Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/The Summons (hymn)

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

The Summons (hymn)

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that "The Summons" consists of 13 questions asked by Jesus in the first person?

Moved to mainspace by The C of E (talk). Self nominated at 13:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

  • According to the DYKcheck tool, this had 1540 characters which scrapes it over the line for DYK, but some of this text was redundant; I copy-edited it and, unfortunately, brought it below the qualifying limit. (So, basically I screwed the impartiality of the review by editing the article to impose my own preferences on it. What. A. [EXPLETIVE DELETED (but it was the female dog one)].) I think you can easily rectify this by adding in some details on the tune and wording though. Having the blurb as "in the first person of Jesus" brings to mind the Trinity, you would be better off wording it as "by Jesus in the first person". All the other criteria check out (wording is close to the sources in places, but the sources are so meagre as to make it impossible to word it differently). Belle (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I've made the changes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Totally scrapes through now. Belle (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The submitted QPQ review is not acceptable, as it missed basics such as hook fact sourcing and didn't cover close paraphrasing and neutrality and similar requirements. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There's something in the History section that doesn't add up. First publication is said to have been in the 1987 publication mentioned first. However, the source about Worship IV says that the hymn was in there in its 1986 edition (it's complaining about the lack of changes to that hymnal in a more modern edition despite claims to the contrary). These two facts would seem to contradict each other, and cast doubt on the reliability of one or the other of these sources; this needs to be sorted out. (Also, what makes a reprinted post from a forum by a college sophomore studying accounting a reliable source?) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, The C of E. I've done a bit of copyediting, including a change or two to better reflect the source, and the article is now below 1500 prose characters. I'd like you to aim a bit higher than the absolute minimum; the article needs a bit more meat still. I did move the new sentence from History, where it didn't fit, to Composition, where it fits a bit better—it wasn't enough to start another section, and I don't know what it might be called anyway. Thanks also for the new QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added some more. The problem is a lack of reliable sources that I can find, which prevents me from fleshing it out much more. It should fulfil the criteria now. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There's something wrong with the final sentence; I can't figure out what it means. When you rewrite it, I'd recommend doing so in a way that you can omit "also", since two sentences in a row using "also" does not read well. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. However, now that I can read it, I realize that it is effectively null information: "was mentioned" means nothing unless you explain in what context (and how it related to the covenant discussions): in short, why this particular incident is notable. I took a look at the given source and couldn't figure out why, but perhaps you can revise the text to make this clear to the reader. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested to know why you think the new addition is accurate. It seems to me that they're talking about workshops, not worship services or actual liturgy (though if there are sessions during the workshop of prayer, the hymn is suggested). If I'm reading this source correctly—and I may have missed something—"as an approved hymn to be used in joint worship services" would be inaccurate. (If it is just workshops, I don't think this is sufficiently notable for inclusion.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The source does say shared prayer and worship, which would make it accurate. I do have to say I feel this is just nitpicking because this sentence has nothing to do with the DYK hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This addition is what you've supplied to bring the article over 1500 prose characters, so it's highly germane to a DYK nomination. If you think it's nitpicking, then your ideas and mine as to what's appropriate for DYK are clearly divergent. I'll ask someone else to come in and review this, because my reading is that it's talking about a specific workshop setting, which I've said I don't think is sufficiently notable, but as you disagree, it's clearly appropriate to get another opinion on its notability. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Misrepresenting the sources is a no-no. Period. I agree with Blue's analysis on my talk page. Aside from that, The Leprosy Mission Scotland is not an independent source for the information being cited, and yet it's being used to discuss Bell (not allowed per WP:SPS). Presenting this in the article without any third party commentary is simply WP:UNDUE and not WP:NPOV. Removing this troublesome text brings the article below 1500 characters. So no, not happening. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
What misrepresentation of sources? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Blue's already highlighted them on my talk page. Or did you miss that? I particularly agree with this one: "Fourth sentence: it says "initially viewed", which seems unsupported, as is the assertion that it's a radical Christian hymn because of the uncommon words rather than because of the theology behind them." This is a fundamental misreading of the source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Very well. In regards to the criticism section, I have removed it. I have also reworded the rest of the issues raised to try and make them more closer to the sources. I have also added a new source for the Celtic Christian line. And it still comes in over the threshold after all the changes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Presbyterian Church of America is not supported by the reference. Two things about "It was viewed as a prophetic Christian hymn as it used words that were uncommon in other hymns": the source does not phrase this causally, and this is one person's opinion (and thus we should refer to his opinion explicitly). The source does not say "last verse", but "fifth stanza". How is "The hymn was mentioned in joint publications involving the discussion of the Anglican-Methodist Covenant between the Church of England and the Methodist Church of Great Britain as an approved hymn to be used in joint worship" relevant? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have fixed the verse and reference thing. The joint publications thing is relevant because it was selected as a hymn that was agreed on by both denominations as a hymn to be used in joint projects across the theological differences of Anglicans and Methodists. I think that is fairly relevant. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The article says it was mentioned in some publications, citing what may be one of those publications. That's a far cry from the significance you attribute to it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you mean, the line is added to show that it is an approved hymn to be used in joint projects with the C of E and Methodists. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Let's break this down. "The hymn was mentioned in joint publications" is the main point of your sentence (nothing overwhelming, you may be sure). The remainder ("involving the discussion of the Anglican-Methodist Covenant between the Church of England and the Methodist Church of Great Britain as an approved hymn to be used in joint worship") is a clarifier. Now, if you were looking to say your point more clearly, we could have "The Church of England and the Methodist Church of Great Britain approved the hymn to be used in joint worship". Considerably clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, being mentioned in a book is worth the weight you're giving it. Heck, even I've been mentioned in books. "The hymn was mentioned in joint publications involving the discussion of the Anglican-Methodist Covenant." doesn't impart any useful information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Still below minimum length. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As of today the prose character count is 1077; i.e. a little over two-thirds of what it should be. As a last-ditch attempt to save this nom, please may I suggest some ideas for valid expansion showing its importance, wide usage and constant exposure. It is certainly a notable hymn as it appears quite a lot on YouTube (though I'm not suggesting YT as a source), so you might be able to track down the following:--Storye book (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Under performances/recordings/broadcast subheadings: (1) Details in prose form of any noted performers who have recorded this hymn, with dates, record labels, backing musicians or whatever. (2) Details in prose form of any special concerts e.g. in important churches/cathedrals which included this hymn. (3) Dates in prose form of radio/TV performances with names of shows, performers etc.--Storye book (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Under a publications subheading: (4) The names in prose form of hymnals which include the printed music and the words to this hymn.--Storye book (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Under popular culture subheading: (5) List in prose form of popular-culture uses of this hymn e.g. in background of movies, TV drama etc.--Storye book (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to say that I would consider the "publications subheading" proposed above to be unacceptable for DYK: a list of publications (I believe there are around 15 hymnals) would be padding, even if (especially if?) in prose form. The article already talks about its appearance in hymnals, including those of two non-UK denominations. The other two subheadings sound like just the sort of thing that the article should have had all along. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Storye book:, I have brought it up to the required character limit. While I may not have done the publications per Blue's objections, I have still added one notable usage of the hymn. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, C of E. Due to the rewrite, I'll give it a full review from scratch here (forgive me guys if I'm repeating your previous checks unnecessarily). New enough (for 13 May) and long enough (now 1637 characters). No problems with disambig links or with external links. Bearing in mind the above discussion, I have looked at all the sources and I think they are authoritative. In the same vein have also checked all the citations for possible misrepresentation, and I am satisfied it's OK, except for the issues listed below. I have checked for bias and for copyvio and found none. Issues: (1) I don't think there is an online citation for the hook. Citation #5 comes close but it doesn't mention anything like "in person". If it's one of the offline citations, please put it next to the hook in the article and tell us on this template which citation(s) it is. (2) In the history section, "Bell composed The Summons after being accepted into the Iona Community in 1980" has no citation. (3) If there is no sufficient citation for the hook, then we need another hook. Interpretation of lyrics is risky anyway. How about a hook mentioning the hymn's relationship to the Iona community in some way? If these issues can be resolved, I am hoping we can get this nom moving. --Storye book (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have found a new source. While it may be referring to another hymn, it does have a paragraph that mentions The Summons in relation to the proposed hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you C of E for the new citation #6. But we still have no citation for "in the first person". I know you were asked to add "in the first person" by Belle above, but there has been some re-working of this nom since then, and we no longer need it. The original hook will work perfectly well and will check out with citation #6 if you just chop off those four words. So now there are just two easy things for you to do, and we can pass this nom. (a) Please look at issue 2 above and give that first sentence in the history section a citation. (b) Please chop the last four words off the original hook and give it to us as ALT1. I am sorry that you have really been put through the mill in this nom, but I hope you have learned something from our reviewers above and gained strength from it. I respect your patience and the effort you have put in here, C of E - and a big thank you for the time and effort put in by our reviewers above, too.--Storye book (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. ALT1 checks out online with citation #6. Good to go for ALT1 (at last!) --Storye book (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I'm sorry, that's not NPOV. Who says that Jesus said such things? Hipocrite (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Still further, I don't see citation 6 ([1]) referring to this hymn at all. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In answer to your first question, Hipocrite, it is the Methodist Church, a reliable authority on this subject, which is responsible for the content of the website containing citation #6. Citation #6 is mainly about another hymn, but it refers to The Summons in passing, thus (see my italics):

