Template:Did you know nominations/The Bread-Winners


 * 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 97198 (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bread-Winners

 * ... that John Hay (pictured) may not have become ambassador or US Secretary of State had he taken credit for The Bread-Winners?
 * ALT1:... that after John Hay (pictured) published The Bread-Winners anonymously, newspapers from New Orleans to New York speculated on the author's identity?
 * Reviewed: Loved (video game)

5x expanded by Wehwalt (talk). Nominated by Crisco 1492 (talk) at 01:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC).
 * Consider
 * ALT2:... that there was speculation for decades as to the authorship of The Bread-Winners, published anonymously by John Hay (pictured), former secretary to Abraham Lincoln?
 * though it gets a bit clunky there at the end with the commas. EEng (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was considering mentioning the Lincoln connection, but I think it's not 100% relevant as Lincoln was almost twenty years previously. Mind, I don't have any issue with mentioning him - though I'd recommend an alternative phrasing. Or maybe something different altogether, like
 * ALT3:... that John Hay (pictured), former secretary to Abraham Lincoln, was not credited as the author of The Bread-Winners (1883) for over thirty years? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I can't make sense of alt 3, its time element ("in 1883 ... for over thirty years") is confusing. Cbl62 (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I get for writing when half asleep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT3 is best. EEng (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Reading this again, I realized that ALT3 may be misunderstood (he was not credited in the book, although his wife admitted it in 1907). How about
 * ALT4: ... that copies of The Bread-Winners (1883) did not credit the author, former secretary to Abraham Lincoln John Hay (pictured), for over thirty years? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Crediting" doesn't have to be in the work itself -- it can just be through general knowledge. However, you might try acknowledged:
 * ALT5: ... that John Hay (pictured), former secretary to Abraham Lincoln, was not acknowledged as the author of The Bread-Winners (1883) for over thirty years?

EEng (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "'Crediting' doesn't have to be in the work itself" - Hence the inclusion of "copies of" (i.e. the book). Alt5 is fine too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Review please! I hope no one minds my striking alts 1, 2, 3. I'd like to strike the OH too but not sure all are OK with that. EEng (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

How about:


 * ALT6: ... that there was nationwide speculation about who wrote The Bread-Winners (1883), but its author, John Hay, never admitted it? — --Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Good direction to go in. If I may...
 * ALT7: ... that there was nationwide speculation as to the authorship of The Bread-Winners (1883) but its true author, John Hay, never acknowledged it?

EEng (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT7 is good to me. Sure, feel free to strike the others. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like the repeat of "authorship" and "author".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Second author --> writer? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I thought of that too but I was uncharacteristically lazy.
 * ALT8: ... that despite nationwide speculation, John Hay never acknowledged authorship of his The Bread-Winners, published anonymously in 1883?

I don't like his the but there's something evil about this nomination and no matter what I do every hook has some weird thing in it. So in an excess of completeness here's another


 * ALT9: ... that despite nationwide speculation, John Hay (pictured) never acknowledged his authorship of The Bread-Winners, published anonymously in 1883?

That omits explicit statement that Hay was the actual author but it's sufficiently implicit, I think. Take your pick. Remember, though, I start charging once we're in the double-digits.EEng (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with ALT9.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Me too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick! Someone review before anything happens! (Do you guys want to strike any of the others?) EEng (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Stricken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The review sounds like a job for ! EEng (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Expanded enough and recently enough; neutral (but for the mention of "vacuous town belles" which looks like a personal attack to me); assuming no copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing as I can't access the sources; QPQ done; citations like shotgun holes in a road sign in [place the name of your stereotype hillbilly state of choice here]. Hook refined to death and cited. Picture fine (grumpy old man says "No, you look like a walrus!"). Plot section of the article is a bit bloated but otherwise it's a good read. Ready to go with pic and ALT9. Belle (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)