Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Derrick Hudson
- 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 sstflyer 15:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Michael Derrick Hudson edit
- ... that the American poet Michael Derrick Hudson, a white man from Fort Wayne, Indiana, published a poem under the Chinese pseudonym "Yi-Fen Chou" and ignited a heated debate in the literary world?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Shefali Razdan Duggal
- Comment: article is a biography of a person who became involved in a recent poetry-community flub, 194 characters. several sources throughout article discuss the heated debate and pseudonym use.
Created by JackTheVicar (talk). Self-nominated at 22:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC).
New enough. Long enough. NPOV. Well-sourced. Dup detector spot-checking found no close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. Hook is good, but the final part "ignited a heated debate in the literary world" whilst very probably an accurate reflection, is not sourced and could amount to WP:SYNTHESIS. Edwardx (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Edwardx :: I would disagree that it runs afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR--it is a summary that any reasonable person/reader and several commentators have drawn after looking at the complex discussion in the media and poetry world in response to this tempest in a teapot. Several of the sources I have employed in this article discuss explicitly how debate erupted on "poetry twitter" and among scholars, reporters, and the varied communities of poetry people and poetry-interests (Asian American poets, academics, etc.). Synth involves reliably sourced statements that are combined to produce a thesis not verifiable in the sources. The sources here establish repeatedly a larger community-wide discourse. Summarizing the nature of that, is not synth, IMHO, since the cumulative materials in the citations establish it. Take a look at WP:SYNTHNOT with attention to Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary and Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH is not explanation. If you disagree, could you suggest an alternative phrasing? Would you suggest excising "heated" (even though I'd characterize some of the vitriol directed at Hudson as "heated"). JackTheVicar (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for not replying sooner, but I've been ill. I don't disagree with the "ignited a heated debate in the literary world" part - we can reasonably infer that. However, if as you say, "several commentators have drawn" that conclusion, then it ought to be possible to state "ignited a heated debate in the literary world" (or something similar) in the article itself, and to find a citation for the hook. That is my understanding of the DYK rules. Apologies if you think I'm being too pedantic! Edwardx (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Edwardx :: I can see it your way. I have added an introduction sentence to the last paragraph summarizing the eruption of media/literary world response to Hudson and Alexie's statements, under footnotes 15, 16, and 17 that should assuage your concerns that should support the statement in the proposed hook. Is that sufficient? Hope you're feeling better. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
