Template:Did you know nominations/Agnosticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The following discussion 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  Ohc ¡digame! 16:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


  • ... that an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities?

Improved to Good Article status by Faizan (talk), JimWae (talk). Nominated by Faizan (talk) at 14:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC).

  • I will prefer the hook ALT1 because it is the general summary or an outline of Agnosticism's view or philosophy. The etymology(ALT2) is not so important, so If you ask me, ALT1 should be preferred. Faizan 13:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Article is new enough (recent GA), long enough, and well referenced. All hooks are verified with inline references. ALT1 is more important, but obvious to most people, IMO. ALT2 is of course less important, but more interesting to people who already know what agnosticism is. But all hooks are fine. Good to go. -Zanhe (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • According to the reviewer, ALT2 hook was less important. I will request User:Ohconfucius to promote the ALT1 hook. Faizan 14:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • You produced three hooks for consideration, and they were approved with a few comments about their respective merits. Yes, I saw Faizan's comment about what they considered "important", but I happen to concur with Zanhe's view that ALT2 is more interesting. "Importance" is not a consideration for DYK hooks, yet "interesting" is one of the main drivers. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
As per Zanhe's words, ALT2 is interesting to those who already know about Agnosticism. My point is that not all the audience or readers of Wikipedia know about Agnosticism. Faizan 14:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Moreover, Agnosticism is a philosophy and proper view of irreligion. Etymology is never so important so as to take the place of the general definition. Faizan 14:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • A tenth-grader, which I believe is roughly deemed to be the education level of reader of WP, should already know what agnosticism is. However, I think it's immensely interesting that a biologist should coin such a philosophical term (the name being of very low importance). Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Still, the view or the philosophy's general definition has an edge, I bet we need a fresh review. Faizan 14:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Not disagreeing with you there. But as I said, I also agree that not everyone knows what agnosticism is (but most do), and that the definition is more "important", but that is not the point. DYK has been heavily criticized in the past about our boring hooks, and so we need them to be "interesting". ALT1 is DULL. -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, let it go with ALT2 hook. I agree if this is the last resort. Faizan 15:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
When can it be promoted now? Faizan 15:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)