Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Dylan Penn

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Dylan Penn, treats!

edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

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

FYI Started reviewing. I think this should be listed under July 19? HelenOnline 19:13, 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:

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)

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
edit
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.
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)
  • 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
edit
  • 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:

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)
  • 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)
  • @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:

Summary thus far
edit

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)
  • 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)
  • 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 is good. --Jakob (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT 13: ... that Dylan Penn—the daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—declined a $150,000 offer to pose for Playboy, but appeared on the cover of treats! wearing only a Fendi handbag shortly thereafter? (191 characters) --Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC) (haven't considered whether this is appropriate for the main page as a general matter but should have a well-written hook regardless...)
      • I oppose ALT13. Wearing a handbag is a bit misleading. It makes one think of Halloween costumes were one cuts holes at the bottom of a potato sack to stick your head and arms out of. Penn was not wearing the handbag.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Hmm, I don't think that's the case at all. Search google (or google images) for "wearing a purse" OR "wearing a handbag" and you'll see people just holding them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT 14: ... that Dylan Penn—the daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—declined a $150,000 offer to pose for Playboy, but appeared on the cover of treats! nude but wearing $6000 Fendi handbag weeks later? (192 characters)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, I get TTT's point that $150,000 is a lot of money for getting your kit off, even if you are the daughter of Sean Penn. And I get his point that tasteful nudity is not necessarily a negative. I even get El Grumpo's point about the objectification of women, and handbags. But I must say, for the average reader, I suspect this will be a real disappointment, especially those particularly interested in "visual treats", of course - because when you jump to her article... wow! not even one picture of her, not even her face (and that's not even what the hook is about, it seems.) I know this is not meant to be an encyclopedia, but this disjoin is a real shocker. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC) p.s. oh no, sorry, it is meant to be an encyclopedia, isn tit.
disjoin? Martin, have you been finding words in the dictionary again? EEng (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I find any of the hooks a lot less offensive than the discussion here about defining when and whether women are being objectified or debased. Has anybody considered just not running this at DYK? It's not the be all and end all for an article. Belle (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The Penn article still maintains a chronology, Playboy refusal (March) followed by an April treats! acceptance and (near immediate) publication, which was considered unacceptable for the hook and is frankly implausible given magazine publication lead times, despite what the Daily Beast (FN16) article says about the two magazines. (That article also says, despite being dated April 9, that Penn "will grace" the cover "on stands April 8", which shows a poor grasp of chronology.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • BlueMoonset look at the treats! article. Note that it is 1.) Limited edition small printing; 2.) Self-published. It is not like there is some huge publishing entity and lots of middlemen in the distribution chain involved here. Nothing is wrong with the chronology.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
We do not know when the Playboy refusal happened, only that it was reported on 5 March. This is clear in both the article and ALT3. HelenOnline 15:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is ALT12 gaining universal approval? Has anyone actually read the articles and the source? The phrase "by mid-March 2014" is not reflected in either article, both of which say simply "March 2014", and both are sourced to the Eonline story dated March 5, 2014, which is not mid-March. ALT14 is even more problematic, because it says her nude treats! appearance was "weeks later" after the refusal: there is nothing that states when Playboy offered and Penn declined (it could have been any number of months earlier, with the story only breaking because the source spoke up that March). I've struck both hooks, plus all the others that mention the Playboy offer and rejection as having occurred in March. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset The reason is probably that most people understand that March 5 is before mid-March (say March 11-20). So the statement is in fact factual, recalling the chronology of March 5 being before March 11. We don't actually know what date she declined the offer, but do you contest that she had declined the offer by mid-March? I really don't think you are going to get much support contesting whether March 5 is before mid-March. Yes you can strike the ones saying she rejected the offer in March, but not those saying she rejected it by mid-March.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Tony, the facts must be in the articles. The source is not enough, something you've been around long enough to know. I've removed your reinstatement of ALT12; it's still no good. (Yes, March 5 is before mid-March, and it's also before mid-May. By setting it in that time period, you're giving the impression that it has a particular cogency and immediacy that simply isn't justified by a single press report from a single source.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought you meant it didn't seem to be in the source articles. I will rephrase the wikipedia articles to include the March 5 date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Please stop tagging me. I want to see this put to bed but I have approved ALT3 and don't care to debate another 9 hooks especially when my approval has already been vetoed. (I tried with ALT4, but it was clear there was little if any room for compromise on either side of the nominator and the vetoers and it is a colossal waste of my time. The thread also drifted way off-topic into territory I don't care to participate in.) The people who vetoed ALT3, or people who can veto them, are the ones who need to agree with whatever is used. HelenOnline 06:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Tony, ALT12 remains unacceptable. