Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/The Case of the Animals versus Man

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) 23:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

The Case of the Animals versus Man

(
)

Created by Kingoflettuce (talk). Self-nominated at 01:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC).

This article is actually quite interesting, although the lead section is confusing and needs some clarification. The proposed hooks though are not up to scratch, although there might be a valid AFD angle to be found somewhere in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: Could you please elaborate? What in the lead needs clarification? (And what might be a valid AFD angle, if not the most eyebrow-raising aspect of the story, which is its very premise!!) Kingoflettuce (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Looking back, I see I misread the phrase "The longest entry in the Encyclopedia, The Case of the Animals versus Man" as the name of the book, which confused me. However, it still could use a rephrase so that it can't be misread IMO. Also, I think the lead could use a bit of expansion.
With regard to the proposed hooks above, ALT0 above is accurate but clunky. The other two alts are simply not accurate, as they are passing off fictional events as real. Gatoclass (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

One might perhaps go with something like:

- the deception there would be that most people will assume it's a Christian epistle since that is the usual context of the word "epistle". Gatoclass (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I always assumed on AFD one had more leeway to do things like pass off fictional events as real Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
For me the interesting and humorous bit is the fact that talking animals (including a pig!) can quote the Qu'ran to great effect. Merely knowing that animals sued humans is a bit mild. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Modified ALT2. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Kingoflettuce, ALT2 would I think work fine as a standard quirky, but as there is no element of deception in it, it doesn't really suit as an AFD hook in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps a Ramadan hook then :D Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the main issue with all the hooks proposed so far is that they're technically all plot points. I'm not sure if the "hooks cannot be fully in-universe" criterion applies to epistles or religious writings, but if they do, all hooks proposed thus far would fail that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
    • "Fully", so if the hook mentions when the epistle was mentioned, does that get a pass? In any case, waiting for someone to formally affirm/deny that by way of an actual review... Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think so. The criterion says If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way. I don't know if epistles would count as a "work of fiction", but if the spirit of the guideline is to be followed, a hook would probably require actual real-world events; for example, a hook about its discovery, or analysis/responses to it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I meant "when the epistle was written", duh. Anyway it's obviously a work of fiction, so there's that. I think anything that doesn't say what the epistle is about would be rather boring. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Full review needed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I actually think the hook fact itself is interesting, it's just that hooks solely about plot are not allowed, and from what I recall, even adding a publication year is not a sufficient solution to making the hooks meet the criterion. For what it's worth, the original hook didn't actually have this issue since there's also focus on the author and it makes it clear that the hook information is fictional. Perhaps a revision of that original hook would solve the concerns about the real-world criterion, something like:
ALT4 ... that in the 960s, the Brethren of Purity wrote an epistle where Christians, Jews, and Muslims are sued by Quran-reading animals?
Or if a hook that's not about that plot point is desirable, another possible hook option could be based on the following quote: Writing in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, Richard C. Foltz found the work "unusual" and representing an argument for animal rights that was "striking for its exceptionality for the context of tenth-century Muslim society." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I'm thinking of giving this a full review, but for clarifications sake, am I allowed to do so given that I proposed ALT4, or should I be in the clear given that ALT4 is just a combination of ALT0 and ALT2 and doesn't introduce any new facts? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, since nothing has yet been reviewed, it would be you reviewing your own hook. So if you did review the article generally, someone else would need to review ALT4. It's up to you whether you proceed with the review and leave the hook reviewing to someone else. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. For what it's worth, the article does meet requirements (it was promoted to GA status on time and is free from close paraphrasing). The main hook fact of the hooks proposed (the one about animals citing the Quran to sue humans) is cited inline, but since the sources are offline I am assuming good faith. A QPQ has been done. Given that I proposed ALT4 and per the comment above, I am ultimately leaving the final hook approval to another editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • New reviewer needed to check the remaining hooks and do a final approval on the nomination. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Great work on an interesting article. Although there isn't a source associated with the nomination per se, this source, given inline in the article, is sufficient to verify the hook. In terms of rule C6, it's a vague one to try to interpret. I couldn't find in the archives how this rule came about and what the rationale was, but I do generally agree with the approach taken in this previous discussion i.e. that the rule is there to prevent solely in-universe hooks that are unintelligible to a general audience. I would say that with this interpretation ALT4 is quite securely in line with this rule and I'd hate miss out on such an interesting hook with an overly strict interpretation. As such I'll go ahead and approve ALT4. --GGT (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Case_of_the_Animals_versus_Man&oldid=1087192088"