Template:Did you know nominations/Christ the Lord Is Risen Again!
- 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 Allen3 talk 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Christ the Lord Is Risen Again!
[edit]- ... that "Christ the Lord Is Risen Again!"?
- ALT1:... that "Christ the Lord Is Risen Again!" in English is cut down from the German version because the words didn't fit?
- Reviewed: Statue of Mahatma Gandhi, Parliament Square
- Comment: For Easter (5 April)
Moved to mainspace by The C of E (talk). Self nominated at 13:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
Short but a decent article, and an ideal subject for Easter Sunday. Sources are fine and it just about meets the length threshold. The hook is sourced and is OK in terms of the topic. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the original hook is not acceptable, though ALT1 would be okay. "Christ the Lord Is Risen Today" is not an encyclopedic fact, but a Christian declaration of faith. As such, it is neither sourced, nor sourceable, nor in fact part of the content of the article, nor admissible under WP:NPOV. Alternatively, if you insist on taking the quotation marks seriously and say that it is merely a literally quoted title, then the hook is not even a grammatically well-formed sentence at all (and, as such, again not a sourced fact). Didn't we have this exact same type of discussion last year? We simply can't have Christian declarations of faith on the mainpage. If there was ever to be a DYK for Shahada, we wouldn't use "Did you know that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet" either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ Almighty, do we have to go through this again? OK, look, hooks don't have to start with that (little-known fact) so how about a hook which merely inquires whether the reader is familiar with the hymn i.e. Did you know ...'
- ALT2 ... "Christ the Lord Is Risen Again!"?
- Or, more conventionally (though without looking at the article, I suspect additional material and sources would need to be added for this this one):
- ALT3 ... that according to Christian doctrine "Christ the Lord Is Risen Again!"?
- EEng (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I have added the content for Alt3 to be used. Either that or alt2 is fine by me but it'll need another review if we're going for those. Otherwise the original review stands fine. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- According to the DYK rules, a hook must be about a fact. "Are you familiar with hymn so-and-so?" is not a question about a fact. A hymn is not a fact. So, no, for all I can see, the format "did you know that [+sentence]" is the only one that works according to the rules. As for "... that according to Christian doctrine Christ is risen again?", well, that one is about a fact all right, but it's not a fact relevant to the article. "DYK" means presenting interesting tidbits to the reader that they should read up about in the articles in question and that are freshly added to the project. To read up on the fact that "according to Christian doctrine Christ is risen", the reader should go to Easter, not to the article about this hymn. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I forget where I saw the bit about the hook not needing to start with that and so on -- I suppose I could be wrong. However (and speaking now as an atheist, so please no POV accusations) why, oh why, do we have to have so much fuss over everything? The article needs to be new (or expanded, or whatever) -- the hook fact doesn't. EEng (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- I am fine with alt4 but if there is no other review then I think that @Prioryman:'s original review is still valid. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I forget where I saw the bit about the hook not needing to start with that and so on -- I suppose I could be wrong. However (and speaking now as an atheist, so please no POV accusations) why, oh why, do we have to have so much fuss over everything? The article needs to be new (or expanded, or whatever) -- the hook fact doesn't. EEng (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)