Template:Did you know nominations/Dylan Penn

Dylan Penn

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

• Dylan Penn
• treats!

)

• ... that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—declined a $150,000 offer to pose for Playboy in March 2014, but appeared nude on the cover of treats! in April 2014?

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 04:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC).

• Reviewing: Template:Did you know nominations/White-striped dorcopsis (3rd and 4th of 4 QPQs)

Started reviewing. I think this should be listed under July 19? HelenOnline 19:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• • When I added the 2nd article I moved it to the earlier date because the second article was created on the 16th.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, I didn't look at the second article yet. HelenOnline 19:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have made some minor edits and improved sources per WP:BLPSOURCES. Both articles are new enough, long enough and well sourced. I have two issues with the hook. I would not add her parents names, her surname is enough of a clue and you are giving away too much thus making it less hooky. Also, we only have an unnamed source for the figure of $150k and we do not know when she declined the offer only when it was reported so I would suggest:

• ALT1 ... that in March 2014 it was reported that Dylan Penn had declined an offer to pose for the cover of Playboy, but she appeared nude on the cover of treats! in April 2014?

HelenOnline 14:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I think the hook would be more likely to generate a clickthrough if the reader knew who she was. So I propose the following:
  • ALT2 ... that in March 2014 it was reported that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—had declined an offer to pose for the cover of Playboy, but she appeared nude on the cover of treats! in April 2014?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It is better but I think it exceeds the 200 character limit now. You could pipe her name as "the daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright". HelenOnline 15:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• • ALT3 ... that in March 2014 it was reported that the daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright had declined an offer to pose for the cover of Playboy, but she appeared nude on the cover of treats! in April 2014?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
• Can we strike ALT1 and ALT2?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Good to go with ALT3. HelenOnline 20:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Pulled from prep because of concerns at [1]. Maybe some people are overly concerned, or maybe some people aren't understanding others' concerns, but one nice thing about DYK is there's sure no deadline, so let's find an outcome everyone can be happy with. EEng (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Pull quotes

From TDYK

While we're on the topic of Prep 4, is everyone cool with the hook for Dylan Penn centering on her posing nude? I thought we'd decided to avoid potentially contentious hooks about living people. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

How dare you take the focus off a petty diction-ary dispute? But if you must... I wondered about the same thing, though it get's culturally complex when we start talking about whether posing nude is a "bad thing". Maybe we should pull it back and wait while it's discussed further. EEng (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. Let's go airgonate in the meantime.

• Is there something contentious about posing nude. She did it. So veracity is not the issue. We have run far more immoral acts than posing nude on the cover of a magazine. She was not even exposed. She was covered up by a $6,000 Fendi bag.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• P.S. we have probably run a dozen hooks with a link to Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue at DYK and Penn was less exposed on the cover than many women are on the cover of the Swimsuit issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• The Body Issue has run on the main page and it is a whole issue of nothing but nude pictures.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, I don't think this is a big deal, but...

• When TTT says there have been far more immoral acts, it's a reminder that some people might think of this as an immoral act (whether that's what TTT meant or not, or whether we think so or not) -- which makes it contentious, I think.
• As TTT points out, she wasn't completely "exposed", but no one could know that from the hook.

EEng (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• IMO, there's a big difference between highlighting an article about a magazine that publishes nude pictures and stating on the main page that a particular living person has had a nude photoshoot published. To say it isn't potentially contentious is, again in my opinion, just plain wrong. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• We are just summarizing the RS, which find this to be a highlight. Pricasso has been on the main page. If we have had a hook about a dick painter on the main page posing nude is just not that big a deal. The Human Centipede (First Sequence) was a WP:TFA. I just don't think posing nude for an artistic magazine is that big a deal. It will likely generate a lot of clickthroughs though. In a very prissy prim and proper world it is contentious, but in 2014, it is not that big a deal for the main page. If she had been full frontal it might be a big deal, but in this case it is not that big a deal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• I would not be averse to tinkering with the hook to clarify nude, but not exposed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Can we all agree to pull this for now, reopen the nom page, and continue the discussion there? EEng (talk)
  • If you must. Can someone point me to the relevant DYK rule.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• There are several things about this hook that worry me. (1) It doesn't give the subject's name, leading to the thought that she is only notable because of her parentage. (2) By mentioning Playboy and then treats!, it implies that they are similar in nature, when treats! is more artistic at least in aim. (3) Nude in this context is usually understood to mean completely uncovered, so the strategically placed handbag is important. Perhaps something along the lines of "that Dylan Penn appeared on the cover of treats! wearing only a $6,000 Fendi bag? Espresso Addict (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) [repeated edit conflicts]

