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.
Comment: My first nom. We co-built from 600 chars to 3700. Though phrasing may need tweaking, Williamson is a good modern expression of the school of avoiding recreation on Sunday. Note that retaining the "Sunday Sabbath" link is important to ensure correct Sabbath article is linked. Edit 05:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC): he was actually a missionary to Auckland for 8 years.
Hook is properly formatted. Image has copyright tag. Article is neutral enough. QPQ done.
Paragraph that starts with "Sunday Sabbatarianism thus" needs an inline citation somewhere at the end of the paragraph. Not five fold expansion. :( 9 April 2010 size is: 682 B (98 words) "readable prose size". Current article is 2664 B (399 words) "readable prose size". This is about 100 words too short. --LauraHale (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Expand and completely support with inline sources. --LauraHale (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment as creator of the original article: The sentence in question was copied from the Sabbath in Christianity article. When I first created Puritan Sabbatarianism, I did not include that sentence as it was uncited. Also, I think it's a bit dubious. Anyway, since the article been expanded with content from another article (with credit duly given in the edit history) I really don't think it belongs at DYK. StAnselm (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm torn between either fixing the flaws now, or not disagreeing with StAnselm. Surprised my count was that far off from yours. If you don't see a response from me in 3 days feel free to close the file. JJB 18:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC) The main hook was changed from "Reformed Sabbatarian" to "Puritan Sabbatarianism" in place to avoid redirect, which I don't know is strictly necessary or the best grammar. I prefer the main as more fitting as Williamson's self-ID, but by slight adjustment, here's
OK I found some good stuff. Sorry I didn't know not to count the blockquote. See what you think. (Here is where hook was added. StAnselm also refers to "the sentence in question" beginning with "Sunday Sabbatarianism thus"; this is now supported mostly, by the Dennison source.) JJB 19:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
As StAnselm implied text was copied from another article and it wasn't readily apparent in the article history, can you please add the copy tags to the talk page so I know which revision from which article the text came from? Also, others need to know this. Article should also have project tags. Also, as a side note, while DYK check says 716 words, the original was 98 words. The expanded text (which I'm not quite sure what it started at because of copying from another uncredited source) is actually 462 words once all the quotes are removed. 462 is not five fold expansions. --LauraHale (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I've reviewed history and all the copied uncredited text has now been checked against and conformed to inline sources, so I trust no copy tags are needed (not sure which I'd use anyway). Project tags added. WP:DYK1P says not to count the block quote, but inline quotes are valid as new text by everything I've seen. I suppose you could count as 462 if you didn't count any of the terms or titles in quotemarks (which could just as well be italicized). To make a deal, why don't you tell me how many words, if any, the current version is short in your estimation, and I'll just add that many words from somewhere? JJB 22:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Stagnant. Any other comments? JJB 17:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
My main concern would be that the article is pretty much completely based on primary sources. The only exception is the Daily Telegraph article.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There seems to be a lot of confusion on copying from other articles, length, and all the rest of it. I didn't know the finer details myself (e.g., A5 below) until I checked just now; I hope I didn't miss anything important. Some points:
Word count is irrelevant. It's character count.
Rule from WP:DYKSG on material imported from other articles: "A5: If some of the text was copied from another Wikipedia article, then it must be expanded fivefold as if the copied text had been a separate article." (WP:DYK1P has a similar rule under F4.)
I'm not sure the above rule is relevant, as the "Sunday Sabbatarianism thus" sentence seems to have been given a radical makeover. What are the actual imported sections, if any?
The general rule for quotations (see MOS:QUOTE, "Block quotations" header) is that long quotes (around 40+ words or a few hundred characters is the basic guideline) should be formatted as block quotes. Block quotes do not count for DYK purposes. I see two inline quotes, the Wesley and first Williamson, which are over 40 words. Once they are formatted as block quotes, the total character count drops from 4821 to 4280. This is still well above the 3410 required for 5x expansion (the final April 26 pre-expansion character count was 682). The Edwards quotes are from two separate sections of his sermon and cannot be combined, though together they total over 40 words; the portion before the connective "because" actually comes physically after the second portion in the source, so you might want to consider inverting the two and using something other than "because" to connect them.
Unrelated to the above: as "Auckland" has disappeared from the article as a descriptor for Williamson—he isn't from there, though he was a minister there, apparently—the use should be removed from the hook as well.
