Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Quest
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Joe Quest
[edit]
... that multiple variations exist as to the basis upon which Joe Quest coined the sporting term "Charley horse"?
- Reviewed: Cyclone Bobby
5x expanded by Cbl62 (talk). Self nominated at 21:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC).
- Word origin yarns are notoriously unreliable. That Quest in fact originated the term, and how, needs a reliable modern source (and I mean realiable), or the hook has to make it very clear that these are old stories, unverified. Article needs to reflect this as well. EEng (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I thought that the existence of "multiple variations", as noted in the hook, sufficiently denoted the lack of precision in the phrase's origin, but I have added the word "reportedly" to the hook as well. There are six reliable sources in the article crediting Quest with originating the term as a sporting injury. The most recent of these is a 2011 book that includes three pages devoted to the etymology of the phrase. Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that multiple variations exist as to the basis upon which Joe Quest reportedly coined the sporting term "Charley horse"?
- What Dickson (2011) makes abundantly clear is that the various stories involving quest are just a few of many competing theories, and that nobody knows. Try
- ALT2 ... that stories involving Joe Quest (pictured) are among the many theories about the origin of the term "Charley horse"?
- The alt 1 hook above is perfectly acceptable. Indeed, that is the language I proposed in modifying the original hook. EEng then reverted my modification of the hook and added it as alt 1. That works fine. Alt 2 is unnecessarily watered down. In fact, one of the more recent reviews (source 14) notes that the origin stories unrelated to Quest "can be discounted because the term was in use before the protagonist came to be." One such version attributed the phrase to Charlie Esper, a pitcher who reportedly walked "like a lame horse." However, Esper did not begin playing until 1890, by which time the phrase had already been well established in common usage. Alt 1 sufficiently addresses the lack of absolute certainty. Cbl62 (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- I "reverted [your] modification [to the original hook] and added it here as ALT1" because, yes, after discussion of the hook was underway you modified it in place, making the discussion up to that point incomprehensible.
IMO ALT1 is not so fine. Aside from the hopeless awkwardness of "multiple variations exist as to the basis upon which Joe Quest reportedly coined", reportedly is appropriate only for notions that are unconfirmed without being seriously contradicted; here it's apparent that there're a lot of amusing theories in competition, and the Quest ones are just a subset of those, even if the strongest subset. EEng (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. As noted above, the non-Quest variations have been discredited because they arose long after the fact. And, in any event, the proposed hook does not assert as a factual certainty that Quest coined the phrase, simply that he is reported to have done so, which is 100% factual and accurate. I do believe that my alt 1 hook is entirely appropriate and that you are being a tad ridiculous on this one. We've expressed our views. How about letting someone else give it a look? Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- That most or all other explanations are clearly wrong doesn't make any of the Quest ones right. The two article sources with a claim to authoritativeness, [1] and [2] are clear that the Quest story is just a story, though one frequently repeated e.g. "Whether this story is true or not is uncertain". Again, reportedly should not be used where serious doubt exists. And yes, naturally it will be useful to hear what others think. EEng (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- The second source you cite is the one that discounts the credibility of the non-Quest origins. And, of course, there are multiple reliable sources crediting Quest with originating the term, including The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract here (probably the single most authoritative work on baseball history), The Sporting Life here (one of the two most authoritative sources on 19th century baseball), the Boston Globe quoted here, and the Los Angeles Herald here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Further, your assertion that the word "reportedly" means that something is substantially free from doubt is simply contrary to the established meaning of that word, as evinced in common dictionary definitions. See: here ("according to a report" or "supposedly"), here ("according to report or rumor") and here ("according to rumour or report"). Cbl62 (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, I didn't say reportedly means something is substantially free from doubt; I said it "should not be used where serious doubt exists", and I'll clarify here that I probably should have said it "should not be used without further qualification where serious doubt exists. That's my objection to ALT1 -- it makes it sound like there's a "report" which is perhaps unconfirmed, but which (the reader will mistakenly infer from the omission of anything to the contrary) is without serious contradiction. EEng (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- The hook doesn't make it "sound like" there's a report. There are "reports", many of them, and from reliable sources. That is what the word "reportedly" means in the English language. Further, the article details the other accounts. Accordingly, neither the hook nor the article is false, inaccurate, or misleading in the least. I appreciate your desire to keep DYK accurate, but you're quite off base on this one. Cbl62 (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- You keep mischaracterizing what I say by quoting selectively. I didn't say the hook makes it "sound like there's a report" -- period -- but that it "makes it sound like there's a report which is without serious contradiction". It's not a question of being false, rather of being misleading. It's OK for a hook to be coyly ambiguous, but not misleading, which is out of bounds. I won't be responding further until others comment. EEng (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- The hook doesn't make it "sound like" there's a report. There are "reports", many of them, and from reliable sources. That is what the word "reportedly" means in the English language. Further, the article details the other accounts. Accordingly, neither the hook nor the article is false, inaccurate, or misleading in the least. I appreciate your desire to keep DYK accurate, but you're quite off base on this one. Cbl62 (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, I didn't say reportedly means something is substantially free from doubt; I said it "should not be used where serious doubt exists", and I'll clarify here that I probably should have said it "should not be used without further qualification where serious doubt exists. That's my objection to ALT1 -- it makes it sound like there's a "report" which is perhaps unconfirmed, but which (the reader will mistakenly infer from the omission of anything to the contrary) is without serious contradiction. EEng (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- That most or all other explanations are clearly wrong doesn't make any of the Quest ones right. The two article sources with a claim to authoritativeness, [1] and [2] are clear that the Quest story is just a story, though one frequently repeated e.g. "Whether this story is true or not is uncertain". Again, reportedly should not be used where serious doubt exists. And yes, naturally it will be useful to hear what others think. EEng (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. As noted above, the non-Quest variations have been discredited because they arose long after the fact. And, in any event, the proposed hook does not assert as a factual certainty that Quest coined the phrase, simply that he is reported to have done so, which is 100% factual and accurate. I do believe that my alt 1 hook is entirely appropriate and that you are being a tad ridiculous on this one. We've expressed our views. How about letting someone else give it a look? Cbl62 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- I "reverted [your] modification [to the original hook] and added it here as ALT1" because, yes, after discussion of the hook was underway you modified it in place, making the discussion up to that point incomprehensible.
Full review needed. Cbl62 (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Expanded enough (and once upon a time recently enough); neutral; QPQ done; no copyvio or any of that associated stuff; citations where citations should be. Now, I'm going to upset Cbl62 by coming down in favour of ALT2, not because ALT1 is less accurate but because the phrasing is a bit cumbersome ([ducks pitch from Cbl62] Hey, that nearly hit me in the face! [ducks another pitch from Cbl62] Oh, I see.). There's no picture in the nomination, but you have a great moustache with decorative border in the infobox; if you wanted to add that to the nomination it would still qualify (I'm pre-approving it; no background checks, medicals or guarantees necessary; apply today and we'll send you this attractive alarm clock with a $79.99 value, absolutely free!). Ready to go with ALT2. Belle (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Belle. I added the image. My only other request/suggestion is to delink Charley horse, as it will like draw most of the click-through and divert people from Mr. Quest. No "brushback" coming your way, I promise. Cbl62 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Repeating Belle's tick for ALT2. EEng (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)