Template:Did you know nominations/From Dixie With Love

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) 15:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

From Dixie with Love[edit]

(

)

... ~~that the South will rise again but not at Ole Miss?~~ Source: ESPN

Reviewed: Maldives
Comment: For April Fools Day

Moved to mainspace by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 11:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

~~On it~~. — LlywelynII 15:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Moved to namespace in timely fashion; barely long enough (~1900 elig. chars.); QPQ done; Earwig finds minimal copyvio (there are only so many ways to express the idea "at the end of"); initially thought that "five years ago" in sources and the 2004 date didn't line up, but this is all from ten years ago so it's fine. Numerous grammatical mistakes in the article and even several in hook above, but they're fixed now.

The problem is that the hook is very cute and probably why the article was written in the first place but (a) doesn't really reference the page name or the song itself in any real way (MOS:EGG) and (b), however unintentionally, endorses the racist secessionist/segregationist idea at the center of the controversy. The South will not rise again the way the people who say that phrase originally meant it. Nor should it. Nor should it be endorsed, even pomo memey metaironically.

I'll ask for some feedback. If the admins here (@BlueMoonset, @Yoninah, @SMcCandlish, et al.) are fine with an April Fools' easter egg and this kinda Trumpbating, everything else in the article is fine and good to go. @EEng: am I being a stick-in-the-mud? or is this not funny enough to be worth the squicky tagline? — LlywelynII 16:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This ping did not register on my list of alerts (so perhaps Yoninah, SMcCandlish and EEng didn't see it either), but since I've just seen it on the nomination page, I'll note that The C of E has on a number of occasions in the past deliberately proposed controversial hooks. The articles were written for that purpose, and given how many have used racially charged terms and ideas, I think we have to consider that this one was also created for that purpose. Where we go from here, I don't know, but I seem to recall Fram saying something about such nominations the last time one erupted in controversy—if I've misremembered who it was or mischaracterized this in any way, I apologize. To clarify, however, I'm not an admin, nor are the others you've pinged, though Yoninah and I are active around DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, and rarely make an appearance here for any reasons, so I'm not sure why I was pinged as a DYK admin. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm all for hooks with double readings, but one of those readings must be supported by the article, and that's not true here. By what sense does clicking on the South will rise again lead to this article on the song "From Dixie with Love"? The South will rise again is apparently a substitute final line for "Battle Hymn of the Republic", which has nothing to do with "From Dixie with Love" except by the rambling story in article.

This is very similar to C of E's previous nominations of

... that Christ the Lord Is Risen Today?

last year (see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Christ_the_Lord_Is_Risen_Today) and

... that "Jesus Christ is Risen Today"?

five years ago (see Talk:Jesus_Christ_Is_Risen_Today), both of which led to trouble, as I recall, for similar reasons.

If the name of the subject song were "The South Will Rise Again" then I'd suggest

... that if you've heard "The South Will Rise Again" recently, it wasn't at Ol' Miss

which has the valued double meaning, and is supported by the article; it would even nicely highlight progress (of a kind) in racial sensitivities at U Mississippi. But "The South Will Rise Again" isn't the name of the song -- just a piece of a related story, as previously noted -- so it doesn't work.

I'd suggest, if you want to go forward with this nom,

ALT1 ~~... that the Ku Klux Klan was upset when "From Dixie with Love" was removed from the University of Mississippi band's playlist?~~

As an aside, we should perhaps consider topic-banning C of E from proposing hooks containing any form of the word rise. ;) E Eng 05:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with the alternative version (and perhaps with the TB idea, even if made in jest; at some point it needs to be clear that this kind of "get a rise out of people" will get a rise out of them in a "stop being a pain" way). PS: The markup should be "'''[[From Dixie with Love]]'''", with the quotes outside the bold. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Here at DYK we make hook fixes directly, with simply an explanatory edit summary. Fixed now. E Eng 06:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Clearly people miss the notion of editing in the controversial topic area that highlights something for future discussion and improvements. @BlueMoonset: rest assured, I did not write this for any POV pushing, I had just written it as it was a controversial topic which received high profile attention but was being underrepresented. We could alwayws tweak it @EEng: to say:

ALT2: The South will not rise again, From Dixie with Love?

That way it fits the AFD brief and affording the use of the format rules being changed on the day by making it appear as a letter but also includes the song as it's title. Or we could always do

ALT3: Dixie is not allowed to be from Dixie with Love?

The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

C of E, you're a solid longtime contributor to many articles, and your work is appreciated. I think, however, that you've gotten a little too focused on AFD (the April 1 version, not the articles-for-d version -- see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Did You Know). AFD hooks should give people a chuckle, or maybe a groan, when they click through to the article and see the double-entendre or whatever is going on; they shouldn't say, "Oh, um, yeah, I guess I see how X could be twisted to be Y if you really try". I don't even understand what your ALTs 2 and 3 are trying to say. E Eng 18:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Very well @EEng:, I guess I have been focusing too much on being the Clown-Prince of Wikipedia on AFD that I feel I guess I could be trying too much on it. I don't mind this running as a regular hook and I'm probably going to hold back (aside of one I'm thinking of currently). Let's start with a clean slate for a regular DYK: ALT4 ... that the University of Mississippi band was asked to stop playing "From Dixie with Love" because fans kept chanting "The South will rise again"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It's either Ole Miss or University of Mississippi, but Ole Miss University makes no sense. I'd suggest

ALT5 ... that the University of Mississippi band no longer plays a medley of "Dixie" and "Battle Hymn of the Republic" because football fans kept substituting "The South will rise again" for "His truth is marching on"?

E Eng 22:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I have made the amendment and am happy to go with my ALT4 @EEng:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

In all modesty I believe A5 (which I've modified somewhat above) is much better. The odiousness of "the South will rise again" is blunted if you omit that it's being used as a substitute line in "Battle Hymn of the Republic". E Eng 14:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No thank you, I'm going to use nominators privilege and say i'm happy with ALT4 because I feel you need to have the full title in there. It already is blunted by the fact it mentions that the song was banned because students kept doing it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "It is already blunted", but no matter. In any event I think a careful review of sources is needed to ensure fidelity. For example, ALT4 says "banned" but the article refers to a "request". E Eng 16:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: I have made the change. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@The C of E and EEng: This has been stuck for a few weeks now. Any updates? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, if CofE wants ALT4 they should strike all the others and call LlywelynII for a review. E Eng 11:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me @EEng:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you read to the end of my sentence? E Eng 11:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Now the middle of the sentence. E Eng 18:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

You two are cute. ALT4 is fine. Sorry it's less April Foolish. — LlywelynII 10:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I should have been clearer that I don't think AFD is a good venue for this at all. E Eng 14:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I withdrew this from AFD consideration. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)