• "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." From the Content section of the main rules. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup. This is exactly the sort of clueless sexist drivel that will sooner or later lead to DYK being removed from the main page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Do you really think a model considers it negative to be told that she is so beautiful that a magazine will offer her hundreds of thousands of dollars to appear on its cover. To a model this is probably a compliment. This is an artistic magazine. She probably views it as a point of pride to have been on the cover rather than a black mark on her career. I don't think the rule that you are pointing to is relevant for a hook that highlights a point of pride for the individual. Thus, I see no need to change the hook.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep in mind that being on the cover of treats! is an indication that you as an individual are an artistic work of beauty. Thus, being on the cover (although its subjects are nude), is almost surely a point of pride for a model and not a negative thing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not the slightest bit interested in your claims to telepathic powers. A DYK hook that fails to even name the woman involved in a photoshoot while emphasising her (obscured) nudity is as clear example of the objectification of women as could be imagined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• My original hook named her clearly. Not naming individuals in some cases increases the curiousity of the article in a way that serves the purpose of DYK, which is to get people to look at (and review) our new articles. Given her current level of celebrity and those of her parents, this type of piping is in keeping with common practices at DYK. In terms of nudity, arts magazines don't use pictures of ugly people, so I continue to assert that nudity in this fine arts magazine context is likely a prideful rather than shameful thing. In high art nudity is not objectification. If anything is objectified, in this case it is Fendi. Their bag is being used and abused in this photo. There is no way you can convince me that that bag is proud of this photo. It is being objectified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I bet Dylan's mother, father, brother and lovers are probably proud of the photo too. If I were her man, I'd be pumping "My Chick Bad" on repeat every time I think about her on the cover. Unless you are a BAADDD chick you can't get that cover, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• The bag is an object. Dylan Penn isn't - and the fact that you appear not to be able to comprehend the difference merely confirms my earlier comments. And I don't give a flying fuck about what you 'bet', though I'd think it safe to say that if you were 'her man' she'd be contemplating the benefits of an alternative sexuality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed this hook and I am sure TTT will agree I took great pains to check the article and hook satisfied BLP policy. Who says it is a "negative" aspect? That is a personal judgement. Nudity is not negative per se, especially when it is tastefully done. She did not intend for it to be a secret, obviously. Including Playboy in the hook does not suggest they are similar magazines, it contrasts the two magazines. Wikipedia should appeal to all types of people and DYK should reflect that. HelenOnline 18:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Some people think war is "negative", I certainly favour nudity over war any day of the week but I don't object to hooks about war. HelenOnline 18:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) AndyTheGrump, While I try to understand the difference between an object and an individual, you should consider the difference between prideful and shameful subject matter. High art nudity in this context is not shameful to the subject. Probably everyone in her life supports it. I would not be surprised if they had a family pow wow to discuss whether to go with Playboy or treats!. Her management team and family probably thought this cover was a great get at this stage of her career. A women who can link herself to Robert Patinson and Nick Jonas in her first year as a sex symbol is not just randomly hitting the newstand in ill-conceived photo spreads. This is probably all part of her masterplan. She is almost surely pleased, if not proud of the result. Her mother is a (former) model and surely supportive of this. If it makes you and your mother proud, "F***" everybody else. This is not a negative thing to the subject, no matter how you slice it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

