Template:Did you know nominations/Oyster ice cream
- 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: rejected by SL93 (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Oyster ice cream
[edit]... that according to lore, oyster ice cream was "George Washington's favorite"?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Swiss Informatics Society
- Comment: ALT1: ... that Mark Twain enjoyed eating oyster ice cream?
Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 08:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC).
- Newness and the citations are fine with no copy vios. Can somebody tell me how to check for the character count? This is a rather small article.Ashwin147 (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Get DYKcheck. Or count with your brain. I counted, and its exactly 1600 characters long. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Ashwin147 (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Article only skims the surface of the topic. Heck, I was able to search Google News Archives and there's a ton more that can be said. For example, it was once thought that eating oysters and ice cream together could be unhealthy. DYKAR D7 states how "an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress," as well as how "[a]rticles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected." Unfortunately, this article fits that description. Furthermore, DYK rule 2d gives "selecting reviewers" the right to reject "articles longer than 1,500 characters...as too short." —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- These news articles talk about oyster and ice cream being sold separately, not oyster ice cream. That's different. Selling bananas and milk separately is not the same as selling banana milk. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- And besides, those are just advertisements and provide nothing useful. If you bothered to read the bulk of it. Trust me, I have included most probably everything one would want to know about oyster ice cream. So there, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- But oyster ice cream is made of oysters, isn't it? If so, the news article is completely relevant. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense! Like I said, the advertisements (and not really news articles) talk about "oysters" and "ice cream", and not "oyster ice cream". To say that it's relevant would be misreading and misusing the source. I fail to see what you do not understand about this obvious and simple logic. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, most of them are the same adverts (copies) and so, the "tons" of unique newspaper sources essentially become just one or two. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- But perhaps the only source you listed which I can use would be this. Other than that, it's all useless advertisements. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're the one who misunderstands. I was saying that the source I listed above is fine – that's definitely not an ad. That's what I've been talking about all this time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's only half – you also mentioned that "a ton more" can be said. Not true. Anyways, I have added the part about oysters and ice cream being bad for consumption and all. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate it if you stop using personal attacks against me. You claiming that I "do not understand about this obvious and simple logic" is completely antagonistic and only serves to deviate from the topic at hand – this nom. These are legitimate concerns that BlueMoonset and I have raised, which have only been met with extremely bad faith. Remember, your track record has shown these same concerns; don't brush them off lightly. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's only half – you also mentioned that "a ton more" can be said. Not true. Anyways, I have added the part about oysters and ice cream being bad for consumption and all. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think you're the one who misunderstands. I was saying that the source I listed above is fine – that's definitely not an ad. That's what I've been talking about all this time. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- But perhaps the only source you listed which I can use would be this. Other than that, it's all useless advertisements. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, most of them are the same adverts (copies) and so, the "tons" of unique newspaper sources essentially become just one or two. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense! Like I said, the advertisements (and not really news articles) talk about "oysters" and "ice cream", and not "oyster ice cream". To say that it's relevant would be misreading and misusing the source. I fail to see what you do not understand about this obvious and simple logic. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- But oyster ice cream is made of oysters, isn't it? If so, the news article is completely relevant. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- And besides, those are just advertisements and provide nothing useful. If you bothered to read the bulk of it. Trust me, I have included most probably everything one would want to know about oyster ice cream. So there, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- These news articles talk about oyster and ice cream being sold separately, not oyster ice cream. That's different. Selling bananas and milk separately is not the same as selling banana milk. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd hate to say this – but you're the one who pointed out that "a ton more" can be written and those newspaper articles. It is indeed very obvious that "oysters and ice cream" is not the same as "oyster ice cream". Go on and ask anybody – they would say it's not the same. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think anything I said is a personal attack. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Claiming I don't understand logic (i.e. implying I'm an idiot) is definitely a personal attack. And oyster ice cream is made of oysters (well, according to your version of the article). So the specific article I suggested is indeed relevant, to the extent that you yourself used it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Idiot is a very hurtful word to use – I would never use that. You know, not getting a certain thread of logic is different from being completely retarded. Anyway. So now that I used the reference, is there any other outstanding issue left? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, but you should check with BlueMoonset first to see whether everything's alright. He's one of the more experienced DYK reviewers here and it was he who brought up the issue of your articles being stub-like. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Remember, I'm only enforcing community consensus here. First, it was this discussion about your DYKs (which I took no part in, thus making me a neutral third party) and now BlueMoonset's concerns. You're a great editor Bonkers and your contributions have certainly enriched WP, but we all have to remember that not every article expanded is necessarily DYK worthy. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Okay sure... Paging for Mr. BlueMoonset. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Remember, I'm only enforcing community consensus here. First, it was this discussion about your DYKs (which I took no part in, thus making me a neutral third party) and now BlueMoonset's concerns. You're a great editor Bonkers and your contributions have certainly enriched WP, but we all have to remember that not every article expanded is necessarily DYK worthy. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, but you should check with BlueMoonset first to see whether everything's alright. He's one of the more experienced DYK reviewers here and it was he who brought up the issue of your articles being stub-like. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Idiot is a very hurtful word to use – I would never use that. You know, not getting a certain thread of logic is different from being completely retarded. Anyway. So now that I used the reference, is there any other outstanding issue left? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Claiming I don't understand logic (i.e. implying I'm an idiot) is definitely a personal attack. And oyster ice cream is made of oysters (well, according to your version of the article). So the specific article I suggested is indeed relevant, to the extent that you yourself used it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think anything I said is a personal attack. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- The article is not ready for DYK publication; it needs more work, including a copyedit, before it is. I've struck the original hook, since it's definitely not true, and we don't need to be perpetuating false claims, especially when it was Twain's favorite. (I think the ALT1 hook should be made stronger by using the word favorite, albeit in quotes, and consider adding the fact that he included it in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.) The first sentence of History makes no sense in context: the intro has just talked about oyster ice cream from 1824, and this sentence says "it was previously thought" that oysters and cream together was unhealthy: however, it's quoting from a 1934 article, and the thought seems to be comparatively recent. This is a problem for an encyclopedic article: if you can't establish when this was, and explain who and what is disproving the notion, then it shouldn't be included. The source cited at the end of the paragraph does not include the words "upper classes" at all; a source that contains that quote is needed. Reception section: "had favorable criticism" is not an accurate reflection of the source material; you might want to mention that Eaton used Randolph's recipe (mentioned earlier). However, having a Reception section based on a single taste test strikes me as misleading: what's the ice cream's overall reception, both historically and currently? The material in this section might be more appropriately merged into another section, or perhaps the article reorganized more broadly. In popular culture and notable use section: the source says "there is no connection" between Washington and this dish; the article here soft-pedals this definitive statement, and shouldn't. I'm dubious about declaring a priori the two Oyster festivals and their ice cream as "notable uses": each gets one mention in an article. (The English one needs month and year.) Finally, as this is (with the one English exception) about an American food creation, I think the article needs to be in American English: flavor and savory, not flavour and savoury. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
