Template:Did you know nominations/Urania's Mirror
- The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 14:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Urania's Mirror[edit]
- ... that the mystery of who came up with the idea behind Urania's Mirror (Plate 7 pictured) took over a hundred and seventy years to solve?
- ALT1:... that if you try to light up the stars using Urania's Mirror and a candle, you could well get burned?
- ALT2:... that the author of Urania's Mirror disguised himself as a lady, perhaps to hide his plagiarism of A Celestial Atlas?
- ALT3: ... that the author of Urania's Mirror (extract pictured) pretended to be a lady, perhaps to hide his plagiarism of A Celestial Atlas?
- Reviewed: Knife attack on Kevin Lau
- Comment: These might actually be good April Fools Day DYK (ALT1 is from the description section, where Ridpath speculates about the cards getting set on fire; Alt2 near the end of "Mystery of the designer"). Also, I'm not too worried about the image. (In fact, there's probably sillier ones for April Fool's)
Moved to mainspace by Adam Cuerden (talk). Self nominated at 03:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC).
Superb article, long enough, new enough, well cited throughout. image is in public domain. I like the hook with "plagiarism of A Celestial Atlas" best, but by saying "disguise himself as a lady" we get an image of a physical disguise which is wrong. Could we perhaps say "call himself a lady"? If using the image it will need to be mentioned. Moonraker (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- You are right. "pretended to be a lady" is more accurate, and I've added a new alt 3. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
With the revised Alt3, this is ready to go. I have taken the liberty of changing "sample pictured" to "extract pictured". The better word might be "plate", even if the original image is smaller than that suggests? Moonraker (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it's labelled as "Pl[ate]. 7" in the upper right, so whatever the person promoting it feels like, I'd say. All are accurate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Per the rules, "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness." - ALT2 and ALT3 don't look like established facts to me. C679 15:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Journal of the British Astronomical Association is the source proving he pretended to be a lady. It's conclusively established with reference to the Royal Astronomical Society archives. And that's been accepted for 20 years. The claim that he plagiarised is also in there. [1] connects the two, which is of a notable astromical writer, Ian Ridpath, mainly an online version of one of his books. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- So he may have pretended, that is the established fact? C679 15:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, he definitely, beyond a doubt both pretended and plagiarised. Did you look at the sources? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well that is not reflected by hooks ALT2 and ALT3. Striking those hooks. C679 16:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea how you can possibly say that isn't in the source. The connection is directly made in the second source, "....authorship was coyly attributed to “a lady”. Peter Hingley, librarian of the Royal Astronomical Society in London, has established that the true author was almost certainly the Reverend Richard Rouse Bloxam of Rugby. There seems little doubt that Urania’s Mirror was directly inspired by Alexander Jamieson’s Celestial Atlas published in London three years earlier. [...] Perhaps the real reason the author chose to remain nameless was to avoid accusations of plagiarism.", which connects the two established facts. I would ask that, if you wish to make statements about something not being sourced, you read the sources,because that is a full establishment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- You told me yourself in the previous comment that the sources say something different than the hook. Now it's the same. I'm just interested that the hook refers to an established fact, as mentioned in my original post here. C679 16:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't say that. You said they didn't, I said that, no, they do say that. The "may have" is in reference to the fact that the reasons he pretended to be a lady is speculative, but he both pretended to be a lady in print and adverts, and plagiarised. If you feel this needs clarified, fine, but you seem to be objecting to the truthfulness, not a matter of phrasing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- In any case, in case the wording is what you object to, I've tweaked it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't say that. You said they didn't, I said that, no, they do say that. The "may have" is in reference to the fact that the reasons he pretended to be a lady is speculative, but he both pretended to be a lady in print and adverts, and plagiarised. If you feel this needs clarified, fine, but you seem to be objecting to the truthfulness, not a matter of phrasing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well that is not reflected by hooks ALT2 and ALT3. Striking those hooks. C679 16:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, he definitely, beyond a doubt both pretended and plagiarised. Did you look at the sources? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- So he may have pretended, that is the established fact? C679 15:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. It still feels like two "facts" connected by a perhaps. Wouldn't it be more accurate to use "half" of the proposed hook, something like simply "plagiarised A Celestial Atlas" - which appears to be a bold enough statement? C679 16:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it's a perhaps that's explicitly used by a reliable source. Since the whole point is to provide interesting facts. If you just say a work few have heard of was plagiarised from something they haven't heard of, that seems a bit dull. The original hook is far better than that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I kind of presumed ALT2 and ALT3 would be April Fools hooks. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it's a perhaps that's explicitly used by a reliable source. Since the whole point is to provide interesting facts. If you just say a work few have heard of was plagiarised from something they haven't heard of, that seems a bit dull. The original hook is far better than that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- The original hook reads "... that the mystery of who came up with the idea behind Urania's Mirror (Plate 7 pictured) took over a hundred and seventy years to solve?", and I should say that is well cited in P. D. Hingley's "Urania's Mirror — A 170-year old mystery solved?" (1994). To me, it does not have quite the interest of Alt3, but if others prefer it then so be it. On yesterday's discussion of Alt3, a possibility is of course not the same as a fact, but what purpose does it serve to exclude all propositions stated in reliable sources? The world is uncertain, and today's fact is tomorrow's exploded myth. A purposive construction of the policy would surely allow us to refer to a possible connection between two established facts, rather than a certain connection between them, so long as it is a connection established in a reliable source? Moonraker (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)