End discussion transferred from TDYK

Continue discussion here, please

• EEng, I am not sure why you pulled this and moved it here after the way the discussion has gone. The reviewer has reconsidered the review and endorsed her (assuming HelenOnline is female) support. I remain unconvinced that a nude cover appearance is a negative issue for this biographical subject. I think it is likely a point of pride rather than a point of shame. This is not a set of images from an old boyfriend published against her will that she is suing over.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I pulled it because at least three editors (including me) expressed serious reservations. What's your hurry? EEng (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I am at a loss for words. I watch several articles about top models for obscure reasons (e.g. they come from my country or are linked to families I have written about) and have noticed that tasteful nudity is becoming increasingly common in fashion modelling. I am not sure I understand why but it's a fact, just have a look at a few of their online portfolios. Surely this only reflects that? Would it make a difference if the word "nude" were removed from the hook? HelenOnline 19:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• What would make a difference is a DYK that didn't reduce Penn to an object only defined by her relationship to other people, and her state of undress. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note that the subject of this article decided to appear on that cover. This isn't objectification. This isn't "sexist drivel". It's a hook that will interest some people and disgust a very small number (we can't please everyone). The piped link is strange, and we can do without it, but the rest of the hook is fine. --Jakob (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump, I would bet that Ms. Penn was paid six figures for the modeling gig, so I don't classify this as objectification, but rather market efficiency. However, I have no problem reverting to the following hook:

• ALT4 ... that in March 2014 it was reported that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—had declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover, but she appeared nude on an April 2014 treats! cover?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Please note that name-dropping her parents is no different than earlier this month when DYK presented "... that Jalen Brunson (pictured) is a left-handed point guard, as is his father Rick Brunson, a nine-year National Basketball Association veteran?"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• IMO, objectification, would be an old boyfriend calling Playboy and saying, My ex is a hot piece of meat. I'll sell you these photos of her naked. Afterwards, when she is forced to sue for images that were not used in a consented manner, she could say she was objectified.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, TTT, let's wait for other editors to comment, but by your logic a woman who is raped is being objectified (even if we might argue about what that means, exactly) but a prostitute is not. That's crazy. EEng (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• It might be the case that a desperate prostitute who has no choice is being objectified but a leisure six-figure call girl who is freely participating in the market is not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Words fail. EEng (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• (ec) I suppose we are waiting for Espresso Addict, who pointed out that "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided."; AndyTheGrump and you·, EEng. Espresso Addict has yet to respond as to whether he feels something that is likely a point of pride is a negative thing. In all probability she was paid six figures for this and it is probably something she planned as part of her own marketing with her family and/or management. To have achieved the cover was probably successful step in her career and a point of pride rather than a point of shame (i.e., a positive thing in her life rather than a negative one).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The article's statement that "she only models to earn a paycheck" kinda works against this being a point of pride. I'm sure AndyTheGrump can elaborate. I wonder if, at this point, time might be saved by picking a hook on a different aspect of the subject. EEng (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Earning a paycheck in some circles means putting food in your kids mouth and in other circles it means being able to pay for weekends in Aspen.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I am in no hurry.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, TonyTheTiger's unsourced speculation and vacuous blather as to what Penn thinks about any of this is of no relevance whatsoever. If the most interesting thing we can say about someone is that they chose to pose semi-naked on one magazine cover rather than another, they clearly don't deserve an article in the first place. And if they do deserve an article, they deserve to be named, and the hook should relate to something of more significance than transient tabloid fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, Maybe in your circle turning down $150,000 offers to take pictures is a run-of-the-mill daily event, but that is not true for most readers of WP. P.S. if you feel the article is poorly sourced (by tabloids), you should make that objection.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, if I am ever offered $150,000 to pose for pictures, I want it on DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is not a forum, and we have no interest whatsoever in your infantile fantasies. Go write something rude on a YouTube comments page or something... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• @AndyTheGrump: Your comments here are uncivil and bordering on personal attacks. --Jakob (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I am upset at the personal nature of AndyTheGrump's comments, but I am more troubled by the imposition of his personal beliefs that nude pictures are a negative thing to the subject. Who is he to say that everyone is ashamed of taking nude pictures.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Nowhere have I said anything of the kind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump, You seem to be making the argument that nude modeling is a negative thing for anyone who has done it and that it is nothing but fodder for transient tabloid fluff. Did I misinterpret your argument above.--02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• We also need Jakec and HelenOnline to comment on ALT4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• @TonyTheTiger: Fine, but why is the "daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright" in the hook. It makes it overly wordy and I'm not sure how much relevance it has to the rest of the hook. Is there something I'm missing here? --Jakob (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Jakec, As I mentioned above. This is like my Jalen Brunson nomination. The subject is currently far less notable/recognizable than her parents. The purpose in DYK is to generate interest in reading the page. Since her parents' have far greater notability, using their names in the hook will generate interest in her article. I have mentioned parents on DYK several times. In addition to Jalen Brunson this month, I have mentioned more notable parents in articles such as Randall Cunningham II, Glenn Robinson III, Tim Hardaway, Jr. and maybe some others. I think this serves the purpose of DYK since the purpose is to generate interest in reading the article. If the parents are extremely famous relative to the subject, it helps generate interest in reading the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. it looks like Allan Kournikova will hit the main page with his sister Anna Kournikova linked in the hook for similar reasons to those above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I know! Let's put an image of the naked Dylan Penn next to the hook. That would generate even more interest! EEng (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We are trying to generate interest in reading the article. Look at User:TonyTheTiger/DYKviews and search for "swimsuit". Six of my most viewed hooks of all time mentioned swimsuit modeling in the hook. Body Issue is also among my most viewed hooks of all time. I am fairly certain that nude modelling/Playboy mentions will get this article a lot of views.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That just makes it even more obvious that naked pictures will attract yet more views! So I don't understand why you're not taking me up on my suggestion. EEng (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Surely, you are joking. We can't use FU images at DYK or on the main page as a matter of policy. Talk with the experts but it violates WP:NFCC somehow.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I already approved ALT3 as a compromise hook. Re ALT4: 1) It is too long, 2) I would not include both her name and her parents' names as it is overkill, 3) We do not have a good enough source for the $150k figure for it to be mentioned in the hook.

