Talk:Vincent Marks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Ktin (talk). Self-nominated at 00:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Vincent Marks; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Comment: @Ktin: I'm making my way through your sources, and the only thing that stands out is the comment about his atheism. Most of the sources say he was raised in a Jewish family. Only one source loosely implies that he became an atheist. The Guardian writes that he was Jewish, but after the "dietary rules were suspended during the war....If you could arbitrarily waive a set of religious rules, thought Marks, why not dispense with religion altogether? He was fast becoming a staunch atheist." I don't doubt any of that is true, but can you at least find one other source that mentions his atheism? Also, it seems odd not to mention his Jewish upbringing but to only mention his atheism. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Viriditas: many thanks for the review. Per The Times (accessible via WP:TWL), Devon, the family believe, had a profound effect on him. He returned to London in 1942 to take up a scholarship at Tottenham Grammar School — declaring himself to be an atheist. Later labelling himself as a humanist, he remained vehemently opposed to religion.. Please see if this helps. Alternately, we could delete that sentence. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's helpful. I'm an active participant on r/atheism, and as the denizens there are fond of telling me, "not all atheists are humanists", so this is important information that you should add to the article. I would also add the bit about his Jewish upbringing. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Viriditas: Please can you help me with the sentence / phrasing that you'd recommend. I am a tad unclear. Ktin (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will leave the phrasing and wording to you. All I’m saying is 1) mention his Jewish family/upbringing; 2) mention he’s an atheist and a humanist. That’s it. Whether he identifies culturally as Jewish isn’t clear to me, but it doesn’t really matter, because you can be culturally Jewish, a humanist, and an atheist. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for modifying the personal life section, but why wouldn’t you put the Jewish upbringing in the early life section where it usually goes? Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made the edits requested. Ktin (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just saw the above message about personal life. Made an update. Please see if that helps. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell me, what does the BMJ obituary say about his upbringing? Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I follow, please can you be specific. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a pretty specific, unambiguous question. Until you get a copy of BMJ, here’s a copy of his obituary in Diabetic Medicine.[1] Note how his Jewish upbringing is placed in the historical context of his early life without any "opposition to religion" that came later. Try to keep the history and chronology consistent instead of mixing the two together. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think it’s an improvement. I will complete a more thorough review in a bit, as I'm out the door at the moment. Of course if someone jumps in before I get back, I don’t mind. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review: WP:DYK200: ALT0 is ~216 char; ALT1 is ~198 char; ALT2 is 178 char; ALT3 is 176 char; Per WP:DYKTRIM, "the ideal length is probably no more than about 150–160 characters". No more. Now, with that said, it is true that some hooks cannot be reduced in length. This is not one of those hooks. I can quite easily bring it down to 80-100 characters or less. Start over. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ktin: some examples:
  • ... that Vincent Marks's testimony helped reverse the conviction of Claus von Bülow?
  • ~79 chars.
  • ... that the testimony of Vincent Marks helped reverse the conviction of Claus von Bülow?
  • ~84 chars.
  • ... that the conviction of Claus von Bülow was in part reversed by the testimony of Vincent Marks?
  • ~93 chars.
  • ... that Vincent Marks helped reverse the conviction of Claus von Bülow in a case that was adapted for the film Reversal of Fortune?
  • ~127 chars.
  • ... that Vincent Marks coined the term muesli belt malnutrition?
  • ~59 chars.
  • ... that Vincent Marks coined the term muesli belt malnutrition to refer to kids whose parents fed them diets thinking they were healthy?
  • ~132 chars.
  • Thanks. Let’s go with the last one. Ktin (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could do that, but I was only giving you examples in the hope that this would spur you to create more. I think, given the material you are working with, you have the potential to create the greatest set of hooks of all time. Go back to the source material. If you don’t have access to BMJ and the others, I can request them on the resource exchange. I think you have the opportunity to really shine here because you are lucky enough to have access to a wealth of material. Not everyone has this to work with, so don’t take this lightly. Consider coming up with new hooks, even if it means having to add more material to the article. Viriditas (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Viriditas: Truly appreciate the faith, appreciation, and encouragement. However, I am busy with a few off-wiki commitments and I am unable to go over and beyond currently. I would like to go with either of ALT3 or ALT4 on the current nomination. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ktin: That's perfectly fine, but you'll need to adjust ALT3 and ALT4 to reflect the accuracy of the sources and concept. For example, both hooks currently say that muesli belt malnutrition refers to kids whose parents fed them diets thinking they were healthy, but the sources and concept actually specify that muesli belt malnutrition refers to kids whose parents fed them unconventional diets, erroneously thinking they were healthy. You can use whatever synonyms for "unconventional" and "erroneous" you like, but I would encourage you to go back to the sources and read up on the concept to make the hook as accurate as possible. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. Ktin (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New reviewer needed for ALT4, since Viridtas was involved with its creation. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT4 is a bit vague. How about:

  • @Gatoclass: If needed, I would like to substitute the word health-conscious with zealous or over-zealous. Additional source can be seen here.[1]. So, my recommendation would be
ALT5.1. ... that Vincent Marks coined the term muesli belt malnutrition to refer to children whose over-zealous parents inadvertently fed them nutrient-deficient diets?
Overall, I think this nomination is good to go either as ALT1, ALT2, ALT3, ALT4, or ALT5.1. Ktin (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there is a problem that the article muesli belt malnutrition itself casts doubt on the existence of the condition. If so, none of these hooks would be appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • At this stage, I am also good to go with even ALT0 or ALT1 or ALT2 or any of the trimmed down versions suggested by the original reviewer. Ktin (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 looks good to me, but since the original reviewer thinks it too long, here's a compromise version:
  • ALT6 looks good. Many thanks. Ktin (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT6 is short enough, and if 'playboy lawyer' in the bmj source is the same as socialite, then it's sourced. I find it interesting, albeit slightly less so than muesli belt nutrition (which, unless there is more to say about it, should probably be merged into Marks' article). Good to go.--Launchballer 15:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Straten, Michael Van (1997). Healing Foods: Nutrition for the Mind, Body and Spirit. Welcome Rain. ISBN 978-1-55670-662-2.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vincent_Marks&oldid=1203884023"