    "The hymn offers a kind of mirror image to John Bell and Graham Maule’s Will you come and follow me? (next door in Singing the Faith, at number 673). Instead of beginning with Jesus’ questions to us, his potential disciples (as Bell and Maule do)"

  • Therefore citation #6 certainly refers to this hymn. Sorry, Hipocrite, but your intervention here is not helping us review this nom. This is a Christian hymn, and to understand it at least on one level we must be prepared to look at the way it is interpreted by its own authorities. WP caters for people of all religions and for people without religion, and we must respect all views. It makes no sense to deny the intended meaning of a religious song just because we do not share that religion. What we are doing in DYK review is to check information. Please do not interrupt and delay objective reviews with comments motivated by opinion. Thank you. --Storye book (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This nom is still good to go. To Admin: in the interest of neutrality extended to all religions including the one connected to this article, please ignore any further interventions which prevent the objective reviewing of this nom. Thank you. --Storye book (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how it is NPOV to state as fact that Jesus said things when his saying of such things is disputed by reliable sources. The bible might say he said those things, in which case we should use in-text attribution to the bible. Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between (a) reviewing an article objectively, and (b) using WP and DYK rules as an excuse to disrupt objective DYK reviews to promote an opinion-agenda. It may surprise you to know that the opinions of some reviewers (including my own opinion for all you may know) concur with your own opinion. That is to say, it may well be the case that some of our best reviewers agree with you about what religion is, and what it is not. But that is not what an encyclopaedia is about. WP is about putting information out there. Now please desist from disrupting our work on this nom; let us process it and pass it on to admin so that we can get on with all the other noms.--Storye book (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This nom is still good to go. To Admin: in the interest of neutrality extended to all religions including the one connected to this article, please ignore any further interventions which prevent the objective reviewing of this nom. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    @Hipocrite: The hook isn't claiming that the hymn repeats questions that Jesus, the historical religious figure, asked, it's claiming that the hymn writer has posed those questions in the voice of Jesus. The original hook made this clear; I'm not quite sure why it was rejected, perhaps it was thought to be confusing. It might be as well to add "in the voice of" in place of "by". Belle (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Summons_(hymn)&oldid=960445873"