. I'll expand the article a bit more today and tomorrow, but needed to get this in before the deadline.

Created by LlywelynII (talk). Self-nominated at 13:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC).

Interesting life, well sourced, offline sources accepted AGF. I prefer the original hook. Minor questions regarding the article: Could you get rid of the ref errors? The line about the incomplete list of his works seems awkward after the ":". I miss any idea about the time when that happened in the lead, and recommend an infobox. A bit more lead would be nice, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Ref errors seem to have been fixed and the template is in the right place. DOB and DOD added to lead. Thanks for the review. — LlywelynII 04:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that Edwin Stevens, reporting on the position of missionaries in China, wrote that recent erections indicated apprehension and penetration was difficult? E Eng 15:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

ALT2 is very clever, but I think unsuitable for use. Both ALT0 and ALT1 are acceptable and have inline citations. The article is long enough and new enough, it is neutral and I detected no policy issues, though many of the sources were unavailable to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is ALT2 unsuitable? Paging Gerda Arendt, Yoninah, Maury Markowitz. E Eng 14:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Cwmhiraeth that ribaldry and religion don't go together... Yoninah (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

How 19th-century. Wl, let's see what others think. E Eng 17:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well for me, TLDR. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz, TLDR???? E Eng 18:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

For my part, I agree that the fact we can source exactly EE's phrasing is a godsend and we have to run with it. I appreciate both the wit and the close reading obviously involved in putting it together. (All the better since the Cai Gao hook is about obedience.) Live a little or—if you really can't stand tomfoolery at other times of the year—save it for April Fool's. Maybe it would also be helpful/less offputting to clarify that it's Qing-era China being discussed. I don't think Cwm verified that it is cited, though. — LlywelynII 04:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The ALT2 facts are supported by the article and have an inline citation. I agree that it is brilliantly hooky and will leave others to decide on its suitability for use. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

When they appointed me corruptor of all that is upright and virtuous in this world, I never imagined it would be this easy. Joining this to Dr._Young's_Ideal_Rectal_Dilators and the CEO grilled on the witness stand, my position in the pantheon of hookers will be secure forever! <diabolical laughter>

ALT3 ... that Edwin Stevens, reporting on the position of missionaries in Qing-era China, wrote that recent erections indicated apprehension, and penetration was difficult?

(An alternative wording might be "reporting on the missionary's position in...", but while that's correct when you parse it carefully, I suspect we'd keep running into people who don't understand that as the hook moves through DYK's downstream stages.) E Eng 05:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

ALT3 preferred if the author agrees. I had waited for an appproval from that side. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I've thought some more about what I said after ALT3 (above) and I've changed my mind. I suggest we go with the even more, um... well... the version here:

ALT4: ... that Edwin Stevens, reporting on the missionary's position in Qing-era China, wrote that recent erections indicated apprehension and penetration was difficult?

Assuming there's no objection, Gerda Arendt can you re-tick? E Eng 22:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

ALT4 position preferred ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

. Per Wikipedia:Did_you_know#The_hook, the ALT2 hooks completely misrepresents what the article is about. ALT1 was just fine. it is one thing to be silly, it is another to misrepresent an article, particularly about a religious figure. Let's pick something less sophomoric. If ALT1 passes review, and it appears to, I think it the better hook. Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It is long established that winking double entendres are perfectly acceptable, we don't have special rules for religious subjects, and note that the article's author (who presumably has an interest in evangelical history) enthusiastically approves. The hook states the facts literally, and that some pervert will be disappointed when he clicks isn't any kind of problem. Our job is to get traffic to the article (and bring a smile to some lips in the process, if possible) and this hook does that. It can run next April 1 if you insist. E Eng 01:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The hook is not within policy in that it misstates the article's content; it is one thing to use a double entende when it bears some relationship to the article topic, but this case is so far outside the scope of the topic that it is nothing more than adolescent locker room humor. But if you insist, then take it to the talk page; if there exists consensus that we can twist something this far, then maybe the hook guidelines need a rewrite. It is not appropriate to make the nominator wait until next spring just so you can have a dull hook that is not so much clever as just ridiculous. Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Your idea of "a double entende when it bears some relationship to the article topic" is nonsense, because the raison detre of a double entendre is that it admits two readings. in two different (ideally incongruous) realms. They can't both be related to article topic. E Eng 07:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Everyone! Help complete this limerick (paging Martinevans123):

There once was a hooker for Wiki

Whose hook someone thought was too icky

[something] [something] [something] [something]

Though [or maybe "'cause"] all were agreed 'twas quite clicky

[E Eng 07:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)]

My 2¢:

There once was a hooker at Wiki

With a hook some found oh so icky, [/...all too icky]

But despite them all seeing

How EEng was being

A good DYK is more clicky than cliquey. [/'Sbetter a DYK's clicky...]

— LlywelynII 13:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I reopened the original hook, but concur with EEng's arguments that ALT4 will catch more attention, while being sourced wording from the article. I dislike hooks with "is thought to have been", such as ALT1. The article author called ALT2 a godsend. Can someone follow? We have April 1 every day, it's called quirky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Having focused on rhythm and phrasing for the limerick, I'm still partial to ALT2 myself (the QIng add-on was just to mollify the haters; if they're going to complain anyway...); that said, if Gerda and EEng both prefer ALT4, I can sign off on it as long as it includes the word recent (fixt) and no comma errors (fixt). Doesn't

ALT5: ... that Edwin Stevens, reporting from his missionary position in Qing-era China, felt their recent erections indicated apprehension and penetration was difficult?

flow better, though? Montana Bw, different strokes, but writing an article about an American diplomatic note and a hook about a Scandinavian proposal decades later is an actual instance of misrepresenting an article; focusing on one minor (accurate, sourced) point from the article (while noting the guy is a missionary and where) isn't misrepresenting it in any way. It's perfectly descriptive, involved close reading of the new article, and should work excellently as a hook. — LlywelynII 13:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought ALT2 was brilliant in its simplicity, but thought it unsuitable for the main page where I could visualise a host of snotty schoolboys sniggering. I am bowing out of this discussion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

But that's the point: If the hook "hooks" some of those snotty schoolboys to click on the article, thus to learn a bit about 19th c. missionaries, then it's done its job. ALT5's "reporting from his missionary position" -- wonderful! But... what's the antecedent to their?

ALT6: ... that Edwin Stevens, reporting from his missionary position among the Qing-era Chinese, felt their recent erections indicated apprehension and penetration was difficult?

E Eng 17:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the antecedent was clear, but it's better to just change the pronoun to its (honestly, her, but that ship has sailed I think) than to go from talking about China to the Chinese. The Qing-era Chinese and what their government got up to were worlds apart. — LlywelynII 12:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

ALT7: ~~... that Edwin Stevens, reporting from his missionary position in Qing-era China, felt its recent erections indicated apprehension and penetration was difficult?~~

You're right about A6, but for me its kills it, so I'd go back to A5. But I defer to you. I suggest you choose one, strike the rest, and ping the tireless Gerda for a final tick. Thus should be fun! I fear we won't make a living writing lkmericks, however. E Eng 14:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Pinging LlywelynII. E Eng 20:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

ALT5, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)