A fact from John Swanel Inskip appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 January 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
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.
Almost everything checks out: new and long enough, no copyvio, good sources, QPQ done. However, the use of quote marks is ambiguous here, and it should be made clear that "promiscuous sitting" was not the good minister's language (both in the hook and the article). In other words, Inskip may have encouraged "promiscuous sitting" from the purists' point of view but is it the case that he himself unironically affirmed that what he was allowing was "promiscuous"?! I'm skeptical, based on the sources I was able to access, as well as the obvious implications behind making such a controversial remark. In any case, it would be much better from an encyclopedic POV to simply state what this "promiscuous sitting" entails, e.g. "... that the conference admonished Inskip for allowing men and women to sit together at church?", without having to borrow any loaded terminology. Cheers,
KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬14:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
User: Kingoflettuce - "promiscuous seating" comes up in Inskip's book Methodism Defended and Explained, but (not unnaturally) he preferred to call his approach "the pew system" and often enclosed "promiscuous sitting" in quotation marks. I'll propose a couple of ALTs here; please feel free to approve the one that's clearest and most appropriate for our context.
Exactly, I would argue that his use of quote marks is meant to be sardonic. He didn't "believe in promiscuous sitting", he believed that it wasn't actually "promiscuous" to let men and women sit together. So ALT2 does away with all the ambiguity and seems best to me. Cheers,
KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬20:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
A fact from John Swanel Inskip appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 January 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
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.
Almost everything checks out: new and long enough, no copyvio, good sources, QPQ done. However, the use of quote marks is ambiguous here, and it should be made clear that "promiscuous sitting" was not the good minister's language (both in the hook and the article). In other words, Inskip may have encouraged "promiscuous sitting" from the purists' point of view but is it the case that he himself unironically affirmed that what he was allowing was "promiscuous"?! I'm skeptical, based on the sources I was able to access, as well as the obvious implications behind making such a controversial remark. In any case, it would be much better from an encyclopedic POV to simply state what this "promiscuous sitting" entails, e.g. "... that the conference admonished Inskip for allowing men and women to sit together at church?", without having to borrow any loaded terminology. Cheers,
KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬14:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
User: Kingoflettuce - "promiscuous seating" comes up in Inskip's book Methodism Defended and Explained, but (not unnaturally) he preferred to call his approach "the pew system" and often enclosed "promiscuous sitting" in quotation marks. I'll propose a couple of ALTs here; please feel free to approve the one that's clearest and most appropriate for our context.
Exactly, I would argue that his use of quote marks is meant to be sardonic. He didn't "believe in promiscuous sitting", he believed that it wasn't actually "promiscuous" to let men and women sit together. So ALT2 does away with all the ambiguity and seems best to me. Cheers,
KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬20:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply