Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/James Edward Rogers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SL93 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

James Edward Rogers

(
)
The Arthurian murals at Oxford
The Arthurian murals at Oxford

* ... that James Edward Rogers went hunting with Dante Gabriel Rossetti and William Morris to find a Guinevere for the Oxford Union murals (pictured)?
Source: "ROGERS, JAMES EDWARD", Dictionary of Irish Architects, at dia.ie

Created by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 03:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC).

David Eppstein, you can object, but a review is a review. Anyone checking out your link will see the whole picture. Moonraker (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The purpose of the QPQ requirement is to make up for the time your are imposing on other editors with your nomination, by contributing towards the review of another nomination. Instead, by fucking up the review, you have wasted my time and likely wasted the time of another reviewer, contributing negatively rather than positively towards the smooth running of DYK. You should not be rewarded for this negative contribution by considering it as a QPQ. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I’m sorry to say I think the boot is on the other foot. Moonraker (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
And you're not even repentant about fucking it up. By the way, I consider the proposed hook here, discussing women as objects to be hunted as if they were game animals, to be quite offensive. It could be phrased as a quote (since it derives from a quote in the article), which would at least allow us to take offense at Tuckwell (who should be cited in the article as the author of the quote, and is not) rather than at you. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I had not then found the Tuckwell book, so I had to cite another source which quoted him. Since updated. Moonraker (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK - both of you back off. David Eppstein, a new review had been requested at your nomination, which is your right to have. You've made your point here, no need to meander off into profanity and issues that are not part of any review policy. Enough. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. There was absolutely no need to bring up the encounter with the previous nomination as there was no relation at all other than the nominator of this being the review of the other one. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Article was new enough and long enough at the time of the nomination. No close paraphrasing was detected. The source for the hook fact is offline so I am assuming good faith here. As the nominator's review at the provided QPQ was a check of all DYK criteria, I will consider it a proper QPQ for the purposes of this nomination. My only real concern at the moment is the hook, as it seems to be too reliant on the mentions of the other names (as opposed to focusing on Rogers alone; personally I thought the "looking for Guinevere" angle was already fine by itself without the need for the other people. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: The hook is offensive. Wikipedia's voice should not echo a legacy dehumanization of young women as a target of men's jolly shared sport.
@HouseOfChange: I'm a bit confused here: what wording made the original hook offensive? Just for clarification purposes, thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Just for clarification purposes, David Eppstein made the same exact point in this same discussion, saying I consider the proposed hook here, discussing women as objects to be hunted as if they were game animals, to be quite offensive. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
On second thought, I don't know if we should be using either ALT0 or ALT1 as the meaning of "finding a Guinevere" isn't very clear; for some reason I interpreted it as trying to find the character Guinevere in the murals, rather than finding a wife like what the article actually says. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
They were artists searching for a woman to model for some notable murals that they (Rossetti and Morris, with Burne-Jones but NOT with Rogers) later painted. Replacing "searching" with "went hunting" has, per multiple dictionaries an unnecessary potential to portray the women sought as potential prey, which may have been accurate as to the artists' point of view, but should not be endorsed in Wikipedia's voice. Since Rogers did not paint or contribute to the Oxford Union murals in any other way, I am surprised that an image of them has been approved to illustrate this DYK, rather than something Rogers painted himself. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange: I see. I admittedly didn't realize the original hook could have been offensive and I somehow missed David's comment. Do you have any other possible hook suggestions, one that moves away from this Guinevere angle? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The main problem I see with ALT2 is that it’s unhooky, Narutolovehinata5, but it also rules out a good image. In my humble opinion, the main hook complies with all the rules, and I am at a loss to know how hunting for a legendary or mythical character (whether male or female), can be offensive. I see you also found nothing offensive in it. I don’t see any ambiguity, but if there were any it would make it more worth clicking on. My only objection to ALT1 is that it seems to be aiming for blandness, but I have seen worse. Moonraker (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Out of an abundance of caution as well as to prevent any possible issues (given that two editors have raised concerns) and a potential mention at WP:ERRORS, it would probably be for the best to just drop ALT0. I'm not fond of ALT1, but not for the same reason as you (I thought that both ALT0 and ALT1 were too vague, and contrary to your opinion, may make people less interested in clicking rather than more). Perhaps a hook about him helping Morris find a wife would be more suitable? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 messaged me off-wiki about this nomination, but this opinion is solely my own. I can suggest a hook that both uses the mural and also mentions that one of Rogers's companions (Morris) found his wife: Epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the hunting discussion earlier, going with the hooks with "hunting" in them sounds like a bad idea. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, given that multiple editors have suggested that the term "hunting" in this context is problematic, I've now struck the original hook. @Moonraker: What are your thoughts on ALT3B and ALT4B? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The "Guinevere" found was Jane Burden, a woman notable in her own right, who was possibly the inspiration for George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion. And she was not found in a church by a group including James Edward Rogers, but by Rossetti and Burne-Jones while attending the theater. The connection of this bio to finding Guinevere is very dodgy slight, and the conclusion that his search with them "found" Guinevere is SYNTH. His nursery rhyme illustrations, for which we also have an image, would be a better hook. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Update: amending my poor choice of wording in response to Moonraker. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, HouseOfChange, I have noted in the article that the woman found for Guinevere was Jane Burden. There is clearly some uncertainty about where she was found, but William Tuckwell, the source for this nomination, was a long-standing friend of the Burden family, so in my humble opinion what he says should not be seen as dodgy, no doubt the men did search in churches, but that is not mentioned in any of the hooks. ALT1 is your hook and it does not talk about a Guinevere being found, so that is beside the point. Narutolovehinata5, I can live with ALT1. On ALT3B and ALT4B, it seems to me the idea of Morris marrying Guinevere is okay as a kind of verbal trick, but it isn’t cited and I wouldn’t have suggested it. Moonraker (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Moonraker: I am glad you also think ALT1 is an OK hook, and I agree with your objection to dragging in Morris's much later marriage to Jane Burden. I tried but without success to think of a "hook-y" hook that would let us use one of JER's own artworks as an image, but if they click through to the article people will see them. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Glad we agree, HouseOfChange. Yes, I uploaded those illustrations, I have added another one to the article. Just a matter now of whether Narutolovehinata5 is happy with your ALT1. Moonraker (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I still find ALT1 to be a relatively bland and vague hook, but I am willing to approve it if there are no remaining options or viable possible hook proposals. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
But once you decide to strike words out to avoid offending people, Narutolovehinata5, isn’t blandness what you are aiming for? I don’t see any vagueness, all the words in ALT1 are concrete enough for me. Moonraker (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me being unfamiliar with the subject or the mural, but I don't really understand what "searched for a Guinevere for the murals" actually means. It's not a very self-evident statement, at least to me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Rossetti and Morris were artists planning a mural painting about King Arthur. In order to paint Arthur's wife Guinevere, they wanted to find a living model to paint from, a beautiful young woman who could look both "queenly" and troubled. Therefore they went searching in places where large numbers of young women might be seen -- church services and theatres. If I have misunderstood your difficulty, I apologize. Surely it is time for this submission to get its final tick with some hook or another? HouseOfChange (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange and Moonraker: I think that explanation clears it up for me personally, but that doesn't change my opinion that the original hook wordings weren't self-evident that what you explained was their intended meaning. I'm leaning more towards approving ALT2 instead, but if ALT1 can be revised to make it clear that the three were looking for a model for the murals, I'll approve such a revision. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Here is a slight variation on ALT1, leaving out Morris to make up for the added wordage:
But ALT2 is also fine with me. Thanks for your hard work on this. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Just waiting on Moonraker's thoughts on ALT1A then this will be good to go. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Moonraker: Perhaps ALT1B ... that James Edward Rogers helped Dante Gabriel Rossetti and William Morris search for a model for Guinevere for the Oxford Union murals (pictured)? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
For me ALT1 is fine as it is, Narutolovehinata5, but you could always approve that one too and let someone decide between them when taking it forward. Moonraker (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay. As ALT1B is the clearest hook and probably works best as a compromise, I am approving ALT1B only. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/James_Edward_Rogers&oldid=1018435023"