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Tony, six hours is peanuts, and I think you need to contain your worry. I've looked at the edits, which appear to be over the top ("exclusive"? really?), and have been thinking about how to make them properly encyclopedic. I'll get to it later; there is no rush. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It wasn't the 6 hours, it was that I could see you were all over WP in the two hours before I re-pinged you without coming by. I understand it may be a bit forced. I will also reconsider what I did.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have toned the clarifying content down a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have made a number of edits to both articles to improve the presentation of the facts—the wording and order now varies, which is a good thing. While I still think the mid-March construction of ALT12 is misleading as well as odd (and can't imagine it surviving the folks who aggressively edit the prep areas should it be approved), I've made my point and will let other reviewers, including those who felt this should be pulled in the first place and whose concerns may or may not have been addressed, decide what to do with this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The mid-March construction is no odder than the mid-2014 construction of "that due to the viral meme "the Ice Bucket Challenge" (example pictured), the ALS Association has received over US$100 million in donations since mid-2014?" that is going to be the LEAD hook in one of the upcoming queues. I presume EEng should be satisfied that a dozen people have hashed out the issues and come to a solid consensus on a "best" hook considering the issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And that construction is odd and unfortunate, since the original number and donations were from a period beginning on July 29, and it would have made a much better hook to say so. Citing other examples that are not particularly good as a justification for your own wording—they did it so why can't I?—doesn't really cut it. (I'm about to post a request to change the Ice Bucket hook; thanks for bringing it to my attention.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, Would you like to tweak ALT 12 as follows?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought I was done here, Tony. No, I would not like to tweak ALT12 in those ways; the use of "by" or "before" with "March" is still problematic to my eyes, whether an exact date or a part of the month. The fate of this nomination and its hooks remains with the people who pulled it from prep in the first place. As I said early Monday, I've made my point; I've also made a number of improvements to the articles, and that must suffice. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • O.K., we will go forward with ALT 12 that is supported by User:Jakec, User:Martinevans123 and myself. I am pinging EEng to get his comments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've lost track of the disputation re whether all this nakedness and treats and stuff is even appropriate -- I leave that to others and am not taking a position one way or another on it. I will slightly edit the (apparently) preferred hook, though, because I don't see why the dates matter -- apologies if the need for that is discussed in the TLDR above.
ALT 12A-β: ... that Dylan Penn—daughter of Sean Penn and Robin Wright—declined a $150,000 offer to pose for a Playboy cover, but later appeared nude behind a $6000 Fendi bag on a treats! cover?
EEng (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
All of the variants look like awkward attempts to disguise the fact we don't know exactly when the first event happened. I think it's close enough to the date of the second event not to matter. I really don't see how this causes the reader any problem. I was blissfully unaware there was any problem until it was raised by BlueMoonset, who now seems to have left this for others to decide. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Martinevans123 so do you consent to changing your support to ALT 12A-&beta, which lessens the emphasis on the dates?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I consent. (And claim my free year's subscription to treats!). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I think we need a new DYK rule: When the nomination page becomes longer than the article, the nomination is automatically cancelled.' ;) EEng (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
.. or awarded it's own article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
...or made to stand in a corner and write "I will bear in mind the its's/its distinction" 500 times. EEng (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Martinevans123, and EEng, I too am willing to throw my support behind ALT 12A-β: . It would be good if we could get Jakec and BlueMoonset to at least state that it is the best attempt to balance all the issues that have been presented above or why they don't think it is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Final review
edit
  • We need a new reviewer. Dear reviewer be advised of the following:
  1. This nomination was previously passed (by HelenOnline), promoted (by Cwmhiraeth) and pulled (by EEng).
  2. ALT 3 was the hook that was originally used.
  3. After much debate, Jakec, Martinevans123 and I had all endorsed ALT 12
  4. After BlueMoonset pointed out issues with ALT 12 and I requested assistance tweaking it, EEng proposed ALT 12A-β.
  5. EEng, Martinevans123 and I now support ALT 12A-β.
  6. The length of this discussion seems to have caused us to lose the interest of HelenOnline who has not been interested in the debates about all the issues above that has led us to this final ALT. Jakec seems to have also tired of the debate lately.
  7. Both articles were previously reviewed and passed for most of the issues. Although you are suppose to recheck them, the main thing that really needs to be rechecked, IMO, is whether the final hook is supported in the articles.
  8. The other main issue of contention is the propriety of a hook mentioning a nude appearance on the main page, but after considering the issues (the likely attention it will draw in terms of page views vs. the likely objection by conservative editors) this is what we have decided to go with.
  9. Note that the selected version retains the much discussed mention of her parents names. As I have stated above, similar use of parents names has been non-controversial in several of my past nominees including Jalen Brunson, Randall Cunningham II, Glenn Robinson III, and Tim Hardaway, Jr.. These were all similar situations in which the parent was far more famous than the subject and likely to help us achieve the objective of DYK, which is to draw attention to new articles.
  • I'm hesitant to get involved in this nom because it seems to be, for some reason, very controversial, but I preferred the original hook. I understand we don't know when exactly she turned down the cover, but I think this wording skirts that issue:

ALT 15: ... that Dylan Penn appeared nude on the cover of treats! in April 2014, just one month after it was reported that she declined a $150,000 offer to pose for Playboy?

To me, the mention of the fendi bag doesn't add anything to the hook and a more streamlined wording is preferable. Is this hook acceptable to everyone? (if anyone is still reading this?) Bali88 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I approved ALT3. If you want to add her name and make it even longer than it already is, that is fine with me too. As I have already said, I am not happy with quoting a $ figure for which we only have an unnamed source and I am not going to take responsibility for that. There is no point me approving or otherwise further ALTs as my opinion apparently does not count. If the powers that be don't like it, they need to come up with something better and take responsibility for it otherwise they are wasting everybody's time at DYK, mine included. EEng, as you pulled it I would like to see you resolve the matter. HelenOnline 13:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The fendi bag was my favourite bit! But would support ALT 15. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC) ...not that I'm reading this any more...
lol, good deal. Bali88 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought alt3 was fine and I don't fully understand why the inclusion of her parents names is frowned upon or agree with the logic given, but I don't have any interest in arguing the point, so I'll just leave it out. EEng, is this hook acceptable to you? Bali88 (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
If there is some issue with alt 15, we can go with ALT 12A-β too. I don't think there's any reason to continue the debate. Bali88 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
FYI, after a lot of debate above it was preferred to state that she was nude behind a $6000 Fendi bag than that she was just nude and as mentioned above the parents are mentioned to boost pageviews, which is the purpose of DYK. Thanks for approving this, but we should probably go with ALT 12A-β. It does the best at incorporating the considerations above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I should have pinged Bali88.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Did Bali88 just approve his or her own hook, ALT15? Per WP:DYKSG#H2: You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article. Either someone else needs to approve it, or it needs to be struck ... and given the likely confusion, I recommend all unapproved hooks are struck lest a promoter accidentally use an unapproved hook, given the enormous length of this template. (Right now there are twelve distinct unstruck hooks.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So, what's your reason for not approving ALT 15? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • So, Bali88's also approved 12A-β. I don't see a problem with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If someone wants to go through and strike all the old ones, they're welcome to. My eyes aren't that good so I'm not even going to attempt. For the ease of the DYK folks, I'll move all the relevant things down to the bottom:

Date and length is fine for both articles, adequate sourcing. Neutral. Inline citations. No undue dwelling on negative things in hook. No copyvio or close paraphrasing. Hook is interesting. Good to go. Bali88 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the hook:

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dylan_Penn&oldid=1017015126"