- 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 PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sacred Sperm
edit- ... that the 2014 documentary film Sacred Sperm explores the taboo of masturbation in Judaism?
- ALT1:... that permission was granted to produce Sacred Sperm, despite the premise being prohibited on religious grounds?
- ALT2:
... that an episode of American sitcom Seinfeld influenced Sacred Sperm? - Reviewed: Maximilian Kolbe, 2015 Football League Cup Final and Super Bowl XLIX halftime show
Created by Fuebaey (talk). Self nominated at 16:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC).
- ALT3:
... that permission was granted to produce Sacred Sperm?
- ALT3:
(if you get my drift...) EEng (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Article is new (10 Feb) and just long enough in terms of the character count. More detail of the synopsis would be good, as would an explanation of the reaction (popular and from within the Haredi community). The three proposed hooks are all cited in the text, but I personally like ALT 1 as I find it the most intellectually interesting. Also, though it doesn't affect this nomination, the article is an orphan - I'd like to see inbound links from articles about the subjects it discusses. Wittylama 17:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I haven't actually seen the film so I'm not sure what else I can add to the synopsis. I've added a short section about the reception, which could be expanded if there were more sources to draw from - the only substantial ones in English are from Haaretz and the Associated Press release. There probably are more Hebrew references out there but, as a non-speaker, I wouldn't be confident enough to accurately use those. As for the orphan tag, someone could create and link the article from 2014 in Israeli film. Subject linkwise, I don't think there's a specifically relevant article to add this to. Fuebaey (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The content is rather skimpy and the premise that masturbation is forbidden "in Haredi Judaism" is inaccurate; I added a note to the talk page. The fact that it is an orphan, and has been tagged as such, should be resolved before this goes to the main page. Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Would you mind elaborating on "skimpy"? I don't mind constructive feedback but it'd be more helpful if you could point to a specific problem. On your second point, I have no reason to doubt your assertion but unfortunately, WP:V works both ways - if you're going to challenge a fact based on a somewhat reliable source, you'll have to present another source to go up against it. Lastly, I don't see any reason to doubt Wittylama's final comment since, as per the last discussion on WT:DYK and the supplementary guidelines (D6), a yellow orphan tag is neither a orange/red maintenance tag nor a dispute one. Fuebaey (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I take back my original opposition; I've linked it to an article from a wikilink you've provided (didn't realise we had an article on it). Thank you for expanding that section - feel free to add yourself to the nom if you would like credit (some editors don't like being associated with the subject/project). Fuebaey (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- By "skimpy", I mean that the article is top-heavy with Background and Synopsis, and almost nothing about the film or its controversial nature. I removed a line that made it sound like Haredim were watching the film; this is the filmmaker's own contention. And while you have some national English-language sources, the only Israeli one is Haaretz, which is leftist and anti-Haredi. I understand that you are unable to access Hebrew-language sources, but that seems to be the direction you need to take to round out the article and provide balance. Yoninah (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I haven't actually seen the film so I'm not sure what else I can add to the synopsis. I've added a short section about the reception, which could be expanded if there were more sources to draw from - the only substantial ones in English are from Haaretz and the Associated Press release. There probably are more Hebrew references out there but, as a non-speaker, I wouldn't be confident enough to accurately use those. As for the orphan tag, someone could create and link the article from 2014 in Israeli film. Subject linkwise, I don't think there's a specifically relevant article to add this to. Fuebaey (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with all of the improvement suggestions that haven even made, I think they belong on the talkpage of then article rather than here - this is a DYK nomination after all, not a GA nomination. The level of comprehensiveness required for a DYK is low and the criteria for DYK shy away from qualitative aspects (aside from footnoting the hook's claim). Wittylama 11:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Wittylama, while the level of comprehensiveness may be lower, DYK nominations are still supposed to adhere to a number of Wikipedia standard policies, including neutrality in both hook and article. If an article is badly unbalanced, then it fails neutrality and this needs to be fixed. In addition, the criteria are not as quality-free as you seem to think: don't forget WP:DYKSG#D7 and WP:DYKSG#D13, which may or may not apply here—Yoninah's point about top-heaviness would seem to fit under D7's "deal adequately with the topic", and perhaps generally under D13. DYK is more than a minimum length, newness, and sourcing the hook. There's also neutrality, close paraphrasing, general sourcing, and so on. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: thank you for always stating what I try to say, in a much clearer manner. I have made some efforts to restore NPOV to the article, by sourcing the prohibition against masturbation to a legitimate classical source and by deleting an assertion of acceptance by the Haredi community put forth by an anti-Haredi newspaper. I have also added a few production notes from Hebrew sources. I am unable to do a serious search for controversy in Hebrew however, as my Hebrew language skills are not up to it. Knowing the Haredi press, I'm sure the film wasn't even discussed. I think the three sections of the article – Background, Synopsis, and Reception – are more equal now, albeit brief. It appears to be a very basic start-class article now. Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- In that case, Wittylama, if you could check the expanded article to make sure the new material meets the DYK criteria (not that I doubt Yoninah, but everyone's additions should always be checked), and give a new approval if so, then we can conclude this nomination. Thanks to you and Yoninah for your perseverence. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, this slipped off my radar. Yes, I confirm my support for the article being a DYK. The improved "background" section is very helpful for contextualisation and also now provides the only mainspace backlink to this article - from Judaism and masturbation. We also have a more neutral tone and more Hebrew sources. I reiterate my desire to see some expansion of the "reception" section to include how the Haredi community itself (or even the wider jewish community) responded to the film. Wittylama 09:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wittylama, "a new approval" requires a new DYKtick if other icons have supervened; If you could dot that "i" (or "t" that tick) below here, that would be appreciated, unless you feel that the Reception expansion prevents you from doing so. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)