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 SL93 (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
... that Augustine maintained that it is never permissible to lie, even to save a life? Source: Is it ever necessary to tell a lie—perhaps to save a human life, to bringabout someone’s eternal salvation, or to fulfill the role-specific duties ofone’s public office? The broad consensus among scholars is that Augus-tine’s consistent answer to this question is “No.” Regardless of the cir-cumstances, and contrary to occasional scholarly objections and minorityreports, Augustine’s position is that all lies are sins, and therefore oneshould never tell a lie. https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=cc_fac_pub
Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 06:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC).
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the hook wording. In particular the link might count as an Easter egg. The hook fact itself is fine, but the hook could probably be reworded a bit to make the article subject clearer. It might also be a good idea to either link to Augustine or add a description of him for the benefit of non-Christian readers. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
After thinking about it, I can't think of any way to accomodate the suggestions without making the hook substantially less hooky. Perhaps Narutolovehinata5 could provide a concrete suggestion if the issues are really deal-breaking (I don't think they are necessary). (t · c) buidhe 10:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps just reword the current hook in such a way that it mentions both Augustine and "Christian views of lying"? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 10:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Another option, of course, is to try different hook facts. The one about theologians disagreeing on what counts as a lie could be a start, for example. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 12:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Overall: This review is in respect of ALTs 1 and 2 (because one editor was unhappy with the link in ALT0). Both ALT1 and ALT2 are repeated and cited in the article. This article is an interesting read, so thank you for this. I am personally gratified to see that some of your quotations are from the King James version, but I digress. I can see no DYK problems with this article - the only holdup has been the wording of the hook - and I am satisfied that ALTs 2 and 3 are fine. Note: I have copyedited the article a little, to tidy up awkward language which was muddying the meaning of some sentences - but that copyedit does not affect the DYK process. Good to go. Storye book (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the hook wording. In particular the link might count as an Easter egg. The hook fact itself is fine, but the hook could probably be reworded a bit to make the article subject clearer. It might also be a good idea to either link to Augustine or add a description of him for the benefit of non-Christian readers. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This review is in respect of ALTs 1 and 2 (because one editor was unhappy with the link in ALT0). Both ALT1 and ALT2 are repeated and cited in the article. This article is an interesting read, so thank you for this. I am personally gratified to see that some of your quotations are from the King James version, but I digress. I can see no DYK problems with this article - the only holdup has been the wording of the hook - and I am satisfied that ALTs 2 and 3 are fine. Note: I have copyedited the article a little, to tidy up awkward language which was muddying the meaning of some sentences - but that copyedit does not affect the DYK process. Good to go. Storye book (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)