Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/blow book

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) 20:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Blow book

[edit]
(
)
  • Reviewed: Lots and lots of things about three or four months ago

Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 15:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

  • Ping User:Maury Markowitz. Date, size, refs, neutrality are fine. However I'd like to propose the following ALT1 as a more interesting, and avoiding the unreferenced word "simple" from the original hook. While it is not required for this to pass, can we get some sort of a picture? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with any ALT you might propose, including the one below. However a picture... I did look but found nothing useful I considered making my own, it's just cut paper after all, but then I saw that there's two other pictures for today that I *know* I can't beat - the skier and that amazingly cute owl. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Drive-by comment: That YouTube video is very likely a copyvio, unfortunately. We probably shouldn't be linking to it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible for someone posting their own material to be a copyvio. Although it shows a book in the video, that's precisely why free use was invented. But feel free to remove it if you think. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait, do you mean The Wiggles one? Or the other one?
I meant the Wiggles one, sorry I wasn't clearer. The other one looks fine. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, obvious in retrospect. Removed! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I really like this one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
ALT2 GTG. User:Maury Markowitz: I didn't mean pic for the front page, but for the article. We could use a fair use still from a video, if nothing else is possible. Ideally, a diagram of the trick would be great, but I know that's asking a lot :) Neither is needed for the DYK, just a suggestion for improvement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pulled back from prep after the ALT2 hook was substituted for the original, unapproved hook which had been promoted, but because none of the hooks have an inline source citation for the key fact involving either "as an example to prove that witchcraft is not real" or "to refute the existence of witchcraft". The actual sentence involved does not have a citation (This work examined witchcraft and revealed the tricks involved, ultimately concluding that witchcraft was not real.); the next sentence goes on to describe a part of the discussion, citing page 283 of the Scot book, which itself says nothing about the key ("ultimate") conclusion that's the basis of the hook. Without an actual citation for the conclusion, the hook is not adequately supported, and it needs that before it can be promoted. (I do see that the previous page, 282, calls "juggling" (of which the blow book appears to be an example) "a kind of witchcraft", but the refutation section isn't here as well. I have struck the original and ALT1 hooks, since ALT2 is preferred and any source that supports the other two would support it as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I am confused. If something is mentioned on page 1, and the conclusion of the book is on page 100, are you saying that we cannot talk about those two things in one hook because they are on different pages? I'd say something like 50% of all the hooks fall into this category. Or are you saying that the conclusion of Scots book is not supported? If so, is a link to this entry which clearly states it good enough? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I am saying none of those things. I'm saying that the sentence I quoted (in green) does not have a citation to support it at its end. It needs this citation as a bare minimum to support the fact, used in the hook, that the book refutes witchcraft, and you need to put it there. The claim that the blow book was used as part of the refutation should also be referenced, though if as part of the general refutation the book includes a blanket statement about how all the tricks being enumerated contribute to the refutation, I'd think citing that would be good enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's what I said, but in any event, I have added an appropriate direct ref. And another, just in case. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

So, are we good now? Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The Almond source... do you have a scan of the text you are citing? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Google's not giving me "blow book" in this book. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I have been asked to provide a reference "that the book refutes witchcraft". That is the purpose of this citation. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright. Harvey's quote in the ref you provide supports "refutes witchcraft". That the trick is mentioned I'll have to AGF because I don't see how I can access it through that website. However, I do have access to this version. Could you indicate what sentence to look for? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually that's the version I used too (and the PDF). Actually, looking at it now, Introduction of that version clearly mentions the "refuting which craft" part (and goes into considerable depth actually), so we could remove that other cite if you want. As to the mention, look for "of Witchcraft. chap. 33. 283". Note that it's spelled "booke", which might be the source of confusion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, so (to me) the text "Here is place to discover the particular knaveries of casting of lots, and drawing of the book cuts (as they terme it) whereby manie cousenages are wrought: so as of this discoverie, in (which) I dare not teach the sundrie devises thereof, least the ungodlie make a the title practise of it in the commonwealth, where manie things are decided by those meanes, which being honesthe meant may be lawfullie used. But I have said alreadie somewhat hereof in generall, and therefore also the rather have suppressed the particularities, which (in truth) are meere juggling knackes : whereof I could discover a great number." supports the hook fact, particularly the last sentence quoted herewith. Looks absolutely fine to me. Basing rest of tick on previous review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/blow_book&oldid=1017161025"