Template:Did you know nominations/Handel's Naturalisation Act 1727


 * 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) 05:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Handel's Naturalisation Act 1727

 * ... that Handel's (pictured) naturalisation as a British citizen came via an Act of Parliament which required him to enter into communion with the Church of England? source


 * Reviewed: Archive of Our Own

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Not necessarily an eligibility issue but shouldn't it be British subjects throughout and not citizens? Ykraps (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Otherwise everything else checks out: Article created by The C of E on September 23, 2016. 1824 characters (314 words) of readable prose. Neutral, cites sources with inline citations and is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. Citation for hook off line so AGF . Ykraps (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Okay missed the source first time, and it refers to citizens so I guess it's okay (although I still think it's wrong). Ykraps (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If you think it's wrong then find out for sure before we put it on the main page.  E Eng  06:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Historically citizens were associated with republics. Those living under a monarch were subject to the crown. Nowadays Britons are usually referred to as citizens (even in their passports) even though Britain still has a monarch, albeit a constitutional one. The source used in the article uses the term citizen and as Wikipedia is only concerned with what is verifiable (whether it is accurate or not), I don't think it's a detail that needs to concern us too much. Ykraps (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't need any explanations of how Wikipedia works, thanks. In the context of an item bound for the main page, where there's a significant common-sense question on a point like this, no, we don't just blindly adopt the term one source happens to use, perhaps inexactly. Pinging two of my favorite Brits, and .  E  Eng  08:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link for that particular policy/guideline? My only point is/was (I'm regretting bringing it up now) that at the time Handel was naturalised, he would likely have been referred to as a British subject. As I am now conceding that the distinction is unimportant, I don't see that I need to do anything more. If you wish to continue arguing about it, you ought to provide evidence to support your position. Ykraps (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The policy/guideline is WP:COMMONSENSE. Let's wait and see what The C of E says.  E Eng  17:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see where it says that my unreferenced ponderings should be given equal consideration to that of a reliable source. I confess that I'm flattered though. Ykraps (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have just written common sense, without linking anything. Look, if a source says that Einstein encouraged Hitler to develop an atom bomb, warning that Roosevelt might already be working on one, we're not going to put that on the main page without further investigation, no matter how reliable the source is in general, because it's easy to believe there's been a slipup somewhere. This situation isn't quite the same, but the question having been raised, and it being the sort of thing that people get mixed up on, we should get to the bottom of it. Looking now at the source, and realizing it's www.parliament.uk (which can be expected to be highly sensitive to exactly the kind of detail we're talking about here), I'd be happy to accept its wording, which is citizen. However, since we're gone this far I'd still like to hear from The C of E.  E Eng  19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the linked article has "... granting British citizenship" in the lead paragraph. So a strong clue? No strong view. Would we need to follow the wording of the Act of Parliament itself?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. also minor pedantic style point about that possessive - would it be better to have " the naturalisation of Handel (pictured) as a British subject..."?
 * After consideration, subject probably would be the old way of saying citizen back then. The source does say citizen though I'm sure that it meant subject but since we're all technically Her Majesty's subjects anyway and yet citizen is used, I'm OK with the common sense rationale for citizen. But I don't mind either way.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, more pedantic background detail - it wasn't just Handel who was naturalised by this Act, but also Louis Sechehaye, Anthony Fursteneau and Michael Schlegel. Not that this invalidates the hook, of course (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. However those people are not notable enough for their own page so it makes no point to mention them, plus the short title given to it (as this was prior to short titles being part of it) as per the other online source is Handel's Naturalisation Act.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we're all OK with citizen, so restoring tick.  E Eng  21:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)