The following is an archived discussion of Thomas Fitch, V's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Thomas Fitch, V edit
- ... that Thomas Fitch, V is widely believed to be the original Yankee Doodle Dandy?
Created by Gregbard (talk). Self nominated at 17:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC).
Newly created article which is long enough and new enough. The hook fact is well sourced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The phrasing used by this article is too close to that of its sources. For example, the paragraph beginning "Captain Thomas Fitch had assembled..." is nearly identical to this source. Furthermore, that source is not a reliable one. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you take a close look at the image of the grave marker, you will notice that the text is from the grave marker itself. So that is actually a very reliable source for the claim that --this is the claim being put forward (i.e. that this person is the inspiration for "Yankee Doodle"). That is all that the hook is claiming -- that this person is widely believed to be the inspiration, whether or not he is in fact. As far as the copy and paste claim is concerned, I was pretty careful not to make a verbatim copy, while preserving the facts. If this will not suffice for the DYK, I have no great emotional stake in that. I will understand. I will look into the language to see if I can work it out a little more. Greg Bard (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Greg Bard, your unwillingness to fix the article's intro is a continuing problem, instead retaining claims that are not supported in the body of the article—nowhere there does it say "contemporary scholars place its origins much earlier", nor is that fact sourced where your edit summaries say it is. I've read the Norwalk article since you pointed us at it, and while it says the Fitch claim is dubious, it doesn't state that the song originated "much earlier". Finally, WP:LEADCITE (a section of the MOS:LEAD that you've been using as justification for not citing there) says the following: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." You have two experienced editors telling you that the statement needs to be sourced, and that it has no equivalent in the body of the article that can be sourced in its stead. You could add it to the article body and source it there if you're against citations in the intro (I'm not much fond of them myself), but the status quo is not acceptable. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- just leaving this here...lying around PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Interesting enough, the newly added source adds a new problem, as the sentence it is supposed to be referencing is now too identical to its source. Article: "Although the song may have been applied to Fitch and his men, ..." vs reference "While the song may have been applied to Fitch and his men..." —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 14:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I reworded it. Greg Bard (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Let's get a new, neutral reviewer to state that it's perfectly fine then.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I've started another review but before I get into the close paraphrasing concerns, Do we have an idea of the correct spelling of Richard Shuckburg/h? The article links to Richard Shuckburgh (as does the Yankee Doodle article) but the article also includes the alternate Shuckburg as does the Find a Grave source (currently FN#2) but the New York Times article (FN#6) uses a third spelling of Richard Shuckbrugh with the "r" and "u" switched. What spelling does the offline The Birth of Yankee Doodle book use? I can understand if there is confusion over the name among the various sources but at the very least this article should choose a consistent spelling and probably should add a footnote ref containing that spelling at the first occurrence of the doctor's name. AgneCheese/Wine 04:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I reworded it. Greg Bard (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just comparing Google results is very close, with "Shuckburgh" having the edge. There also seems to be more credible sources for "Shuckburgh." This is also consistent with the existing Wikipedia article, Yankee Doodle.Greg Bard (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate your response. I cleaned up the close paraphrasing issues in the text and I feel the article is close to approval. However with the article's own sources (including the Connecticut State Library) and text claiming that the idea of Fitch being Yankee Doodle is in dispute, I don't think the original hook stating that he is "widely believed" is the best angle. I have an Alt1 below that I think neutrally reflects the article and if there is no issues with this then I'll give the approval tick for the article. AgneCheese/Wine 06:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just comparing Google results is very close, with "Shuckburgh" having the edge. There also seems to be more credible sources for "Shuckburgh." This is also consistent with the existing Wikipedia article, Yankee Doodle.Greg Bard (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that while some sources believe that Thomas Fitch, V inspired the original Yankee Doodle Dandy in 1755, other sources think the song was written at least 12 years earlier?
- I have no major objection to the alternative hook. Although, I don't think the interesting issue is that some sources disagree. I think the major issue is that it is a widely believed claim, and probably false. Greg Bard (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- for ALT1 for now. I agree that the fact that the Fitch claim is likely false is very interesting though the original hook didn't go with that angle. But if you want to propose a second Alt making the "likely false" part more prominent than I'll gladly review it. AgneCheese/Wine 16:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have no major objection to the alternative hook. Although, I don't think the interesting issue is that some sources disagree. I think the major issue is that it is a widely believed claim, and probably false. Greg Bard (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)