Template:Did you know nominations/hen (pronoun)

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

hen (pronoun) edit

(

)

... that hen is a recently invented Swedish gender-neutral pronoun?

Created/expanded by Peter Isotalo (talk). Self nominated at 13:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

Long enough, newly moved to mainspace. No copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing detected. Neutral. Citations plastered all over the article like they were having a sale at the citation shop (this is a good thing, I'm not criticising). Hook is fine (though it would be lovely to have something with "him/her" in it, I can't think of anything) No image even though there are many available (pathetic joke). QPQ needs doing? (Tell me if not, and I'll give it a tick). On a related note, I do like the self-referential plot summary in Kivi och Monsterhund. Belle (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it fair to say "recently invented" in the hook? The phrase is piped to neologism which I think is an accurate descriptor - but I'm not sure it's considered a recent invention since the word was first proposed ("invented") in 1966, despite only recently coming into more popular use. (Although I suppose that depends on whether one considers 1966 to be recent...) 97198 (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem (I have spoken; kneel down and wonder). Belle (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

For a pronoun, 50 years would be very recent. And while there were suggestions back in the 60s and 90s, they hardly mattered since no one really took note. It's actually unclear whether current usage was directly inspired by the previous suggestions or invented independently. In Swedish, hen fits very well alongside hon/han both in spoken and written language, unlike the rather bizarre-looking Spivak pronouns.

@Belle:, not your run-of-the-mill synopsis there. :-) I'll see if I can come up with a snazzier hook.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a very cool article! Perhaps the hook could incorporate some of the controversies. Montanabw^(talk) 02:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC) I'd like to propose:

ALT1 ... that use of hen, the Swedish gender-neutral pronoun was banned by Dagens Nyheter ?

@Montanabw:, I was thinking about something like that, but couldn't figure out what to focus on, so thanks for the suggestion. Tweaked alternative below.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that use of the Swedish gender-neutral pronoun hen was banned in Dagens Nyheter ?

That works for me. Now back to the reviewer(s). Montanabw^(talk) 06:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT3 ...that if somebody wants to employ a gender-neutral pronoun in Swedish, he/she can use hen?

(Probably) still waiting on the QPQ review, Peter Isotalo (I'll give you one more day and then I'm sending the DYK Brute Squad round. .... Unemployed? Misshapen and ugly? Short on brain power but keen on violence? Why not join the DYK Brute Squad? Ask the Chief Brute for more details of this rewarding career in nominator terrification) Belle (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what any of this means. Can you please explain?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

QPQ? It means you have to review another DYK nomination if you've submitted more than five nominations for your own articles. (The Brute Squad stuff is pure nonsense; there is no DYK Brute Squad; at least as far as I know). Belle (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Much have change since my last DYK... Going to work on Fittja gård, then.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Belle: Does a QPQ review need to be 100% complete before this nomination can be accepted?

Peter ^Isotalo 20:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Normally yes, but you seem like a trustworthy type and have already put more effort into the review than most QPQers, so I'll sign it off trusting you to see it through (besides, I keep reading something else every time I see Fittja) Belle (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ready per my review above with original hook or ALT 2 or 3 (ALT1 suggests that the newspaper has general powers to ban it) Belle (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Scout's honor!

Peter ^Isotalo 00:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Belle, you can't approve your own hook. Either strike your ALT3 and approve it with one of the other hooks or request a new reviewer. ;-) And no, the QPQ doesn't have to be passed, just started and your part of the initial review done -- if you accidentally picked a clunker that needs work and the editor abandoned the DYK or something, that doesn't hold up THIS article's approval (Peter, I'd approve this, but I contributed ALT2, so I can't, either) Montanabw^(talk) 04:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, I'm not approving my own hook as the prep builder has three to choose from (been doing it this way for weeks after discussion on the DYK talk page, as the prep builders and admins moving to the queue plus various others are all checking hooks in the queues) Belle (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Still good to go. Belle (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)