1) HelenOnline, Single-article hooks are limited to 200 characters. This two-article hook is 202 characters. This is not too long. 2) People above have complained about the piping in ALT3. As noted above with my past articles such as Jalen Brunson, Randall Cunningham II, Glenn Robinson III, and Tim Hardaway, Jr., it is common to use much more famous relatives to induce page views on our newest articles, which is the point of DYK. Robin Wright has 2,098,328 hits in the last 365 days (5749/day) Sean Penn has 1,764,794 hits in that time (4835/day). Dylan Penn averages about a tenth as many as either of her parents. 3) What do you mean not good enough. We have this source from E!. E! is a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

1) and 2) You asked for my comment and I gave it to you. Please don't argue with me (or anyone else), you are not helping yourself. Technically it may be acceptable, but I don't have to like it. 3) The E! article only cites an unnamed source ("The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change.") As we are waiting for more opinions, I have requested comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fashion. HelenOnline 06:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact that it was reported but I am being careful and interpreting the eligibility criteria narrowly, which surely is not a bad thing in light of the above response. HelenOnline 06:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

HelenOnline, Saying don't argue with me is not very logical here. Are you going to lash out if I try to talk to you about the problems here. 1) it has been longstanding policy that the limit be "about 200" and that a little leniency is allowed for multi-article hooks. 2) You have supported ALT3 and people have complained about its piping so I proposed ALT4. We need to talk this out. My reasoning is clear and you saying you don't want to talk about it does not really help. 3) RS is not based on the primary source. The secondary source, E!, has a reliable editorial process. We accept and summarize what their editorial process prints. Their editors have accepted $150,000 as a printable fact. We trust their editors. That is how WP:RS works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stick to comments based on eligibility criteria. Nudity is not "negative" per se, that is a personal judgement and not NPOV. Do you really want to set a precedent in this regard? What's next? HelenOnline 06:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• A reminder to everyone: in order not to mess up T:TDYK, subheaders added to this template need to e level five or below, since level four indicates a new nomination. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

First let us recall

ALT3 ... that in March 2014 it was reported that the daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright had declined an offer to pose for the cover of Playboy, but she appeared nude on the cover of treats! in April 2014?

ALT4 ... that in March 2014 it was reported that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—had declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover, but she appeared nude on an April 2014 treats! cover?

