Template:Did you know nominations/Sun of Unclouded Righteousness

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 Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Sun of Unclouded Righteousness[edit]

(
)

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)
  • Sounds fine to me. HaEr48 (talk) 01:34, 20 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)
  • Comment Only dense people, I'm afraid, will be offended by the original hook, and there's little we can do about it since dense people get offended by most anything. The hook is not endorsing whatever Charles Wesley had to say of Muhammad, but reporting the facts as they are. Hooks should be as disinterested as possible without letting our biases/prejudices get in the way. Would environmentalists and Chinese people be offended by a hook that accurately reads, "Donald Trump tweeted in date so and so that 'the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese'"? Possibly. But to qualify the hook with "Trump tweeted ... thus revealing his ignorance" or something like that would be overdoing it. As it is in this case -- the idea of "reflecting its prejudices of its time" isn't even explicitly mentioned in the article! (Now, that y'all would care about too, right?) Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Quite right @Kingoflettuce:. I had made that hook as I felt it was the most hooky. It is objectively factual, it is what it says in the article with no POV to suggest Wesley was right or wrong and is sourced inline. I know from experience with these sort of controversial hooks, there is always an extra level of scrutiny that other hooks don't get so I had to make sure it was as close to the sources as I could. But of course there will always be a level of personal opinion that comes into it when it comes to promoting and moving. Hence why the original (Which hasn't had it's tick overridden so is still valid), I am reluctant to change as anything else veers into POV territory. Personally I would prefer to run the original hook that just adds 1758 at the start to clarify the context that this was something done 300 years ago and not necessarily reflective of today's views. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Again NOTCENSORED =/= license to casually feature racist crap on the front page, in this enthusiastic, "Hey did you know?!" format. We are not a newspaper so god forbid there would ever be something as NOTNEWS-y and trivial as a whole new article with at DYK nomination that featured yet another tweet full of bullshit from Trump. Its a bad analogy. btw the source cited for the hook says "In retrospect, and even in our modern context, Wesley’s characterization of Arabs as thieves and agents of Satan is unhelpful and does little to engender meaningful dialogue between Christians and Muslims. If anything, this hymn inspires fear rather than evangelistic concern and exposes our society’s persistently narrow view of this people group. This certainly is not a text that a Christian would want to share with a Muslim acquaintance (or share with anyone for that matter), and is thus a sore spot in an otherwise thoughtful collection. Even so, it begs the question of whether any suitable hymns exist that a Christian could use to encourage prayer for the salvation of Muslims and Middle Eastern people groups" That is summarized by "reflects the prejudice of its day". There are other ways to summarize that, but that is the gist of it. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @The C of E, Jytdog, Vanamonde93, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, and BlueMoonset: Can we please move forward with this nomination then? We already had discussions here and on WT:DYK. Can we have have some consensus now as to what hook to use here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've made a proposal above, and I stand by that proposal, as I see it as being informative about a sensitive issue without being unnecessarily inflammatory. I cannot compel the nominator, or anyone else, to accept it. Vanamonde (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Vanamonde93, The C of E, and Jytdog: Perhaps, as a compromise, another hook here that doesn't involve the Muhammad thing could be proposed? Like perhaps a hook on how the hymn is based on Malachi 4:2, or a hook about its challenging the Quran? Or perhaps a hook about this phrase: "it was later viewed as creating fear of Arabs and Muslims as marauding barbarians in the minds of Christians"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the last of your alternatives would work, but I don't see that we've really rejected my suggestion either; someone just needs to review it, just as with any other hook. Vanamonde (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Personally I think it might be for the best not to run the Muhammad hooks. Yes we know WP:NOTCENSORED, but given the above discussion, going forward with it already seems problematic and is holding back the nomination. I would have actually been fine with the hook; my issue is actually the "prejudices of the time" part since that's not explicit in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 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?
We'll need a new reviewer to check ALT3, and also to see if ALT3 or ALT2 (which is the nominator's preferred hook) would be suitable for promotiion. The more I read ALT2, the more I'm personally fine with it given the qualifiers, but as mentioned above, my issue with ALT2 is that "reflects the prejudices of its time" is not explicitly (and arguably not implicitly) mentioned in the article. As for ALT3, my issue with my own hook is that the word "barbarian" as used in the article is not mentioned in the source, so a different word may have to be substituted here if it is to be used. Courtesy ping *@The C of E, Jytdog, Vanamonde93, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, Piotrus, and Kingoflettuce: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with that and it appears to be supported by the source; that said, if the nominator doesn't like it, it's a non-starter. Vanamonde (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Do you have a different suggestion? Because the way I see it, ALT2 will remain problematic as long as the part about "reflecting prejudices of its time" is not reflected in the article. Perhaps the article needs to be edited here, or maybe ALT2 can be rephased to reflect what's in the article? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 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. @The C of E: Thoughts on ALT4? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 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)
@Jytdog: What about a word like "disused" or a synonym thereof? To reflect that it had fallen out of favor. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 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)
  • After giving this some though again, and based on the discussions here and on WT:DYK; considering the objections raised, I am striking ALT2 and approving ALT4 (which meets the interest and sourcing requirements). As much as I'm fine with ALT2, I'm not comfortable, even with the qualifiers, approving such a sensitive hook. In addition, The C of E's edit suggests that "prejudices of the time" refers to the comment of one person as opposed to the prevailing view of the time (although the latter is actually the case). In the interest of this moving forward, ALT4 is being approved so that this can be promoted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    • No, I'm sorry I'm going to have to veto that. I know this is a controversial topic and I have always said I have been prepared to compromise and accordingly I did so, even further than I had envisioned with ALT2 which I had accepted and the community appeared happy. I am not prepared to sacrifice the crux of the hook just to appease people's personal views. I must remind people of WP:NOTCENSORED means that we should treat all equal regardless of subject matter. I know that with controversial hooks, it attracts an extra intricate level of attention and scrutiny that other hooks don't get but I am not going to allow a hook muscled in that I am not happy with. ALT2 is the proposed hook that I am putting forward. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
      • "notcensored" is not relevant to the problems with ALT2. It is not a missionary hymn per se, and people felt "prejudices of its time" was not well supported enough. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: In any case, would changing "missionary hymn" to "Methodist hymn" make the hook more acceptable? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 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 @Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, and Jytdog: as they are the users who have objected to ALT2. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • My objection to ALT2 still stands. ALT3 seems quite hooky to me without slurring Muhammad. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 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)
@BlueMoonset: From context, I think Yoninah was referring to the ALT3 that I proposed. In any case, should I retick ALT4, or should we wait for comments from the other users who have commented? At this point, it appears that ALT4 seems to be an acceptable compromise hook and no real objection has been put forward against it other than the nominator's preference for ALT2. Courtesy ping to the original reviewers @Piotrus and HaEr48: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 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)
  • Okay, so based on the above discussion, what I'm going to do here is that I've unstruck ALT3. Which leaves us with ALT3 and ALT4. I'm going to post a message on WT:DYK for an uninvolved editor to choose the hook. This nomination has been going on for more than a month now and it would be for the best if an acceptable resolution can be found here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:31, 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)
  • I am not prepared to see this be failed after so long. I am going to admit when I have consensus against me (barring any other independent reviews from others such as @Khajidha:) so I will begrudgingly accept ALT4 if the original is denied, even though it complies with DYK policies and we are WP:NOTCENSORED (though sometimes I wonder if we truly are). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:52, 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"