Template:Did you know nominations/Premarital sex, Muria people

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Premarital sex, Muria people[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)
  • Comment: Premarital sex is expanded, Muria people is new

Created by Crisco 1492 (talk). Self nom at 14:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Reviewed: Babanin, Free-to-play
  • Muria people article is new (created on August 19). On the same date the article about Premarital sexual relationship is expanded fivefold. The hook is properly sourced, though the source says three nights, not days. The articles are long enough, 3.688 characters for Muria people and 4.840 characters for Premarital sex. The articles have enough proper inline citations. The hook fact is not clearly stated in the article ("who sleep together" is not the same as "being in a premarital sexual relationship"). Both articles are stable, no dispute templates or recent edit wars. I have not noticed any close paraphrasing and plagiarism. On the contrary, I think that author explained the topic in modern neutral language which is understandable to potential readers which are unfamiliar with this people and their country. The format of the hook is good. Author did review the nominations of Babanin and Free-to-play. The hook is very hooky. Is it possible to add image to it (maybe this one)? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • What a thorough review! Very nice. Regarding the individual points:
First and second points: how about ALT1 ... that the Muria (Muria woman pictured) sometimes punish their children for sleeping with the same partner with the same partner for more than three nights?
Image:I prefer File:Inde muria 0506.jpg since it looks better at 100px.
Any thoughts? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for remark about thorough review and for writing such interesting article.
What do you think about keeping the same hook and changing the text of the article from "who sleep together" to "who have sex" (I think that source is quite clear that it is not sleeping).
Regarding the image, I also preferred the same image like you, but I am afraid that there might be a problem with some policy about recognizable people's faces on images uploaded to wikipedia?
  • Fixed the original, I will ask about the personality rights at WT:DYK Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd say since the image isn't mandatory, don't use one if you even think there might be a problem. We aren't short of hooks with images. Yomanganitalk 16:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Aside from the question of the photo, I think the hook is poorly-worded. Consider ALT2 ... that although the Muria encourage premarital sex, some communities punish children who take the same sexual partner for more than three nights? cmadler (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Succinct. I like ALT2. Image is nice, but we should probably avoid any problems so I am removing it from consideration. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
No. Not all Muria encourage premarital sex. There are three provinces with Murias in India, and only Murias who live in two of them tolerate or encourage premarital sex. I think that original Alt 1 (with nights instead of the days and sex instead of sleeping) is a perfect compromise. Crisco 1492 probably forgot to change sleeping with the previous version ("being in a premarital sexual relationship"). Although we are not short of hooks with images it would be a pity not to have image associated with such interesting hook. The image I proposed, without recognizable faces, could do fine. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I seem to remember the author not considering those without the ghotul true Muria. How about ALT3: ... that in Muria mixed-sex dormitories, youths are expected to engage in premarital sex? Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the original Alt more. The Murias who live in the province without ghotuls could also live in mixed sex dormitories and not being expected to engage in premarital sex. Yes, there was a person who did not consider them true Muria, but they do consider themselves a true Murias, and their feelings could be hurt with such hook. The slightly corrected original Alt1 is neutral because it says "Muria sometimes". Not all of them and not all the time. And most hooky of all.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
To be honest I prefer the modified original. This could work: "ALT4 ... that although the Muria generally encourage premarital sex, some communities punish children who take the same sexual partner for more than three nights?
How's this? Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Not all communities are punishing children but by the fellow children or the ghotul managers. Also, there was a view that premarital sex sometimes is not encouraged but tolerated. I still believe we should avoid generalisation and leave more neutral original slightly corrected version, but if you still believe Alt4 is better I am not against it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Premarital_sex,_Muria_people&oldid=829247643"