Template:Did you know nominations/Sun of Unclouded Righteousness

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Template:Did you know nominations
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 Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Sun of Unclouded Righteousness

(
)
  • Reviewed: Army Men: Operation Green
  • Comment: I am aware this may be controversial but I will remind people of
    WP:NOTCENSORED
    and am prepared to drop one of the two names if they feel its needed.

Moved to mainspace by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 12:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC).

  • Date, size, copyvio spotcheck, hook, neutrality, refs, all GTG. To repeat: I think the hook is neutral, even through it is possible some people may be offended. But as the nom states, WP:NOTCENSORED. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Piotrus and The C of E: How about making the hook say "that the missionary hymn "Sun of Unclouded Righteousness" refers ..."? I feel that saying it's a missionary hymn makes the hook more understandable somewhat and probably reduce the possibility of offending people. Just a suggestion. HaEr48 (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes WP is not censored, but "not censored" is different from featuring racist crap on the front page. "Not censored" is not a relevant thing here. In any case, how about.. Jytdog (talk)
  • ALT1 ... that the Christian hymn, "Sun of Unclouded Righteousness", used from 1758 to 1880, was written as a prayer for the salvation of Muslims and reflects the prejudices of its time?" Source: Southwestern Journal of Theology Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Butting in here, due apologies: Jytdog, I respectfully suggest that the "prayer for the salvation of Muslims" is rather patronizing, and ultimately more offensive than something that is obviously the product of prejudice; that said, I'm not a huge fan of the original, which seems to me to be akin to featuring gratuitous nudity and then saying "haha NOTCENSORED". I'd suggest exploring a combination of the two hooks:
  • No thank you to ALT1 given prejudice isn't even mentioned in the article. The original is factual and sourced inline with DYK policy. As I said, I am aware it is controversial but I have been prepared to compromise by dropping one of the terms if the promoter feels its needed. Otherwise, let's stick with what was originally approved. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "missionary hymn" was not supported by any sources in the article, and is not there any more. There is no doubt that the perspective that generates an
    intercessory hymn for people of other religions (the notion that they are not "saved" by their own religion) is patronizing triumphalism but this is unfortunately the POV of the time and place and author. That stance provokes actual missionary work but is not the same.... All that said i am fine with Vanamonde's alt with the exception of "missionary".Jytdog (talk
    ) 07:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@
csdnew
04:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay then. Your last alternative is fine with me, but again, we need a reviewer who wasn't involved with crafting these: I'd suggest writing it out as a complete ALT, so that others can judge whether it's supported. Vanamonde (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
No thank you, I'm happy with Vanamonde's original proposed ALT. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Per Vanamonde93's comments above, I'm proposing another ALT here (feel free to reword or revise):
  • ALT3 ... that the 1758 Methodist hymn "Sun of Unclouded Righteousness" was intended as a prayer for non-Christians, but was was later viewed as inspiring fear of Arabs and Muslims?
csdnew
07:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@
csdnew
07:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Not really, no. I'm afraid the ball is really in The C of E's court; they need to convince a reviewer that the sourcing is good enough for my proposal, accept your proposal, or find another hook. I'm not seeing too many other possibilities. Vanamonde (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
ALT3 is boring and uninteresting; I've struck it. ALT4 is interesting though, though I don't think the word "forgotten" is necessary here. ALT4 is also reflected in both the article and the source. @
csdnew
00:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
"Forgotten" is important to make it clear that this hymn has not been actually used for about 150 years. Both independent sources in the article make it clear that this hymn is obscure, forgotten, little-known, etc. I don't care what word like that is used, but I oppose without something along those lines. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@
csdnew
02:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5 That's fine. Just something in there showing it is not contemporary. Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I have added an extra sentence to the article to affirm ALT2 so would you please be able to approve that one? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@
csdnew
21:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
yes I am fine with that swap. fwiw i think ALT4 is way zingier than ALT2 and I really don't understand the objection to it but whatever. With that change I am fine with ALT2 too. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've reverted your striking of ALT4 and unstriking of ALT2; generally, editors (particularly nominators) aren't supposed to unstrike already struck hooks: they've been struck for a reason. In any case, I'm pinging here @
    csdnew
    20:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think part of the confusion here is that there are two ALT3 hooks here (both currently struck): the one proposed by Narutolovehinata5 on June 3, which has the phrase inspiring fear of Arabs and Muslims, and was struck by The C of E because it "doesn't have the same hookiness", and the one proposed by Jytdog later that day (with fell out of use), which was struck by The C of E because it was "boring". I'm not sure which ALT3 Yoninah liked. While we do tend to give a certain deference to nominators with regard to hooks, there are some times when the nominator's desires are not acceptable to the community. Despite the "compromise" The C of E feels he's made, this appears to be one of those times: neither the original hook nor the ALT2 have been able to gain a consensus here, and he certainly should not be unstriking any hook struck by a reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@
csdnew
02:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The C of E, I was doing my best to assume good faith here, but your last statement makes it difficult to do so. "I am not prepared to sacrifice the crux of the hook"? Really? Or, in other words, you won't be satisfied with any hook that does not refer to Muhammed as a thief? I proposed ALT2 above, and I prefer Narutolovehinata's ALT3. I'm rather concerned that you are so keen to veto it. Vanamonde (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Narutolovehinata5 I prefer your ALT3 with inspiring fear of Arabs and Muslims. Why was it struck? ALT4 borders on the same xenophobia as the original hook, trying to capitalize on "fiend" and "hell" but in the process alienating half the world's population. Yoninah (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with the ORIGINALLY proposed hook. We are not calling Muhammad a "thief" or an "impostor", we are accurately reporting what the text says. Oppose any and all attempts to qualify this or hide the bare facts. --Khajidha (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @Narutolovehinata5: another option, of course, is to fail it. We're not achieving consensus with such opposite opinions. Yoninah (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Sun_of_Unclouded_Righteousness&oldid=960006347"