Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred White Franklin


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Alfred White Franklin

 * ... that English paediatrician Alfred White Franklin compared the perpetrators of child abuse to sufferers from leprosy and venereal disease. Source: "Franklin argued that perpetrators of child abuse could only be stopped if like sufferers from leprosy and venereal disease in the past, society allowed them to come into the open."
 * Reviewed: Oliver Toussaint Jackson

Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Whispyhistory (talk) at 20:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg This is my first QPQ, but as far as I can tell, the following: The article was definitely long enough by about five times. I added the missing source and citation to the hook, and the source is correctly cited inline. Article is neutral. The hook is borderline too negative, but trying to make it a bit more positive ends up making the hook too long. Ran Earwig. One of the sources needs a touch of editing for close paraphrasing: . A small copy edit might be in order, but not sure about doing it myself since it's my first QPQ. Editing suggestions: Obtain ISBNs for the books in Authored and Edited sections. Worldcat is great for that. https://www.worldcat.org/. The Later life and Family sections are very short. Suggest combining and renaming to Personal life or similar heading. Also, they completed their QPQ. Another editor might review due to this being my first QPQ.
 * Additional comment. I was mistakenly under the impression that one needed to add the bit that I added to the hook in the template. The source text and citation URL. However, further reviewing led me to this comment in a new, unused template. "Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)". I concur with the template that it is strongly advised and helps the reviewer, but it is not a requirement. I will also add that the reviewer must still be able to verify in the article that the source content is present, distinctly supports the hook, and is cited by the source with an inline citation. This DYK clearly does. My bad, first QPQ. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed review. One section merged. Last seems to fulfill a useful function in concluding the article. Working on the paraphrasing. I think the ISBNs might have to wait. The hook is a little provocative it's true but it accurately states his views that child abusers were themselves suffering from some sort of disorder that required treatment. More on the rest soon. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just helped my mentor with adding some ISBNs to her article so it was on my mind. However, looking at policy, I find it takes some consideration to decide if to add an ISBN to a book and which one if so; it's not just a simple case of adding them. See WP:MOS-BIBLIO the section titled ISBNs. So yes, it can wait, it was just a suggestion. Regarding the hook, it accurately states that Franklin compared child abusers to the sufferers of two illnesses. Anything else is conjecture. The means of comparison and the hope for stopping child abusers by letting them into the open is not in the hook. I will consider this a bit more or ask a more experienced reviewer as part of the DYK criteria is the hook not be too negative. Thanks for your input. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, what's up. I'm in my first QPQ, and I could use an opinion from such an expert reviewer as yourself on the hook. It's pretty much explained in the above comments what the deal is. In light of the comments above, let me know if you feel the hook needs a little bit of lightening up, and if so, how that might be done. I haven't been able to come up with a change to the original hook or an alternate that isn't too long. Your help much appreciated. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you explain please in what way you feel it is too negative? It is eye-catching certainly but was not intended to criticise anyone. He did make exactly that comparison and it is not intended as any criticism of him that he did so. It's also sourced. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. As stated above, the hook only states a comparison between child abusers and sufferers of two illnesses. Child abusers are like lepers and those with VD. We don't know what the comparison is. The rest is left out, the hope for stopping the abuse by letting them out in the open. As you said, the article states his comparison is based on his views that they were all suffering from a disorder that required treatment. But that is not in the hook. How are they like them? Why do I care? What does this comparison accomplish? Being able to add in a bit about how the comparison makes a difference could lighten it up. At least explain what is being compared. Otherwise, it sounds slightly negative because it's just a statement that three negative things all compare together, with no solution or hope or end game. Does that help? dawnleelynn(talk) 22:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, but that was really the point. The rules say "Interesting hooks will often include one or more of the following: An unlikely juxtaposition. A tease, giving only part of the relevant information." It isn't always possible or desirable to explain everything in the space allowed but I will look at it again. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your points. But I had already said I was turning this over to someone with experience who is listed as DYK personnel. I think we should let Cwmhiraeth take a look now. I am not going to weigh in on this anymore. It is my first QPQ, I did make that clear. Also, my mentor agreed with me. Thank you though. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Yoninah, could you take a look at this issue regarding the hook please? I pinged Cwmhiraeth yesterday because they appear on the DYK page of users that are formally listed to answer questions and review nominations, etc. But they don't appear to be active since yesterday morning. You are the only other editor I know, and you are super knowledgeable and above reproach. I have come to trust your ability here 100%. If you read through the comments above on the hook, it will explain the issue. I would accept your recommendation without question. This editor deserves a better answer than I can give. After all, it's my first QPQ. The only other thing holding up my approval is the issue with close paraphrasing.
 * Belated response, I've been away. I don't find the hook accurate. The comparison concerns the necessity for child abusers to be accepted by society as are lepers and those with venereal disease, in order for them to be treated appropriately. Can yiou find a better hook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In what respect is the hook inaccurate please? Here is the quote from Franklin in the source which is also visible online:

The second step is to alter the outlook of neighbors, encouraging them to regard child abuse as the result of mental illness in parents who were themselves emotionally deprived if not abused in their own childhood. The parents need help when they feel the compulsion to attack their child, but, sharing our horror, they hide and so at present the diagnosis is not made until one child has died or been gravely damaged. Only when neighbors, lay and professional, substitute compassion for horror is there a chance to save the first child from harm and the parents from being enmeshed in further emotional tangles by the realization that they have damaged their own child. Our compassion can be evoked once we realize how seriously deprived and damaged these parents must themselves have been in their own childhood.

In times past, two sad sets of patients were isolated from the community by similar horror - lepers and sufferers from venereal disease. We now view leprosy as just another infection, responding best to early treatment, and venereal disease as an unlucky (but likely enough) accident in an amoral permissive society. Only when the compassion of society allowed these sufferers to come out into the open could treatment be effective and future generations protected. So it is with child abuse. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg It's been more than a month since the most recent comments on this nominations, and over a month since the most recent major contributions to the article. As such, this nomination has gone stale and will be closed in a few days unless continue working on this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I still think the proposed hook is inaccurate. It's not that child abusers are similar to lepers or sufferers from venereal disease, but Franklin thought the way they should be treated is similar. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree but how about:

Philafrenzy (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * just realizing you really need to ping when you reply, the editors here have many nominations they are handling and can't look at each one manually or watchlist them all. I just realized you didn't ping Cwmhiraeth with your last reply either, which could explain the stagnation of the article. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think ALT1 is satisfactory, and if you agree and think the DYK criteria are met, then perhaps you can finish the review by giving ALT1 a tick. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with Cwmhiraeth on hook ALT1 so am giving it a tick as requested. Glad to finish this one. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)