Template:Did you know nominations/Parents' Day (novel)
- 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 Cielquiparle (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Parents' Day (novel)
- ... that Parents' Day is an autobiographical fiction where Paul Goodman explores and exaggerates his experience teaching at Manumit School until his firing for his homosexual activity? Source: Horowitz, Steve (1986). "Rev. of Parents' Day". Iowa Journal of Literary Studies. 7 (1): 167–168. doi:10.17077/0743-2747.1209. ISSN 0743-2747. Page 167
Improved to Good Article status by Czar (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 01:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC).
article is very interesting, long enough, new enough, and generally appropriately referenced. QPQ is fine. Reliable sources are used properly throughout the article, and the hook is cited and mentioned in the article. Can't seem to notice any significant copyvio, so good to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taung Tan (talk • contribs) 09:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe I should pick my battles, but out of principle I oppose any hook about any pederastic literature that discusses its influences, history, or reception, without clearly identifying that the subject is pederastic. Aside from that, I think another interesting fact was that most copies of the first printing were destroyed or unsold. Urve (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I understand your position but it's simultaneously true that the sources in the article identify the book primarily as a "gay novel", as the hook puts it, and not a "pederastic novel". I've suggested alternative hooks below, if you have a preference, but I don't think the original hook is afoul of the DYK criteria and I'd want to err towards a less lascivious hook. czar 05:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe I should pick my battles, but out of principle I oppose any hook about any pederastic literature that discusses its influences, history, or reception, without clearly identifying that the subject is pederastic. Aside from that, I think another interesting fact was that most copies of the first printing were destroyed or unsold. Urve (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Czar, Onegreatjoke, and Taung Tan: Please see the concern raised by Urve above. Could you please address their concern and modify the hook, and/or respond? Thank you. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that Parents' Day began as Paul Goodman's autobiographical Reichian self-psychoanalysis? Source: Stoehr, Taylor (1994). Here Now Next: Paul Goodman and the Origins of Gestalt Therapy. Jossey-Bass. pp. 34–35. ISBN 978-0-7879-0005-2.
- ALT2: ... that Parents' Day, written during a time when gay literature was scarce, told an autobiographical fiction about a teacher's sexual attraction to his student? Sources: Mader, Donald (2002). "Walter H. Breen (J. Z. Eglinton)". In Bullough, Vern L. (ed.). Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context. New York: Harrington Park Press. p. 316. ISBN 978-1-56023-192-9. Gunn, Drewey Wayne (2016). "Paul Goodman: Parents' Day, 1951; Making Do, 1963". Gay American Novels, 1870–1970: A Reader's Guide. McFarland. pp. 79–80. ISBN 978-1-4766-2522-5.
- ALT3: ... that before Paul Goodman became known for his views on education, he wrote an autobiographical novel about a teacher's sexual relationship with his student? Source: Horowitz, Steve (1986). "Rev. of Parents' Day". Iowa Journal of Literary Studies. 7 (1): 167–168. doi:10.17077/0743-2747.1209. ISSN 0743-2747.
@Taung Tan, Urve, and Onegreatjoke czar 05:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Any of these are fine with me. My initial objection was about taste and reader expectation, not Da Rules. Leaving it at "homosexual activity" is what the book and sources do, but as a reader, I would not expect this to involve child attraction. Leaving that unsaid can conflate "homosexual activity" and child predation -- "homosexual activity" is so vague -- and while we can't say it another way because sources don't, it makes me uncomfortable for a reader to possibly leave thinking that. I support ALT1, for instance, which doesn't even mention child predation or attraction, because it doesn't have an overarching explanation for the novel's trajectory. For what it's worth, I don't think the actual words pederasty, child predation, child attraction, etc., are necessary - "relationship with his student" in ALT3 is fine with me because that alone is sufficient context. This isn't on my watchlist and I don't need to be updated. If we go with ALT0 unaltered, that's fine - it conforms to Da Rules and my opinion has been noted. Urve (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Either ALT1 or ALT3 is fine with me. more interesting than before. Taung Tan (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)