The situation doesn't appear to be nearly so dire as painted in earlier comments, though as always the devil is in the details. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Blue, thank you for confirming my suspicion that length was just a miscommunication issue now settled.
There are only two insertions that relied in part on Christian Sabbath, 3 sentences and 2 sentences. Since it was not copied (verbatim) but built upon in good faith (lightly or heavily), I trust I am not bumping against any rule creep. IMHO text that has been copied verbatim would make sense for fivefold expansion, but text that has been fully reworked and enfolded (excluding long quotes) is formally new.
Heidelberg, Augsburg, and maybe Wesley, Williamson, Edwards are primary; the other 6 sources are secondary. This is typical of the overall article set.
I have no problem dropping Auckland from the hook, just seemed like good internationali(s,z)ation.
Close the sale multiple times > JJB 18:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, Luther and Campbell also look like primary sources to me, but ok, I think I was wrong, my bad.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time I've looked at the article. (I don't know if that means I am taking a fresh look or merely muddying the waters.) Here are my thoughts on various issues that have been raised:
Nominal DYKcheck results indicate that a 5x expansion.
I was confused about the relationship of this article to Sabbath in Christianity. It appears to be a split from the previous article, but with extensive rewriting that I think justifies a claim that this is content new to Wikipedia.
This isn't related to DYK eligibility, but I have to say that I find myself bothered not to find a link to this article from Sabbath in Christianity. If this is a split, shouldn't it be linked? Further, I would expect this article to give a bit more attention to some related topics that are addressed in related articles, such as the influence of Puritan Sabbatarianism on secular law in the country where I live.
I do have a concern about the citations to primary sources. I'm not bothered by the citations to (and quotations of) historical people like Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards, as their statements are presented in the context of modern commentary. However, the article's entire discussion of modern views is based on primary sources -- not on statements by third parties. There is no indication in the article that anyone other than Williamson or Wikipedia has characterized his views as Puritan/Reformed Sabbatarianism, and the primary-source references to Ligonier and Day One Ministries are not appropriate support for the statement that "Though modern expression of Puritan Sabbath has been caricatured as being boring, many organisations promote Sabbaths as joyous, delightful appointments, such as Ligonier Ministries and Day One Christian Ministries." I'm uncomfortable with using that part of the article as a basis for a DYK hook -- and without those paragraphs, there's not a lot here that can be claimed as entirely new to Wikipedia (versus old content that was rewritten and expanded). --Orlady (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Williamson is Reformed, he's a Sabbatarian, Reformed Sabbatarianism is the Reformed version of Sabbatarianism, Dennison secondarily shows Reformed Sabbatarianism is called Puritan Sabbatarianism, is more sourcing needed for the hook? JJB 00:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, more sourcing is needed. The assertion about Williamson being in the "Reformed Sabbatarian" tradition appears to be true, but unfortunately it seems to be a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS -- and this particular article doesn't even establish that he's a Reformed preacher, much less that he's a Reformed Sabbatarian. --Orlady (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Also Dennison, "Puritan sanctification of the Sabbath ... has been popularly caricatured as a bore. The Puritan response would have been: what is boring about setting aside one whole day to delight in the Lord Jesus Christ; what is boring about sequestering one day to enjoy the sweet presence of Christ ...?" Similarly in Edwards. I am changing the Day One link to a clearer page; this should be enough for support; these are all secondary sources compared to Is. 58:13 etc. JJB 00:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The statement "many organisations promote Sabbaths as joyous, delightful appointments" seems to be a bit of original research, as the only citations in support of this statement are two essays that express this view. The existence of two online essays is not the same thing as a reliable observer stating that "many organisations" hold this view. --Orlady (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Was not technically created as a split but was originally a redirect; yes, it should become one and should import and export with blue law later. JJB 00:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
OK try now. Source quotes Williamson for a Sabbatarian view "from the Puritan tradition". JJB 22:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
My concerns are resolved. AGF on the offline sources. Please use ALT1. --Orlady (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Editing only to strike out original hook and to get the ALT1 label into the left margin way up above where it can be seen. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why "Auckland" is still in ALT1 - it is no longer in the article. Perhaps we could have
"Auckland" was supposed to have been removed a week or two ago. The other possibility is to not have any word before "theologian". Oh well; at least we have an easily findable ALT now... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
OPC is Reformed too. ALT2 is fine. No "Reformed" is fine. JJB 16:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
So - finally good to go with ALT2. I would leave in the "Reformed" for context. Moswentotalky 13:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)