Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Needham (librarian)
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 21:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Paul Needham (librarian)
- ... that librarian Paul Needham has been called "the most vociferous voice from within the rare book world" for the destruction of book bindings made of human skin? Source: Rosenbloom, Megan. "The First Printing". Dark Archives: A Librarian's Investigation into the Science and History of Books Bound in Human Skin. New York, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. 27–28. ISBN 978-0-374-13470-9.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/History of philosophy
- Comment: There might also be something doable about finding the Christopher Columbus letter -- a couple good candidates here.
Moved to mainspace by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 11:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Paul Needham (librarian); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Eligibility is good, hook is interesting but must be reworded. Maybe: ...that librarian Paul Needham is one of the most prominent voices in the rare book world in favor of destroying books bound in human skin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isthistwisted (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Full review needed (has been listed on 'old nominations' for several weeks). Vaticidalprophet 02:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- I will review this, because I understand that the earlier review has been abandoned (or not Isthistwisted?)
- The article is a fresh GA and thus eligible.
- The article clearly has over 1500 characters of readable prose.
- The article is sourced. I did spot checks on a few sources and they checked out.
- The article is written in a neutral and non-promotional tone.
- Earwig did pick up some similar phrasing, but after review I found them harmless.
- Hook
- The hook has the right length and is interesting.
- I added the necessary inline citation directly after the hook.
- One concern: The hook could be read in a way that suggests that Needham instigated the specific binding's destruction. The source, however, only suggests that he called (unsuccessfully) for the binding's destruction (or its burial). I would thus suggest a rephrasing of the hook that makes this clear. Furthermore, I would suggest using a more neutral term then "destruction" - something like "calling for the rebinding" or so. I will, however, not make my approval depended on this, because the (quality) source speaks itself of the binding's destruction.
- QPQ done
- Conclusion: Thank you very much for creating free knowledge, Vaticidalprophet! I will approve this nomination if the issue with the hook is dealt with.
WatkynBassett (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! How do you feel about 'supporting the destruction', like so?
- ... that librarian Paul Needham has been called "the most vociferous voice from within the rare book world" for supporting the destruction of book bindings made of human skin?
- (a little clunky, but probably most accurate?) Vaticidalprophet 11:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! I would approve this – but still struggle a bit with "destruction". Would you also be fine with:
- "... that librarian Paul Needham has been called "the most vociferous voice from within the rare book world" for supporting the rebinding of books made of human skin?"
- If not I will approve your version. WatkynBassett (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- (sorry forgot to ping) Vaticidalprophet WatkynBassett (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- hmm. The delay in reply is because I'm not sure here. I can see the case for either -- I'm not sure 'rebinding' is meaningful to a broad audience, but I understand the query of 'destroying'. It might be best to leave the decision between the two to prepbuilder judgement. Vaticidalprophet 17:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- That is a very thoughtful idea! Approving - the choice between "destruction" (ALT1) and "rebinding" (ALT2) is explicitly left to the promoter:
- ALT1: "... that librarian Paul Needham has been called "the most vociferous voice from within the rare book world" for supporting the destruction of book bindings made of human skin?"
- ALT2: "... that librarian Paul Needham has been called "the most vociferous voice from within the rare book world" for supporting the rebinding of books made of human skin?"
WatkynBassett (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! How do you feel about 'supporting the destruction', like so?
- I will review this, because I understand that the earlier review has been abandoned (or not Isthistwisted?)
- Unpromoted per WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS RoySmith (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: As the person who approved the hook I would be happy, if I could be pinged in the future on WT:DYK. In addition, I struggle a bit to see why the promoted hook was removed: It is clearly established that Needham has been called the "most vociferous voice from within the rare book world". The source says "for the bindings destruction" – to find a more neutral term then "destruction" I suggested "rebinding" because Needham himself does not see his proposal as a "destruction", but as a call for a proper burial (see e.g. here: NYRB) and the hook outside the quotation marks is written in wiki-voice. In my mind the possibility that someone would read this hook and come to the conclusion that the whole book (and not only its binding) is made out of human remains is quite remote – furthermore it seems a bit clunky to write "for supporting the rebinding of book bindings made of human skin." But as I understand the rules I cannot intervene any longer as the original reviewer – right? WatkynBassett (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- WatkynBassett, the issue was that the "most vociferous voice from within the rare book world" in the source relates to one specific book; it says nothing about Anthropodermic bibliopegy in general. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: If the usage of plural is the issue, because the cited source speaks about one book in particular, would "... for supporting the rebinding of a book made of human skin?" thus using the singular alleviate your concern? WatkynBassett (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- WatkynBassett, the issue was that the "most vociferous voice from within the rare book world" in the source relates to one specific book; it says nothing about Anthropodermic bibliopegy in general. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: As the person who approved the hook I would be happy, if I could be pinged in the future on WT:DYK. In addition, I struggle a bit to see why the promoted hook was removed: It is clearly established that Needham has been called the "most vociferous voice from within the rare book world". The source says "for the bindings destruction" – to find a more neutral term then "destruction" I suggested "rebinding" because Needham himself does not see his proposal as a "destruction", but as a call for a proper burial (see e.g. here: NYRB) and the hook outside the quotation marks is written in wiki-voice. In my mind the possibility that someone would read this hook and come to the conclusion that the whole book (and not only its binding) is made out of human remains is quite remote – furthermore it seems a bit clunky to write "for supporting the rebinding of book bindings made of human skin." But as I understand the rules I cannot intervene any longer as the original reviewer – right? WatkynBassett (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
From WT:DYK, this was my suggested alternate hook:
- ALT3: ... that the librarian Paul Needham has argued for the "respectful burial of the human remains" included in a book bound in human skin?
Not sure if this solves the problem (I am not sure I understand what the problem is). —Kusma (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Reviewer needed (again) to assess this hook, I think. Vaticidalprophet 14:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- Stagnant for over a week so I'll take this on. Comments/approval to come! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- Happy to approve ALT3! No other issues with the article itself and it appears it passed review multiple times with the exception of the hook anyway, so this should be good to go. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 13:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)