These are a couple characters shorter than ALT4:

• ALT5 ... that in March 2014 it was reported that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—had declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover, but she posed nude for an April 2014 treats! cover?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• ALT6 ... that in March 2014 it was reported that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover, but she appeared nude on an April 2014 treats! cover?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• ALT7 ... that in March 2014 it was reported that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—had declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover, but she was nude on an April 2014 treats! cover?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• ALT8 ... that a March 2014 report said that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—had declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover, but she appeared nude on an April 2014 treats! cover?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary thus far

• At this point, we agree that there is a policy to consider that states that "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." Espresso Addict, AndyTheGrump, EEng regard nudity pejoratively but no one has made the case that nudity is per se negative or why it is negative in this instance. There seems to be general agreement that this magazine is artistic, but no consensus on how that impacts the negativity of nudity.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Espresso Addict, AndyTheGrump, Jakec find the piped link in ALT3 awkward, while HelenOnline seems to continue to endorse it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• I have attempted to avert the piping with subsequent alternatives by linking both the parents and the subject as I have commonly done at DYK in the past. Examples noted have been Jalen Brunson this month as well as Randall Cunningham II, Glenn Robinson III and Tim Hardaway, Jr. There is some contention as to whether the parents need to be linked at all, but I assert it will increase readership, which is the point of DYK.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• HelenOnline opposes ALT4 on length (202 characters for a two-article hook), but supports ALT3 at 199 characters. ALT5, ALT6, ALT7 and ALT8 are 199, 198, 197, and 197 characters.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Noting part of the length is from parental links which I propose will draw viewers. Robin Wright has 2,101,778 hits in the last 365 days (5758/day) Sean Penn has 1,767,689 hits in that time (4843/day).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Several parties oppose ALT3 due to the piping without disclosing the name of the subject.

• Why do we need to say "a March 2014 report said". If this report is reliable, we can treat it as fact. It not, its claims have no business on the main page.

• ALT 9: ... that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright— declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover, but appeared nude on an April 2014 treats! cover? --Jakob (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I had previously noted there was intrigue to declining an offer in March and accepting another in April. Removing "March 2014" from the hook takes that element away, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • @TonyTheTiger: Easily fixed.
    • ALT 10: ... that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright— declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover in March 2014, but appeared nude on an April 2014 treats! cover? --Jakob (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I think there was a previous complaint that the report was in March, but we don't know when she declined the offer, which was the reason for the report in the hook.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'm uncomfortable with the opinions that Tony the Tiger has ascribed to me. My personal opinion on nudity is completely irrelevant. This is certainly something that will be commented on negatively in the UK press if the subject achieves a career in a field other than glamour modelling; the article states that the subject is modelling for money, rather than as a career move. The phrase "Her parents might be happy to know Penn appears in the magazine's pages with a modicum of modesty intact" in the referenced article for the photoshoot[2] is somewhat negative in tone. If we must run with a modelling hook then I'd be much happier if (1) it named her directly, and (2) it made the relatively tasteful/artistic nature of the modelling clear. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Modeling for money? I think it is probably fun to be paid 6 figures for and to document your itness. It has got to be a good experience to have enough itness to command that kind of money for a day of taking pictures. Hey I need money. I want to replace my stolen Breitling and buy the watch I dreamed about when I had my Breitling. I need a new $2000 camera lens. I'd like to upgrade from my 2008 Saturn Vue. I digress. I just don't think any model is suppose to say in an interview I crave the attention of the camera. They are suppose to sound reluctant. It is probably better to say, I am not so excited about this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and a seventeen-year-old callgirl loves the fact that men will pay so much to appreciate her itness up close and personal, I'd wager. Great for the self-esteem! Your logic is like that of a junior-high-schooler. EEng (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Call girls probably don't have that much itness or they would be making money off of their looks in more public ways. I have a call out to some women from my past who have done nude modeling for art. I accidentally put my phone in silent mode so I missed a couple of callbacks. I will have a better feel for this later.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, no. If EVER there was a time to invoke the no-original-research rule, this is it. EEng (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I just am interested in the objectification and negativity of nude modeling and want some opinions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This has to be one of the weirdest discussion on Wikipedia ever. EEng (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• ALT 11: ... that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover in March 2014, but appeared nude behind a $6000 Fendi bag on an April 2014 treats! cover? (198 characters)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with that, but didn't you just say that we don't know if she declined the offer in March? --Jakob (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• ALT 12: ... that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover by mid-March 2014, but appeared nude behind a $6000 Fendi bag on an April 2014 treats! cover? (202 characters)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• ALT 12 is good. --Jakob (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)