Template:Did you know nominations/Maurice Curtis

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 Montanabw^(talk) 22:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Maurice Curtis

(

)

~~... that actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) was hugely successful portraying a Jewish salesman character but was indicted for the murder of a policeman?~~

ALT1:...~~that successful stage actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) was acquitted for the murder of a policeman?~~

Created by Rob at Houghton (talk). Self nominated at 19:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

Comment: Linking Maurice Curtis Edwardx (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

New enough (at <24 hours old), long enough (nearly double the 1500 character minimum), plenty of inline citations, no NPOV issues (even w/regard to alleged murder, obviously a very touchy subject), and no copyvios. As for the hook, while it is interesting and everything, it seems weird to graft together two unrelated facts like that (i.e. "he was a successful actor" and "he was indicted for murder"). Therefore, this nomination seems to me to be

tentative. Perhaps a new hook focusing only on the murder (maybe contrasting his original indictment with his later being found not guilty) would be better. Jinkinson talk to me 22:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. To say, on MP, that someone was indicted for murder, but not mention he was acquitted, is the kind of thing that makes the Foundation's attorney's wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night. And "contrasting" these two unrelated facts is just weird without some nexus. EEng (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any attorney has to worry about it, as you can't libel a dead man. Still, an alternative hook has been added. Let me know what you think. --Rob at Houghton (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest for --> of:

ALT2:...~~that successful stage actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) was acquitted of the murder of a policeman?~~

EEng (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. Perhaps you'll enjoy Widener Library. Maybe we could do the same for Houghton?

I'm happy with that hook. Also, not sure what you're asking regarding Widener. --Rob at Houghton (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I wrote almost the entirety of the Widener article -- Houghton has a somewhat less storied history but I thought together we could put some color into its article. On second thought

ALT2A:...~~that successful stage actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) was acquitted of a policeman's murder?~~

EEng (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

First hook is the best IMO, the "Jewish salesman character" angle is quite intriguing. Gatoclass (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned we can't be mentioning indictment without mentioning acquittal (especially for a BLP) but this would be OK -- I don't care otherwise:

ALT0A: ... that actor Maurice Curtis (pictured), who was hugely successful portraying a "Jewish salesman" character, was at one point acquitted of a policeman's murder?

EEng (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is wrong with "indicted" alone? This guy is hardly BLP, he's an historical character. And IMO it makes for a more intriguing hook. Gatoclass (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, was thinking of a different situation which was a BLP. Nonetheless, all other things being equal it's best in criminal matters to give the outcome when available. Personally I'd take 2A but if you think the indictment is more intriguing that's fine with me. EEng (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC) P.S. I remember now -- it was the "but" in the original hook that seemed so weird.

On reflection, I think ALT0A with "acquitted" works just as well and your point about outcomes is valid - it arguably looks a little coy to avoid it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I question the arbitrary link between playing a Jewish character and being accused of murder; it sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me. I think you should focus either on the role and its outcome or the accusation and its outcome rather than a mish-mash of the two.
ALT3: ~~... that successful stage actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) built the Peralta Park Hotel in Berkeley, California with revenues he earned from playing the role of a Jewish traveling salesman?~~
ALT4: ... ~~that successful stage actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) was acquitted of the murder of a policeman after four trials, two hung juries, and a procedural dismissal, though his reputation was ruined?~~ Yoninah (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I question the arbitrary link between playing a Jewish character and "revenue" and real estate ownership; it sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me. Crisco 1492, we've been through something like this before -- can you lend a hand here? EEng (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd stick with Yoninah's alts, preferably ALT4. ALT3 is acceptable to me as well, assuming that this character was his most popular (and thus the one that he got paid the most to play). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I like ALT4 best as well, but I thought you might have something to say about dragging in "anti-Semitism" at the drop of a hat. Do we have to have that kind of stuff thrown around all the time? EEng (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I can see how such could be interpreted from the hook, although that wouldn't be my first reading. I should note that, unlike that earlier issue at WT:DYK with the other editor, Yoninah is focusing on the hook rather than the individual who wrote the hook/comment (thus avoiding the WP:NPA issues). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops! I inadvertently made that Jewish-Shylock connection in ALT3. Striking ALT3. Yoninah (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Could I just suggest the replacement of the word "but" for "though" in ALT4? --Rob at Houghton (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, Rob. I made the tweak. Yoninah (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Yoninah:, you are not confusing the actor with the role in your "Shylock" comment are you? I couldn't see anything in the article to indicate that Curtis himself was Jewish, and assumed from the context he was not. With regard to the hook itself, I thought the mention of the "Jewish travelling salesman" character was useful because the article deals with anti-semitic attitudes of the period and the hook alerts readers with an interest in the phenomenon to that fact. Gatoclass (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The Shylock remark referred to the hook's not-so-subtle connection between Jews and making money. I also like the "Jewish traveling salesman" angle, but perhaps in this kind of hook:
ALT5: ... that 19th-century stage actor Maurice Curtis (pictured) said his hugely successful role as a Jewish traveling salesman was based on a real-life salesman who was "one of the most comical men that I ever met"? Yoninah (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. EEng (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@Gatoclass:, could you sign off on ALT5 please? Yoninah (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Note on image: This appears to be Curtis in costume as the traveling salesman. If so, should we put (pictured, in costume) after "salesman" in the hook? Yoninah (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The hook is already over 200 characters and really should be trimmed, so I don't think it's viable to add "in costume" unless other parts of the hook are trimmed. IMO it's pretty obvious he's in costume anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. But ALT5 is only 196 char (without "pictured"). If you really want to trim it, perhaps take out "19th-century". Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT6 ... that 19th-century actor Maurice Curtis said his hugely successful characterization (pictured) of a Jewish traveling salesman was based on "one of the most comical men that I ever met"?

(In the 19C all actors were stage actors -- no film.) EEng (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think "character" should be "characterization" in that hook. But, I'm sure there's a better hook in there somewhere, I'm just too tired to find it tonight. I will try again tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

With moderate effort we can drag this out another few weeks. EEng (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I think EEng's proposed alt (with a slight tweak) will do the job. ALT6 verified. Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)