Template:Did you know nominations/Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Illustration accompanying an early 19th-century publication of "Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark"

• ... that a theory dating the nursery rhyme Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark to the aftermath of the Norman conquest of England was described as "ingenious if somewhat addlepated"? Source: Grace Rhys, Cradle Songs and Nursery Rhymes, page xvii. "Perhaps the most absurd of them all is one ... containing an ingenious if somewhat addlepated theory invented by Mr. Bellenden Ker."
• ... that a theory dating the nursery rhyme Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark to the Old English language was described as "ingenious if somewhat addlepated"? Source: Grace Rhys, Cradle Songs and Nursery Rhymes, page xvii. "Perhaps the most absurd of them all is one ... containing an ingenious if somewhat addlepated theory invented by Mr. Bellenden Ker."
• ... that a theory claiming the lyrics of the nursery rhyme Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark are actually in the Old English language was described as "ingenious if somewhat addlepated"? Source: Grace Rhys, Cradle Songs and Nursery Rhymes, page xvii. "Perhaps the most absurd of them all is one ... containing an ingenious if somewhat addlepated theory invented by Mr. Bellenden Ker."

Improved to Good Article status by NewYorkActuary (talk). Self-nominated at 15:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC).

• This is a newly promoted good article and is long enough and nominated in time. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• I can't find any mention of the Norman conquests in the supplied source (Ker's book, cite 26). Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Clarification has now been provided in that reference. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• The hook is not verified by the source. The quote about being "ingenious if somewhat addlepated theory" refers to Ker's translation of rhymes into English in order to make sense of them. The source says nothing about the Norman conquest. Please provide another hook. Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• @NewYorkActuary: thanks for the alt hook. I added a paragraph break and would appreciate your specifying exactly which theory these people are belittling. Yoninah (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I've given it my best shot, but trying to describe both the theory and its reception in the same sentence is a tall order. For what it's worth, I think my first alternate hook is "hookier". NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that I misunderstood your statement here. It seems that you weren't looking for a new hook, but for edits to the underlying article. But your request for clarification (in the article) is puzzling, because the bulk of the original paragraph describes Ker's theory in some detail (and, indeed, uses the word "theory" in that description). I truly do not see what additional clarification is needed there. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Having taken another look at this, I think the above alts are not quite accurate enough, so I suggest the following:

• ALT3: ... that a theory claiming that the real meaning of English nursery rhymes such as Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark can be extracted only by translating them into Dutch was described as "ingenious if somewhat addlepated"? Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, Gatoclass that's accurate and cited inline. Rest of review per Cwmhiraeth. ALT3 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, ALT3 has two problems. The first is that it's 213 prose characters, and thus too long. The second is that the the translation is back into English of Dutch words that sound like the English in the nursery rhyme (since the 16th-century Dutch is supposed to be a close approximation of the modernized Old English). Gatoclass, Yoninah, I've tried to come up with a revised hook that better matches the article, but have only been able to get it down to 206 characters; if we are able to dispense with the word "claiming", then it's under 200, but one of you may be able to think of a way of condensing the hook further:

• ALT4: ... that a theory claiming that the true meaning of English nursery rhymes such as Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark can be found by translating sound-alike Dutch words was called "ingenious if somewhat addlepated"? —BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, BlueMoonset. I don't think you need "claiming" if it's a theory. How about:

• ALT4a: ... that a theory that English nursery rhymes such as Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark can be understood by translating sound-alike words into Dutch was called "ingenious if somewhat addlepated"? Yoninah (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yoninah, if you read the article, the translation is from the sound-alike Dutch words back into English, since the 16th-century Dutch was said to be the effective equivalent of Old English. The word "town" in the modern version of the rhyme is the equivalent of the sound-alike Dutch "touwe", which means "rope", so "rope" is supposed to have been the original meaning. So ALT4a doesn't convey the theory accurately. I've recast it as ALT4b, which is right at 200 characters, but I hope explains it accurately:

• ALT4b: ... that a theory that English nursery rhymes such as Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark can be understood by translating sound-alike Dutch words back into English was called "ingenious if somewhat addlepated"?

I suppose that "back" might not be necessary, but it might actually be clearer. —BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, BlueMoonset, ALT4b is consistent with the source and is cited inline. Leave "back"; the hook comes to exactly 200 char. Restoring tick for ALT4b. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)